BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity Is Intrinsically Harmful

Greetings. Although the topic of religion is nothing new to the debate community, I would like to propose this topic that does not focus on whether or not the Christian belief is one based upon fact. Faith is necessary for religious belief and cannot be revoked ultimately, for faith does not claim basis in reason. It is, rather, an absence thereof. However, this debate will address whether Christianity is intrinsically harmful or not, regardless of its factual validity. Definitions: 1. Christianity- the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies. (Merriam-Webster) 2. Intrinsic- occurring as a natural part of something. (Merriam-Webster) 3. Harmful- causing or capable of causing damage or harm. (Merriam-Webster) I will be basing my case around the arguments presented in Chaz Bufe's pamphlet "20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity". The only unique contentions I bring to this debate will be in defense of this argument, because it is sufficiently comprehensive. A full copy of "20 Reasons" can be found here: . http://www.seesharppress.com... In summary, however, for those observing who do not desire to actually read this entire work, the 20 points presented are these: 1. Christianity is based on fear 2. Christianity preys on the innocent 3. Christianity is based on dishonesty 4. Christianity is extremely egocentric 5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality 6. Christianity breeds authoritarianism 7. Christianity is cruel 8. Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific 9. Christianity has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex 10. Christianity produces sexual misery 11. Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality 12. Christianity encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils 13. Christianity depreciates the natural world 14. Christianity models hierarchical, authoritarian organization 15. Christianity sanctions slavery 16. Christianity is misogynistic 17. Christianity is homophobic 18. The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ's teachings 19. The Bible is riddled with contradictions 20.
Should we do a 9/11 on the space needle

No, we should not "do a 9/11" on the Space Needle. First of all, "9/11 is my favorite holiday" is merely a statement of your opinion and does nothing to support your ridiculous claim that a terror attack on the Space Needle is in any way, shape, or form a good idea. Furthermore, 9/11 is not a holiday, it is a day and now a remembrance of one of the most tragic events in American history. To replicate this would cost hundreds of lives and will destroy a remarkable landmark. To further pick apart this argument, to call your supposed terror attack a "9/11" implies it will be done on September 11th, which logically is a poor idea as airplane security will be more vigilant of a terror attack and the probability of this hypothetical attack would be lesser than on a different day. So; in conclusion, no we should not deliberately destroy buildings, hijack planes, and kill hundreds of people as wanting to do such a thing implies some sort of psychopathy resulting in a lack of empathy or guilt for harming other human beings.
Chocolate/dark chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream

This is just for fun, so enjoy yourself and have fun! Dark and divine, chocolate makes me feel creative. I love the stimulation that chocolate provides. It’s even more vitalizing than the caffeine rush of coffee. Chocolate gives me energy. The caffeine in chocolate like that in coffee sharpens the brain, illuminating the thinking process. It is quite literally the food for thought. Chocolate ice cream, is made from chocolate, therefore providing all the sensations I have stated above.
Chocolate/dark chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream

Chocolate is healthier than vanilla. Flavanols, a key ingredient, boost blood flow to key areas of the brain for two to three hours. It is proven that chocolate ice cream has anti-oxidants as well. Keep in mind chocolate causes endorphins to be released; this makes you feel better. Chocolate also relieves stress, proven as a fact and by women around the world having major PMS issues. Everyone complains when on a diet that they can't have chocolate because its irritable, never do you hear about vanilla when in ice cream and many other forms has the same amount of calories. Proven again it's more desired, wanted and tasty than vanilla.
Manu Ginobili will be a first ballot Hall-of-Famer

While, Manu Ginobili is a very good basketball player and he is definitely a very skilled guard, I don't believe he will be a first ballot Hall-of-Famer. He will be in the hall of fame with out a doubt, but I don't believe first round. In his prime Kyrie Irvin and John Wall are still better than him, and while he usually comes off the bench but not that many off the bench players are first ballot
Sola Scriptura is Sound

Conclusion:As we have seen. Sola scriptura is sound because it relies on the Idea that God's word, the scriptures, are the final authority on all issues and matters. However, Sola scriptura does not deny tradition, nor does it deny creeds. It just says that the two are not the final authority over the Christian faith.Sola Scriptura is sound because of its roots in scripture. It is rooted in Jesus who is God.There are divisions amongst all religions and non-religions. Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Coptic, etc. They all have disagreements on certain doctrines or dogmas. The same thing with Protestants. There are small differences between Baptists, Lutherans, Methodist, Presbyterians,etc. I don't think there are 30,000 denominations. That's an over exaggeration.However, might I say that Unity does not have to be Uniformity of expression. The one thing that makes me and Con or others a Christian, is Christ Jesus himself. I trust in him as my Lord and Savior. Regardless of the denomination or abomination that someone belongs to.I wish Con a merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Sola Scriptura is Sound

