BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The MPAA Rating System Should be Altered II

R rated films can say f*ck as many times they want, but not in the term motherf*cker, because the expletive part of that cuss is always blocked out by a loud sound.Off topic, I know, but why are you censoring your profanity? The little "*"'s (what are they called?) do not impede my ability to know what you are talking about. The words are the same things... Just a question. I never understood this.They are not advertised on TV or sold at normal stores because they are either pornographic or way too violent for anyone 17 and under.We can advertise for movies that contain brutal murder and rape... Just don't show them in the scenes in the trailerAnd... what is the difference between 16 and 17? Do 17 year olds suddenly have the ability to see someone lit on fire while being eaten alive?And directors have the right to make whatever movie they want! Did you know the original Scream was NC-17? Let me tell you, it certainly wasn't any worse than Saw!____________________________________So we are both examples of people with parents whose views varied from others'.That's fine, but I'm sure that there are a lot more than us._________________________________________________ and don't pester me about using Wikpedia, it's just as incorrectable as it is correctable, and they have monitors going through practically every page every dayWikipedia is a great source! As long as you aren't looking to learn quantum physics, you can bet the info is accurate.______________The MPAA is made up of parents and just normal people with jobs alike whose job is to watch films pre-release and determine the film's rating based on its content.How do we know if they're biased for the studios? Many rumors have been throw around, but we can't tell because these "parents" (we don't have a way of knowing if they are parents) are anonymous!
Christian book of Daniel - prophecy 2.0

Thankyou for taking the debate. As ive explained in my opening post about how Daniel is a self explained book, which teaches readers to understand visions and there interpretations. It becomes easier to fit timelines with visions, and specific kings and kingdoms together. One such example is Daniel chapter 8, Ram and the Goat. The angel clearly explained the Ram is Persia and the Goat is Greece. Then when placing Daniel chapter 7 into a timeline format, we see the start of one kingdom to the next in historical order. Babylonian - Persia - Greece - Roman. So when we look closer at what physical characteristic the Ram and Goat have, the power of the prophetic words become clear. The Goat flew with great haste without touching it's feet on the ground from the west and attacked the Ram. The Goat had only one very large and powerful horn (which the angel said is a king) who would trample Persia into the dust. This king couldnt be stopped and ruled with power. Later the great horn broke off and 4 grew in it's place, which in history we know these are the four powerful kings which took a slice of Alexander the Greats Kingdom. the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt, the Seleucid Empire in the east, the Kingdom of Pergamon in Asia Minor, and Macedon. These four kingdoms was in the Hellenistic timeline. During this time wars were made against one of the four kings who wanted to reunite the four kingdoms and rule again like Alexander did. What's interesting about this timeline of events and the book and Daniel chapter 11, is how accurate they are. When looking into the King of the North and South, the closer people follow exactly what Daniel wrote about his visions from God, the more historically accurate they are. If you were to do a simple study of chapter 11 using historical facts, then even someone who doesnt believe in the bible would be amazed at how accurate chapter 11 is. Since this is a 5 round debate, ill stop hear and see what details Con has to offer.
Christian book of Daniel - prophecy 2.0

Thank you for this debate. As I can see pro is for the book of Daniel in the bible which prophecies the "end of the world/end of times" adjacent basically to revelations. 90% of the visions already came true through the book of Daniel. Since I am Con I have to show you logical proof about how your wrong. Ok I am gladly to accept this debate, this should be interesting, which I my self believe in GOD, but as for religion and the bible there are so many contradictions. Since I gladly accepted this debate I will give you the opportunity to go first providing evidence, and proof that this 90% already came true. So will my opponent please begin showing logical proof and evidence on this book about the events occurring to the end of time came true like this 90% that already happen that was foreseen. you may begin to post your argument.
Christian book of Daniel - prophecy 2.0

I'm For - Book of Daniel speaks of events which 90% have already occurred. Jesus did refer to the book and Daniel, but my position is that the majority has already been fulfilled. Against - Will need to provide strong relation to directly link Daniel to 'apocalyptic' events, which would refers to future (aka 2012+ events). Rules, if my opponent agrees should help the debate run easier. -Short factual replies, if something takes an essay to say, it may lose it's meaning. -If a prophecy has already come to pass, it cannot be used continually to fit an idea. -Preferably an opponent which is interested in the subject. -Every point must be answered or clearly noted if the opponent or I wish a direct reply ie - 1)... a)... *.... My opening statement. Book of Daniel reads much like a text book, which slowly reveals visions, concepts, timeline and explanation for each vision and it's meaning. A book which which teach's the reader from start to finish, and allows a clear understanding of each vision, and what's implying/suggesting. I see this in practice in chapter 4, where the Kings dream is shown, then Daniel explains, and also fulfilled. Then chapter 7:9 vision shown, 7:15 explained. Again chapter 8:1 vision, 8:15 explained. But what's interesting to note at 8:17 Gabriel says "Son of Man, understand that the vision concerns the time of the end." 1) If the explanation given to Daniel is that his vision is for the "time of the end" and that vision which is Persia's defeat to Alexander the Great, how can this vision be used again for end time anti-Christ times? 2) Also it's clear the term "end time" isnt always for anti-Christ times. 3) I would like my opponent to show the first vision which can be directly linked to apocalyptic era.
Christian book of Daniel - prophecy 2.0

