BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mary is not the Mother of God.

To make my case, I first must submit a few questions to the Pro. 1. Was Jesus both God and man 'or' was Jesus a man that God only dwelt within, and therefore Jesus himself was not actually God? 2. If you answered question#2 by saying Jesus is God and man, then was Jesus still God when he walked on the Earth? 3. Again, if you answered question#2 by saying Jesus is God and man, then was Jesus still God when he was being ripped by the Romans soldiers? 4. Once again, If you answered question#2 by saying Jesus is God and man, then was Jesus still God when he was being nailed to that cross? 5. If you answered question#2 by saying Jesus is God and man, then was Jesus still God when he had risen from death? 6. Lastly, when you as a "Christian" refer to Jesus Christ as your Lord, then are you referring to him as your God 'or' instead do you refer to him only as your master, just as the Jehovah Witnesses do? Note: The Jehovah Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God.
Mary is not the Mother of God.

God and His only begotten Son (The Lord of Hosts) existed before any humans were created on earth. Jesus was begotten 'without a mother'. Jesus Christ is referred to in scripture, as 'Emanuel' (God with us). When Jesus (The Lord of Hosts) took on flesh, The Lord of Hosts was not 'killed off'. He simply became The Lord of Hosts 'in the flesh'. The scriptures tell us, that 'God was in Christ' and 'Christ was in God' (The Godhead per Isaiah 44:6). If you note, Christ stated, "If you see me, you see The Father (The Lord God Almighty)". Scriptures tell us that Jesus was begotten 'in the express image' of His Father. The physical appearance of Mary did not have any impact on the appearance of Jesus, as Son of Man. This could only happen, if The Lord of Hosts was implanted in Mary, as an embryo/fetus.
Morality is Subjective

I have clearly shown examples where a set of moral judgements is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. You misunderstand. What is morally correct is not based on a single person's opinion, but facts. A single person's opinion can be based on what is objectively right or wrong, and can also be based on purely selfish reasons too. Feelings are not the only guide to doing what it is correct, it is pretty obvious that if you do something selfish it is wrong, and if you do something that is selfish and also selfless then it is right. The reason some people think things like murder is okay is because they don't look through the eyes of the victim, they are selfish. Though people are not evil they are capable of doing evil things. I'm not sure where I have contradicted myself or even know why this is important, many things in life are contradictory, especially when vague statements are used. P.S. my profile will tell you that I am a male (man)
Morality is Subjective

I am so sorry for forfeiting the past 2 rounds.Anyways, Con, why have you accepted the debate if you do not stand for objective morality?I'd also like to point out some of the contradictions he/she made: In one point, Con stated that what is morally correct is based on a single person's opinion. (Not objective morality) In the next point, Con said that some things are objectively wrong, and that good and evil exist. Basically, he/she had contracticted their own points.Contention 1:Looking back at what people did in ancient days, such as ancient Egypt, Greece, India, etc., almost everybody believes that the reasons people were killed was strongly unjustified.People today believe that nobody should be killed based on their opinions, thoughts, or minor crimes.However, what is considered to be right and wrong has obviously changed over the many years, so how could people still argue that there is a moral right and wrong, considering that many people who favor objective morality subscribe to religious texts that advocate what us humans would never like to live in today.
Morality is Subjective

The opponent will be arguing that morality is objective.Morality- principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. (merriam-webster) Subjective Morality- morality is defined by the society you live in; it's based on what the populace believes to be "moral" and "immoral."Objective Morality- morality is not based on the society's opinion, but that morality is factually true, and should not change.Round 1- OpeningRound 2/3/4- ArgumentsRound 5- Conclusion.
The minimum legal age of marriage in the USA ought to be raised.

ThesisThe resolution under debate is "Resolved: The minimum legal age of marriage in the United States of America ought to be raised to 21 years old. " I will argue that Congress should pass a law requiring that the absolute minimum age of marriage be 21 year old. Of course, any existing laws which mandate or allow marriage under the age of 21 will be eliminated and made legally null. This debate will conform to improved voting standards, has a 10k character limit, and uses a select the winner voting system. Eligible voters have at least 1000 elo points. The debate is impossible to accept, apply in comments. Definitions:United States of America: The federalist entity consisting of three governing branches (legislative, executive and judicial), located in geographic North America and outlined in "The Constitution of United States of America" (1789) . Ought: Denoting a moral or ethical obligation,Rules:-UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DEBATE YOU CONSENT TO PARTICIPATION IN THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED HIGHER VOTING STANDARDS, FOUND HERE:. https://docs.google.com...-Critiques are allowed-Don't forfeit. -All sources in round.
Should Forced Circumcision be banned