We will now begin our Q&A with each other. Con has given me 5 questions to answer. I will accordingly answer them, down here below.Questions from Con:1. How is Sola Scriptura different from the Catholic approach to the Bible that I have mentioned?2. If you agree that sola scriptura accepts both tradition and authoritiy of Bishops, then why is it called SOLA scriptura, wouldn't Scriptura sit refert be a better name for this?3. If I can show you that the early church fathers believed in the primacy of the bishop of Rome, will you believe that catholicism is true?(since that is the only reason that you believe in Sola Scriptura)4. Why is Sola Scriptura more correct that the other 4 solae of the protestant reformation?5. What proof that you need for me to convince you that Sola Scriptura is unsound?Answers to Con from Pro:1. Sola scriptura, as I mentioned before, is saying that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Human Creeds and Traditions are not necessarlly the final authority to Christianity. That does not mean; however, that Sola scritpura rejects Creeds and Traditions. It basically says that scripture is the final authority of infallibility on Creeds and Traditions. I think you are confusing "Solo" with "Sola". Solo scriptura is believed to be the only authority, and does not accept creeds or traditions at all.2. I did not necessarily say that Sola Scriptura accepts tradition and authority from Bishops. I was agreeing that Bishops were necessary for reading scripture to the church, and they were necessary for finding the real historical gospels and the complete New Testament.3. Sure, if you want to go ahead and list some early church fathers then be my guest. However, I don't think that everyone who is a Protestant-Christian, holds to the idea of "Sola Scriptura". Some Protestants believe in"Regula Fidei"or Rule of Faith. Others believe in "Solo Scriptura" which holds that Scritpure alone is the sole basis in the life of a Christian, and that all creeds and traditions are useless. I think you might believe that I believe in "Solo Scritpura". However, I only believe in "Sola" Scriptura." There's a difference between the two.4. I am not sure if Sola scriptura is "more" correct than the other 4. I believe they are all equal because they are all necessary to the Christian Faith.5. Hmmm. That is a good question. I think you would need to show me examples of the apostles, and the early church denying the idea that scritpure is the final authority for theological and doctrinal statments or issues.
The Greed and Corruption of the Fda

The fda bans many helpful supplements and herbs that are allowed in other countries so that citizens of the U.S stay sick and remain dependent on drugs that destroy their health(while hiding symptoms) created by Big Pharma, all in an effort to make money. The amount of money spent on health care is so high in the U.S, yet the amount of diseases and those who have them are growing exponentially. When addressing a health concern, or disease the cause should be what is treated, instead of just covering up the problem (symptoms).
The #metoo movement is inefficient

Okay, first of all you can "survive" sexual violence or rape. Some men, not all, but some, will kill the people that they have raped after they are done. It is not impossible to survive it. Next, the main motive of the #metoo movement is to support those who have been raped. As Wikipedia said, "the original purpose of #me too was to empower women through empathy, especially young and vulnerable women." How is that inefficient? It helps and supports women who have been sexually abused.
The #metoo movement is inefficient

Looks like the point of the movement is to "help survivors of sexual violence" which makes sense, but proponents of it want to "de-stigmatize survivors," and they are "committed to disrupting all systems that allow sexual violence to flourish." All this info is from metoomvmt.org (it's really just one page). Technically, you do not "survive" sexual violence because it does not kill; you can survive attempted murder, which can go along with rape, but that doesn't mean you survived the rape. Anyway, their whole process does very little to end sexual violence.
Lauren Southern is much hotter than ShoeOnHead

Lauren Southern is much much prettier than Shoe on head. We most note initially that Lauren Southern has blue eyes which are more attractive than Shoe's brown boring eyes (http://www.allaboutvision.com...). Scientifically speaking, blue eyes are far more attractive. We must also note the fact that the more symmetrical your face is the more attractive you are generally. Lauren Southern's face is far more symmetrical than Shoe's (source: Observation of the obvious). Now, one must also note that Lauren Southern is very very intelligent. Shoeonhead, and I am sorry to say this, graduated with a liberal arts degree. Her only content is ridiculous humor based content. She has no intelligent or rational debate or conversation to offer. Do you know any live streams with Ms Shoe? No. Didn't think so. On the other hand Lauren is very up to date with her popular culture, basing her hairstyles off Queen Circe Lannisters. She says that Lannister is a source of inspiration for her in her interview with Crowder. So, as we can see Lauren is someone with whom you can make excellent conversation. In addition, she is far more into the Social Justice Warrior investigations than Shoe. One quality men admire in her is her epic bravery. Her stunning humility. She has frequently gone into crowds of SJWs, and in the meantime Shoe has been sitting on the sofa making stupid sketches. So, we have seen that Lauren is better in three aspect, conversation, intelligence and beauty. One must also note that ShoeonHead has slept with someone who looks like yetti. His name is ArmoredSceptic. Imagine, doing things with the person who has done the same things with a yetti. In addition imagine the cringiness of conversation with Shoe. What would you talk with her about? Her liberal arts degree? Her disgust for feminism? There is only so much you can say on those topics. While Lauren is a libertarian and hence has many controversial opinions. She reads philosophy (source: I read philosophy and have a magical 5th sense to recognize people who do). As for your opinions, I'd like to say they are wrong and that they have triggered me. I have decided therefore to charge you formally with assault. Thank you good sir, and enjoy your lifetime in jail. [Poe's law](just in case)
Lauren Southern is much hotter than ShoeOnHead