You have not addressed any points ive replied, nor have you made any points apart from disputing your own position. I have GIVEN you the position in the opening title. (CON) Against- Will need to provide strong relation to directly link Daniel to 'apocalyptic' events, which would refers to future (aka 2012+ events). 5) This is YOUR position i have listed in which you are to debate. If a title called Chickens in KFC is listed, and i say im (PRO) For the use of chickens in KFC, and (CON) should list why we cannot use ducks, then these are the guidelines to the debate. If you say Dogs are good pets it's not the same debate, and your debating against yourself. 6) Noone has changed Pro to Con or Con to Pro. Ive never changed my position once, yet you haven't once addressed the topic your suppose to debate! 7) You havent listed any replies to my explanations of difference between the Bible and Nostradamus, and you've continued to alter your debate without any consistency. 8) Furthermore, the reference between the Bible and Nostradamus isnt a relative issue, yet ive replied to it, and you cannot even counter debate it! What a waste of time and effort. At least if your going to make a side debate inside my debate, at least debate it! Your last post contained no points or valued arguments for this debate, I see nothing i need to discuss at this time.
Christian book of Daniel - prophecy 2.0

Well since I have three more rounds to wait to post my arguement, I would need for my opponent to first show us true honest proof that, These visions and Prophesies are honestly coming true, last time I heard, even Nostrodamus failed, so did the Mayans. Then after this next round and my opponent shows true evidence that the visions and all that are true and real. then I will post my true arguement. but we would all love to see the honest proof not just cause a book told us, because from what people said about a calender about end of times it was false, and from books and these visions of nostradumas about the end of times his also failed. Now Give us hard evidence that this won't fail either, and proof that it will happen. Without the proof and hard evidence and not only religious facts but also scientific fact that it will happen or its all true the book of daniel. Then your arguement is excluded and only a theory, not a fact.
Caii din delta ar trebui salvati

沉冰　　“整整六十年前，也就是１９３９年，钱锺书先生教我《大一英文》的时候，全班只有我一个人是来自外文系的学生。”许渊冲教授不无自豪地回忆起他在西南联合大学就读的那一段日子。他说：“我最感幸运的是，在西南联大这所一流学府中遇见了２０世纪中国文、理学科的两位大师：钱锺书和杨振宁。钱锺书先生对中西文化了解之深、涉猎之广，即使放在全世界范围内加以考察，也是首屈一指的。”以下便是沉冰与许渊冲教授之间的问答录。摘自《不一样的记忆——与钱锺书在一起》，沉冰主编，当代世界出版社１９９９年８月出版。沉冰：据说钱锺书先生曾发“叶公超太懒，吴宓太笨，陈福田太 俗”之论，杨绛先生、李赋宁先生等都曾书面澄清绝无此事。作为当时西南联大外文系的一名学生，您怎么看待这句活？许渊冲：钱锺书先生读中文书、外文书数量之多，冠绝一时，我 的朋友、历史学家何兆武先生说钱先生是“眼高手高，只说人家坏话、 不说好话”。外间盛传的这句话相信是钱先生的口气，对三位老师的 评价也基本上是准确的、有道理的：胡适要叶公超和徐志摩、闻一多、梁实秋合译《莎士比亚全集》，结果他一本也没有译，却让梁实秋一 个人译完了；吴宓属于古板脑筋，他的古典文学修养很好，但对现代 文学（特别是苏俄进步文学）根本不了解；陈福田是联大外文系主任， 学的是美国英文，当时美国英文是压倒英国英文的。沉冰：钱锺书先生给你们上课时，都讲些什么？Thank you.
Rap Battle!!!

Why did you forfeit Hadoken, Your really startin' to look like a freakin' chicken, You forfeit cuz you know your gonna lose, Well I've got some news for ya, Imma make ya look like a little girl, One that plays with little dolls, And goes ga ga for those boy bands, You know, Those queer boys with no fans, Or maybe the ones that think they can sing when they really can't, Now back to the subject, Imma make you look like you just gou out of a wreck, Your gonna look horrible, And Imma look freakin' addorable, That's why the fans gonna vote for me, And not for this freak, That forfeited after he got a taste of me, And what I can do, Now It's your turn bro, Hope you don't choke, Or forfeit again, That'd just make you another one of my hoes.
Rap Battle!!!