Although you posted many links none of them exceeded the year 2010, thus all of your evidence is outdated. I present evidence from the American Academy of Pediatrics stating that circumcision's benefits outweigh it's risk. http://bit.ly... http://bit.ly... This evidence is from August 31st 2012, more recent then your evidence and thus more substantial. Also, you did not respond to any of my arguments in round 2, so these arguments fall in the favor of con, and thus the round should too.
Should Forced Circumcision be banned

I have certain proof that this is not a good idea Doctors: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Human Rights: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Certain Laws n countries: http://www.youtube.com... Testimony: http://www.youtube.com... Live: http://www.youtube.com... I want you to defend your position do it
Should Forced Circumcision be banned

How does the fact that it doesn't lessen sexual pleasure affect this debate? That's proof that decreased sexual pleasure is not a side affect, which actually goes in my favor because there is no side affect to it. How is a shot nothing compared? It is a medical action which hurts the child yet is better in the long run. What do you mean there is no bandage for circumcision? The fact that you said that proves to me that you have not researched your topic and that you shouldn't be debating this.
Should Forced Circumcision be banned

The reason forced circumcision is bad for being forced is because it doesn't actually lessen sexual pleasure, that is all in the mind of how much you like sex, it is also a violation of human rights and no major medical organization recommends it anymore, to add on many countries have already banned circumcision for most instances. A shot is nothing compared to losing the foreskin of a penis, you can still take shots today and they will actually have a bandage to help you, not for circumcision!
Should Forced Circumcision be banned

I believe it is illogical to ban circumcision. I believe the main reasons to not ban circumcision are the health benefits, the AAP states that these include Decreased risk of urinary infections, Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections, Prevention of penile issues and Decreased risk of penile cancer. Your say that is that it is cruel to the child, however so would be giving a child a shot. A child "cries like crazy" when he is getting a shot, but it is better for him in the future.
Should Forced Circumcision be banned

I think circumcision should be banned because it leads to an innocent infant having one of their body parts cut off, and for those that think that it is good for your child's well-being and lessens their sexual pleasure than you are wrong miserably, when a little kid gets circumcised they cry like crazy, and if you are fighting for circumcision than you clearly don't care about the well being of your child, debate this if you can I am challenging anyone who can give a logical debate on this!
Our youth is our future.

In this debate, I will argue that our youth is our future. I will speak of how the elderly represent ideas that no longer fit to this modern world we live in. This is, in a sense, a Liberal vs. Conservative debate, but it is also about much more than that. It is about the future of humankind. My opponent will argue that the youth is not the future and that we should rather trust the people who have lived much longer. In the first round of this debate, my opponent will simply accept the debate and state his or her stance. In the second round, my opponent and I will write our main arguments. Rebuttals and final arguments will be in the third round. Further rebuttal will be in the fourth round. Finally, the fifth round is for the conclusion. The rules for the debate are simple: The debate structure must be followed, proper grammar and spelling will be used, sources will be sited using the MLA format, and there will be no forfeiting.I await the beginning of a delightful debate.
Our youth is our future.

ConclusionMy opponent has conceded thus I have won this debate. It was interesting and difficult, but my points at most have been left to stand and I finish with a summary that, for the utilitarian benefit of society, those with experience and those who run the world are those who actually find information, discover, develop, teach and allow the youth to be those who run the world, those who do are those who drive the future of mankind. Thank you for this debate however.
Our youth is our future.

ConclusionAfter a careful review of the debate and a study of all the statistics, and after evaluating my own statements, I have concluded that it is best that I concede. My opponent's facts and statistics are undeniable and I praise the complexity, originality, and accuracy of his arguments. I accept defeat and I am prepared to endure the loss of many, many votes. This debate has been very informative and perhaps I will debate my opponent again in the future.
Should people debate while under the effects of alcohol? Specifically, 1-8 light beers.

Ok, well I was expecting a rebuttal as a response, but since there was none I will give an argument. As (I think) I demonstrated in round one; it is possible to provide logical statements, along with proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling, while under the influence of alcohol to the extent of my specified parameters. Since my opponent made no claims in the first round that pertain to the argument, I would like to assert that my personal evidence is indeed anecdotal and that anecdotes to do imply facts. I should have stated that most, if not all, of my claims will be anecdotal. I understand that this severely weakens my argument. I also refuse to supply any other claims than personal (anecdotal) claims I also understand that the effect alcohol has on me may not be the same effect it has on others. I ask those who will be voting on this argument to consider the fact that my evidence is purely anecdotal and that my opponents may be generalizable. This being said I will make one final assertion for this round. Every time I have consumed alcohol, my genuine interest in argumentative and philosophical discussion has been greatly increased. Consuming alcohol with my friends and aquaintences had almost always lead to what I consider intelligent conversation. This leads me to conclude that the consumption of alcohol should not discredit one's assertion and argumentative attempts.
Should people debate while under the effects of alcohol? Specifically, 1-8 light beers.