When considering hotness, three things are of vital importance to a man. Firstly (and most importantly dare I say) is the character of the woman in question. Second is her complexion. Thirdly, her body (not objectifying anyone here). It is my opinion that ShoeOnHead is the better of the two candidates in a least the majority, if not all categories mentioned. Her character is fun, light-hearted, and entertaining, compared to the restrained and corporate attitude of Ms. Southern. Second, Shoe's complexion far exceeds that of Ms. Southern's. Her hairstyles are always much more imaginative, and while, I profess, I am no expert on makeup, she always looks to have done a better job than Ms. Southern. Finally, the more corporeal aspects to this debate must be discussed. One could say that this is an unfair debate, as Ms. Southern rarely wears anything revealing in the slightest. That said, I have yet for her to demonstrate that she has the curvaceousness the average man seeks. Shoe, on the other hand, we have seen in some rather tight shirts, the result of her body shape positively exceeding what most men are looking for and reaching into the realms of the goddess-like. The advantages of such a body in terms of hotness are surely undeniable and obvious. That concludes my exposition. Good luck to my honorable opponent.
we shouldn't play Dark Souls

Dark Souls is a very popular series of games that has reached its pinnacle of success with it's newest game, Dark Souls 3, but is it really good for people to play? I say no. Dark Souls is a very rage inducing game that is not only controller breaking, but is also extremely linear. These games have no replay value. It feels like work just to pick it up and play, and video games are meant to provide as a reliever of stress after work or school.
we shouldn't play Dark Souls

Okay, so before I hurt the feelings of those "hardcore gamers" in the the comments, I just wanted to say that this WHOLE debate was made IN CLASS and we had to quickly pick a topic, and I KNOW the guy I 'm debating with. Not to mention the fact that I haven't even played Dark Souls before, so everything I typed was obviously utter bs. On the other hand, the comments are absolutely hilarious. "Go die" I'd love to. "You're a filthy casual." The filthiest there is. Anyways, to wrap this up, the opposing side obviously wins, since I didn't know what I was talking about since the start. I forfeit.
In Our Modern World Fundamentalist Christianity is More Dangerous Than Fundamentalist Islam

Final Thought At the end of my argument for round 4 I challenged PRO to make a convincing conclusion now that his sole remaining argument has been shown to have no substance to it. PRO was unable to meet that challenge and forfeited round 5. My thoughts about the debate are that PRO’s arguments have less to do with Christianity and more to do with harbouring some kind of Anti-American feeling. Some of you voters may also have an Anti-American feeling but I’d like to remind you that this is not what the debate is about. I do not harbour any Anti-American sentiment and feel I should remind PRO of America’s involvement in the Balkans war, which I remember very well, where the Muslim population were saved from genocide. ConclusionI would like to thank my opponent for starting the debate and allowing me to do more reading on the subject than I may otherwise have done. It was fun and thought provoking. I will now go through, stage by stage, why I think I should win this debate.ReferencesIn round 2 PRO used references that did not support the arguments made. The references he used were the home pages for websites where some of them advertised articles supporting CON. I feel PRO shot himself in the foot on this one as well as not using many references throughout the rest of the debate and therefore I should collect the points here.Conduct The use of false references is particularly bad conduct. It could be seen either as an honest mistake or an attempt to pull a fast one. PRO also forfeited round 5, which is never seen in a good light on DDO. Arguments As I said in the above, the forfeit of round 5 came right after I debunked PRO’s sole remaining argument. Stage by stage throughout this debate I took apart my opponents arguments as well as making strong cases for my arguments. My arguments were stronger, more factual and supported by references. PRO, instead of disproving my arguments, actually agreed with most of them. Throughout the debate the case for CON got stronger and stronger whilst the case for PRO got weaker and weaker and so therefore I should pick up the points here.Spelling and GrammarHere are some examples from PRO:- My opponant has stated words to the effect of "democracy can never make the wrong choice". (quotation marks when it wasn’t a quote) In Germany the NATZI party was elected. (is spelled Nazi) Would the US have invaded Iraq and set off the chain of events that lead to the rise of ISIS have occurred without fundamentalist Christianity (This question makes more sense without the words “have occurred”) I think I should pick up the points here also.To the Voters I think I have adequately displayed here in round 5 the reasons why I should win this debate. Thank you all for taking the time to read everything. VOTE CON!!!
In Our Modern World Fundamentalist Christianity is More Dangerous Than Fundamentalist Islam