This kid wants an introduction, Boy you can hardly function, What's your problem man, Did you come up with these lyrics on the can? You act like you know me, Boy you can't even see, Imma show you how to rap, Right after I get done with my nap, Your rymes are whack, Your talkin' back, Imma show you how, You better take a bow, The king is in, You better get back in your play pin, Your lyrics are soggy, They smell like a wet doggy, You better start runnin', Cuz imma start stunnin', You better get some ice, Cuz I'm turnin' up the heat, Throw some lyrics down and give me a beat, Imma rip this battle to shreds, You better get to a store full of beds, Cuz Imma make you sick, Imma stay on you like a giant tick, Now that my rap nears to an end, You better come up with a new trend, You think your cool, Your statrin' to look like such a tool, Imma tear you up, Your raps are based on luck, Now that I've showed you how to spit out some rymes, Imma make you look like a bunch of tangled up chymes
Rap Battle!!!

Hello my name is Joe! I am from Tokyo! There no way you can beat me! My initials spell JC! You cant listen to the radio because you dont have a stereo! Dr. Rationalmadman was written to give more teabags than Lipton You so like Katy Perry! Because you were born after Gandi! Do you think that Gandolf is going to harm me? Than wait till they face Joe. C's army! now its your turn to man up and dont you dare even start to cough! And dont even huff because that will bring you bad luck!
In the United States, Plea Bargaining in Exchange for Testimony is Unjust.

The fact that my opponent refuses to respond to my extended arguments, and also his repeated claims that I dropped his argument make this debate a joke in my eyes. We didn't spend enough time debating the topic, only nitpicky details. Despite my misgivings with the debate, I'm confident that I won. Here's why: 1) My opponent made no effort to respond to my resolution kritik. For the purpose of clarity I'll briefly restate it here: Plea Bargaining is a tool. In the same way that we would not judge a hammer to be just or unjust, plea bargaining has no moral agency and as such can't be just or unjust. Therefore we must vote Con. 2) I successfully demonstrated the checks against false testimony. 3) I showed how the judicial system rests on plea bargaining. Plea bargaining resolves 95% of all cases that go into the judicial system, which makes it possible for the remaining 5% to go on to court. Like I stated multiple times in my various responses, without Plea Bargaining the judicial system would collapse, and as such Plea Bargaining protects judicial procedure. 4) I provided a clear link between my main contention and the standard for the round. 5) I successfully rebutted all three subpoints made by my opponent, and as such countered his only contention. My opponent made no effort to respond to any of my rebuttals. 6) My opponent provided no evidence or warrants for any of his contentions. He made statements and did not back any of them up with justifications. Now, we should also consider whether or not the arguments I made in the comments section should be accepted. I will re-represent my reasons for taking these into account: 1) It's a common practice on debate. org. I was simply following precedence. 2) Judge based on the content of the rounds and the arguments used, not the trivialities of the limitations of the site. 3) My opponent is only saying we should disregard what was said because he has no response to my arguments. It's a cheap, underhanded trick. If he truly had responses to the cases made, he could have made them himself. 4) My opponent makes it seem like I was abusing the system and was using the comment section for my own advantage. The fact is that he could use the comment section, as well. I had no advantage. Ultimately, my opponent repeatedly made erroneous claims that never had any basis in the reality of the debate. I've tried my best to debate the arguments, not the trivial semantic bullshit, but he pulled it into the argument every time. Just remember, he conceded my resolutional kritik and my arguments made in the comments. I made clear links between my arguments (that he failed to successfully respond to) and the standard for the round, despite his arguments to the contrary. Please, for the love of god, don't let him get away with this bullshit. Vote Neg.
In the United States, Plea Bargaining in Exchange for Testimony is Unjust.