At this point I have consumed 6 Heineken beers in the last 4 hours. I feel as if my mind is more open and my argument conduction is the same, if not better, than when I am sober. To defeat me in the debate one must, convince the voters that one should not conduct any arguments while under the effects of a certain amount of alcohol. For me to win I must convince the voters that it is acceptable to debate while intoxicated to the extent specified below.To be specific as to how intoxicated the person that would be conducting arguments is. I would say 1 beer every 45 minutes for a maximum of 6 hours. I think many people hold the belief that if someone is extremely drunk they should certainly not try to debate, but what about people in the specified range? To make this debate more challenging for myself, I will try to be at the higher point of the specified range for each argument I present. Please only accept this debate if you have some experience consuming alcohol.(Disclaimer to anyone who tries to appeal to the law. My age is not a proven fact. I could be 4 years old, or I could be 84 years old. The age posted on my profile is not necessarily a fact, thus attacks against the age my profile suggests I am are irrelevant and should result in a loss for those attempting to discredit me due to my supposed age. My age is not the topic of this debate, so please refrain from referring to it.)
CON "I don't know" vs PRO "God did it"

'God did it' is the end of inquiry. This is the position of believers who reject science while living in a science driven world. This is a position of willful ignorance that leads to the end of progress. 'I don't know' is the beginning of science. Exploration of the world around us has lead to the betterment of society in almost every measurable way. "I don't know' is the rational answer. It is OK not to know, That is the only way we will learn anything new.
Album: Wiz Khalifa " Rolling Papers 2 Zippyshare Torrent Download

Album Zip: http://bit.ly... Tracklist: 01. Hot Now 02. Ocean 03. Blue Hunnids (feat. Jimmy Wopo and Hardo) 04. Very Special 05. Goin Hard 06. Holyfield 07. Rolling Papers 2 08. Mr. Williams (feat. THEMXXNLIGHT & Curren$y) / Where is the Love 09. Penthouse (feat. Snoop Dogg) 10. Real Rich (feat. Gucci Mane) 11. Bootsy Bellows 12. Hopeless Romantic (feat. Swae Lee) 13. Late Night Messages 14. Rain (feat. PARTYNEXTDOOR) 15. Karate (feat. Chevy Woods) / Never Hesitate (feat. Darrius Willrich) 16. Fr Fr (feat. Lil Skies) 17. King 18. Gin and Drugs (feat. Problem) 19. 420 Freestyle 20. B Ok 21. It"s on You 22. Reach for the Stars (feat. Bone Thugs-N-Harmony) 23. All of a Sudden (feat. THEMXXNLIGHT) 24. Homework (feat. THEMXXNLIGHT) 25. Something New (feat. Ty Dolla $ign) Album Zip: http://bit.ly...
Album: Wiz Khalifa " Rolling Papers 2 Zippyshare Torrent Download

RICH THE KID " A LOT ON MY MIND ZIPPYSHARE TORRENT MP3 DOWNLOAD After a harrowing encounter with several hostile parties, Rich The Kid has ["] https://audiomackmp3.co... https://audiomackmp3.co... https://audiomackmp3.co... https://audiomackmp3.co...
Twilight is detrimental to society.

"two words: okay. I will." Actually, that's three ; ) http://www.scientificblogging.com... that will tell you that vampires do not exist... http://nces.ed.gov... that is the graph showing how many people get killed by vampires vs. how many vampires are in the world. you failed to prove your points. maybe you will do better in the next round. please give me something to debate against....Thanks=D Lola
Twilight is detrimental to society.

It is very hard for me to believe you when you say "Suicides have happened because of the book twilight. I had a good friend that committed suicide because she felt there were no men as good as Edward." The reason I cant believe you is because you didn't show me any websites that proved there have been suicides relating to vampires. I also don't think you would tell everyone on debate.org that your friend died because of suicide. I certainly wouldn't. Why would your friend kill herself because of a book she read? And Edward is not perfect, just so you know... I think you made up this debate because you just plain don't like the book, am I right? Thank you everybody...
Twilight is detrimental to society.