PRO"s opening statement for round 3 "I agree with my opponent that Islamic Terrorism is more of a problem than Christian terrorism." PRO should therefore drop this entire part of his argument because the motion he is arguing for is "In our modern world Fundamentalist Christianity is more dangerous than Fundamentalist Islam". If PRO openly admits this is not the case when it comes to terrorism then any terror related argument from PRO should be dismissed."Look I'm sure you can accept that all the damage done by Muslim extremists isn't all done in the form of terrorism (unless you have an unusually broad definition of the word terrorist). Most of the damage done by fundamentalist Christianity is done by governments.In response to your point that we should blame ISIS for ISIS I half agree. I think we should condemn ISIS and Abu Al Baghdadi for their actions however I think we need to ask the question:Would a group equivalent to ISIS exist without fundamentalist Islam?And on the other hand:Would the US have invaded Iraq and set off the chain of events that lead to the rise of ISIS have occurred without fundamentalist ChristianityI think the answer to the first one is yes. In scenarios where there is oppression by a religiously biased governments just after an invasion and the destabilization of the nation while there is a civil war going on next door a terrorist organisation will probably form.In the answer to the second one is much more unclear and I reckon that without the influence of fundamentalist Christianity Iraq would not have been invaded. Without the voting block which has pushed people like George bush into office I think that Iraq would not have been invaded. If we didn't have people who thought that gogin ma gog would come out of Iraq [1] we would have a very different world. "What I was trying to say was that Americans peacefully going to the polls to vote is not the same thing as actively terrorizing either individuals or populations. It's not in the same league, it's not even the same sport!"I will give you it is different and not malicious but a vote (or in this context a powerful voting block) has a serious influence on geopolitics which should not be brushed aside. Remember this debate is about how dangerous fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity are not how morally ambiguous they are.[1]http://www.patheos.com...
In Our Modern World Fundamentalist Christianity is More Dangerous Than Fundamentalist Islam

While I agree with my opponent that Islamic terrorism is more of a problem than Christian terrorism Christian terrorism shouldn't be dismissed.For instance the group anti-balaka has been accused of "ethnic cleansing" by amnesty international [1]. ISISWhile it is true that ISIS are the stuff of nightmares it is also true that the US essentially put them in power. We knew what would happen when America invaded Iraq [2] before we went in. Those Killed By Islamic FundamentalismI would like Con to try to put a number (say to the nearest thousand) to this and try to justify it.Can Democracy Get it WrongMy opponant has stated words to the effect of "democracy can never make the wrong choice". Yes it can. In Germany the NATZI party was elected, in Russia Putin was elected democracy can get it wrong.On My ReferencesSorry about that I'll post the correct ones in the comments section.[1] http://www.amnesty.org... [2]
minus is impossible.. destruction

Now I'm even more confused haha. In a closed system electricity (or "electrical energy") changes form, from electric charge to motion or heat or light. The same quantity of "stuff" is still contained in the system, but the energy of the battery has definitely been reduced. Going back to the Apple/Orange annalogy, the fully charged battery is like 5 apples, the ambient temperature is like 3 oranges. 2 of the apples change form, into 1 orange. Now the system contains 3 apples and 4 oranges without breaking any conservation laws. Comparing the first and last states: 5 apples -> 3 apples, subtraction has occured and 2 apples were destroyed in the process.
minus is impossible.. destruction

I'll try my best to interpret what you are trying to say. I assume you mean subtraction is impossible because matter/energy can not be destroyed. In that case I can expand your argument to include addition is not possible because matter/energy can also not be created. I don't think the ideas of subtraction and addition are constrained to the "physical" world like you are putting it. "Minus" is possible in an even broader sense. For example, considering a closed system, quantities belonging to sets can be subtracted or added to those sets, either adding or subtracting quantities from other sets within the same closed system. If I have a group of 5 apples and a group of 3 oranges sitting in front of me (no matter their arrangements) I can take 2 apples from the set of 5 and add them to the set of oranges.