I will now go ahead and address the standard debate. My opponent CONCEDED that my standard is to be used in this round. I then said none of his arguments link to my standard and therefore I win the round. In response to this my opponent said,""Finally, my contention that plea bargaining ensures that the judicial system can continue to operate fully supports my opponent's value of procedural justice because without plea bargaining, proper procedure would be impossible. " However throughout my constructive speech I pointed out that plea bargaining for testimony is a flawed procedure because incentivizes lying, causes people to testify against themselves, and increases crime. This means that plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is flawed and doesn't maintain procedural justice. To reitterate, I have clearly won the standards debate. None of my opponents arguments link to my standard. Therefore my opponent has no offense in the round and you CANNOT vote for him in the round. I would also like to point out that in his first rebuttal my opponent didn't resond to any of my arguments. These are clearly weighed and link to my standard. Therefore, Subpoints A,B, AND C, become voting issues and I win this round. Moving on to the main issue: whether on not posting in the comment space is appropriate. He makes three arguments. 1)I'm not attacking you just saying certain precedents aren't always the best to be followed. 2)I responded to his arguments in the space alloted whereas he went on to the comments section. 3) I responded to your whole case in the first rebuttal whereas you posted in the comments section which is equivilant to cold dropping my AC. I honestly don't care that you think I don't have response because I do. I wanted a fair debate and your actions caused it no to be. YOU COMPLETELY DROPPED MY AC AND I HAVE WEIGHED/ LINKED MANY TIMES. Even if you win every argument it doesn't matter because I have showed why your not creating procedural justice. Half of your rebuttals were in the comment section and this is unfair. I win this round on every aspect, fairness, argumentation, refutation. My arguments have ALL been extended and linked back whereas none of his arguments have. For these reasons, I URGE A VOTE FOR THE PRO. Before I finish I have a couple statements for the judges: 1. No new arguments in his next rebuttal. 2. Please vote on debating rather than opinion. 3. Fairness is ESSENTIAL. 4. My standard is used in this round. 5. Since, my opponent didn't respond to these in his first rebuttal extend Subpoint A,B,C. 6. All my analysis is weighed back to themy standard. 7. My opponent has done no weighing back to my standard, don't let him get away with this in his next rebuttal. 8. Thank You
In the United States, Plea Bargaining in Exchange for Testimony is Unjust.

Reextend all three justifications for my standard. By cross applying the warrants given earlier, you see that my standard is very weighable and can help determine the round. My opponent conceded that he dropped these justifications thus we use my standar in the round. As I have clearly won the standards debate if I can link any of my subpoints back, I would win the round. He realized that my standard was to be accepted but still didn't show why his arguments link back. Don't accept any new analysis in the next round. Because all of my opponents arguments have been dissproved (They don't link to Procedural Justice) this round comes down to whether or not my opponent was justified in refuting my arguments in the comment section. He gave three reasons why he is justified in doing this and now I will refute these reasons. 1) He gives all of this analysis about average lengths for specific round in LD Debate. This is a complete assumption and is completely made up. Because this argument relies on false information, you should not even look to it. 2)Following others clearly reflects your ability to make decisions. You can't make your own choices so you follow other peoples choices. This does not make you intelligent at all and has a very negative effect on your reputation. 3)I make my own decisions, therefore, I decided to be fair and follow the requirements. As far as you saying I have no response...complete assumption unless you have the ability to read my mind. In my opponents last rebuttal, he disregarded the rules even more and posted in the comment section. I ask the voters to not buy any of this. I have clearly extended all three of my subpoints and have linked it back to my standard. Therefore, in this round, I urge a decision for the PRO.
If God is the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the world, then complete free will is impossible

But in lieu of the fact that I cannot be on long, I cannot make a rebuttal. However, I would like to point out that my contentions not directly attacking my opponent's case have gone uncontested. My opponent failed to argue against my case other than the attacks I made on him. Therefore, as there is some question of fallibility in my opponent's case as given with my rebuttal and refutations, and my contentions have no converse so far as my opponent is concerned, I now urge the judges to vote in negation of this resolution. Thank you. ~EG
If God is the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the world, then complete free will is impossible

Thanks to my opponent for the organization. My rebuttal: 11) If a human builds a toaster, that is one thing. If God builds a toaster, he also built its surroundings. The air, the counter top or table, the tiny hairs that land on it: all of them are his craft (repeating my earlier emphasis that God created all). The air pressure that moves the dust was also set in specific motion by him. He knows exactly how each factor will affect the toaster. Past, present and future are all apart of his omniscience. It doesn't matter if he is actively affecting the situation: he set each atom into existence at creation. He knew how each placement of each atom would affect everything. He is also constantly aware of the state of the toaster as it deteriorates. 22) My opponent made an impressive point here. I will also use Christianity as a specific example. Paul, as a Christian, states in Ephesians 1:4 that God "chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight." Humans chose God because God willed them to. As for the antagonists, the Creator has power over them. Two omnipotent beings cannot coexist in conflict. If one cannot defeat the other he is not omnipotent. As evidenced in the book of Job from the Tanakh/Old testament Satan must ask God before he tempts. God reigns supreme. 33) Humans do make choices. The word describes our courses of action whether or not the decision begins and ends with us. The ladybug analogy would lead me to the same logic as the toaster analogy. 44) I make a fourth point to further the argument. If God wills that humans make choices of complete free will beyond his control, then these choices must not have been laid down before creation. These choices must be made within the bounds of time inside of humans. If they are outside of God's reach but within his creation he is then not omnipotent. My opponent did not accept my implication in the topic that God has complete free will. As he stated, I am arguing that God is the only possessor of complete free will. Thanks for a quality rebuttal. Enjoy the debate. -johannes jones