First, I know it's three words. It's a joke. I think you got that, though, so we'll move on. Your proof is astounding. I cannot refute that graph. Wow. Good job on finding that. It's too bad that this debate isn't about the reality of vampires. It's about the danger Twilight has on society. By "vampire-caused" deaths, I do not necessarily mean that an actual vampire is killing someone. Suicides have happened because of the book Twilight. I had a good friend that committed suicide because she felt there were no men as good as "Edward." This is irrefutable. I'm sorry, but Twilight is detrimental to society. Have a good day.
Christianity and Brainwashing

Hello, I am Pleco In this debate, I shall bare the burden of proof to show you how Christianity uses brainwashing techniques, and why it is wrong. In the first round, we shall introduce each other and explain what our position is briefly, like I have done above. Then, we shall use the three rounds we have left to discuss the topic. That gives us three rounds to debate, and one round to say hello. Thank you, and please vote for Pleco.
Christianity and Brainwashing

1. you assume that the promise of salvation is false and that god's existence is outrageous. But thats a different debate for a different time whether or not it is. They believe these things sincerly there not saying these things so they can get some gain out of it they have no motive to. brainwashing assumes that the person brainwashing them is trying to get something out of it. 2. Thats irrelevant to this disscusion its about christianity and brainwashing you choose it yourself. That debate would be creation vs. evolution. 3. I already said they say these things because they sincerly believe them not because their trying to gain. Besides other religions have a doctrine like hell too but no you choose to pick on christianity. 4. Yes but my point is this destroys your argument you should have said religions and brainwashing. Also not even religious people only do this all parents teach their children their beliefs values ideaologies i guess everyones been brainwashed according to your argument 5. you keep asserting this is all man made but thats assuming their is no god which is not what this debate is about. Conclusion well we have seen only subjective arguments that christians use brainwashing. Which won't cut it. He hasn't shown any techniques of persuasion that aren't normal that we use all the time for other activities. He also makes alot of irrelevant assumptions so in conclusion christianity doesn't brainwash its followers in fact they teach them to think freely they have no motives for brainwashing.
Christianity and Brainwashing

It is immoral because it forces the person to turn away from certain political and scientific views. Congregations usually show a bias in politics and motivate others to join that cause. Children in a religious family are usually forced to turn away from scientific facts, which are already supported and widely accepted in the scientific community. 1. Christians draw members with false promises of salvation, a full and happy life, and a false since that they are right about things (such as the existence of god) which are really outrageous. Even if nobody made them join, if they join they will be pressured by the community to follow the laws of the bible, or will face being shunned by the community. I was shunned by my own parents, so in some rare cases, you could say that it can even tear families apart. 2. Proving the myth of creationism is like proving planet X, you just can't prove it. 3. Which is one of the reasons Christianity can be hypocritical, they use techniques such as scare tactics in getting new members. They also use scare tactics to keep members in the church, preachers have a nack for talking about the punishment of hell. 4. Yes, I agree with you, a vast majority of religious families do this. However, this discussion is about Christianity, and comparing it to "other religions" won't fase me, I'm pretty much against all religions anyways. 5. Which is wrong because it mentally tells you to follow these laws (which were created by man). Therefore, you follow these laws and become a slave to a non-existent deity, and the congregations which teaches you to follow him/her. 6. I don't see how this is relevant. "in my opinion your just picking on Christianity" Well, your opinion has very little to do with the discussion... Argue using facts, not "opinions" I would like to thank my oponet for the debate, and I love him. Thankyou for reading in on the debate! Vote for Pleco!
Christianity and Brainwashing

Hello, I am Pleco In this debate, I shall bare the burden of proof to show you how Christianity uses brainwashing techniques, and why it is wrong. i would like to also point out youve done nothing so far to prove what christians are doing is wrong brainwashing as you call it Well, Christain brainwashing can always be avoided if you don't buy into it. However, if you do fall for it, and immerse yourself in the Christain mind set, they can manipulate your political beliefs, your thinking, and even your actions. 1 as you yourself point out it can always be avoided its just like any other idea you can buy into it or not theres nothing done to coerce you or force you into believing it you always are free thats what freedom of religion is about which we have in this country they can persuade you but nothing more if you do buy into it thats your choice nobody made you 2 i would argue that the false information you claim creationests give is not false although thats an entirely differant topic 3 people who buy into it because of fear are not truly commited anyways their just using it so they can feel good about themselves which christians teach against doing so 4 you say that christian parents help with this to well i don't see your point here whats so different about christianity all religious parents teach their children about their religious beliefs not just christians 5 of course the bible tells people to submit to god whether or not you believe theres a god or not is not the point the authors of it did and they wrote it just like mohamed wrote the quran because they believed in this god and believed they got revelation for him 6 religion is about spreading ideas too ideas about god in my opinion your just picking on christianity