BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality to Heterosexuality

Can a homosexual, become heterosexual? I think it's possible. I assert homosexuality is not genetic, but mental; that homosexuality, is an abstraction of 'human competitive nature'. Boys will be boys... "There is a woman, long lost, in every homosexual man's imagination". 'Human competitive nature' spans from small-scale to large-scale; for example, simple games, and then, war... The abstraction of, this nature, can be abstruse. The long lost woman of the homosexual man's imagination, is hard to keep track of. A homosexual man may find comfort in pure-homosexuality (where there is no alternative); he may endure a life, and sexual life, without woman. Further on 'human competitive nature' and how it links to homosexuality... Life is largely about love, and humans will compete for love... Sometimes a lifestyle, is preferred, over choice of partner. If your desired lifestyle is deemed out of reach, you will opt for an alternative. Sometimes, we prefer choice of partner. Competition surrounding lifestyle, and choice of partner, is often harsh; and good competition is scarce, these days... Restrictions on lifestyle, or choice of partner (law, social systems, etc) have a great effect on a man's mind. To conclude, it's okay to be gay but, why, if you can have a woman?
Women should not hit Men

Once upon a time, there was a thing called chivalry. And yes, it does exist still. IT DOES! Chivalry was when men, especially knights, acted fair to ladies, and protect her with the idea of morality. In this era, men hitting on women is not moral. Women dislike being hitting on. Another reason is that men do not know where to STOP. If a man is hitting on a woman, and the woman is physically displeased, would the man stop? Hopefully, yes. But there are some people out there that don't. And women dont know who those people will be. So they whole-fully avoid that scenario by not sticking onto a place where lots of men are. When was the last time you seen a single (relationship wise) woman at a bar?
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were not orchestrated by the U.S. government

This is an open debate challenge to any member of the "Truther" movement. The conspiracy theorist will bear the burden of proof in this debate. The first round must be used for acceptance and for posting your opening argument. If you do not post an opening argument in the first round, it will result in an automatic seven-point loss. Trolling is also an automatic loss.I look forward to our discussion, Con.
Smash Melee(pro) vs. Smash 4(con) [Competitive play]

Rebuttals: Scene Longevity Smash 4 doesn't have to worry too much about longevity because even if in the future a single over powered strategy becomes overly dominant, the game will probably just receive another patch to re-balance the game. Competition Although my opponent is correct in stating that Smash 4 has an obvious leader unlike Melee, this makes Smash 4 a better competitive game, not worse. Ideally for any competitive game the superior player should consistently win, as opposed to uncompetitive games where even a less skilled person should still have a reasonable chance for winning so that everyone can have fun. Mechanics Ledge hogging has been replaced with ledge trumping which offers its own unique mechanics[3] Wobbling is applicable to only Ice Climbers[1] Wave shining is applicable to only Fox and Falco[2] My opponent did not provide evidence for why the air dodges in Smash 4 are not meaningful. Although Smash 4 does not have chain grabbing, you can still perform pseudo chain grabs by abusing hitstun[4] Sources [1] http://www.ssbwiki.com... [2] http://supersmashbros.wikia.com... [3] http://www.ssbwiki.com... [4] http://www.ssbwiki.com...
Smash Melee(pro) vs. Smash 4(con) [Competitive play]

Your first point of accessibility of the game to new players is an inevitable fact based on the fact that melee is 15 years old.[1] The training options available in Sm4sh are questionable in their usefulness as i have never found myself getting better in For Glory than i have playing with a friend at his/her or my house. Your point of amiibo's being a viable training tool only stands if someone is willing to spend the $9.99-$12.99[2] on them and are willing to get them to lvl 50 and "teach" it advanced techniques other competitive players are going to use. More competitively viable characters: This comes at the fact that their are more available characters to begin with in Sm4sh and the stat you provided may have been as it is due to the lack of an outstanding meta in the games competitive scene. As on now approaching on Apex 2016 there has been a shift in the meta meaning their may be a similar stat to melee. Melee had 34% of its characters used in the top 16. Sm4sh had 33% of its roster used in the top 16 The diversity is approximately equal for both games. [1]http://supersmashbros.wikia.com... [2]http://www.polygon.com...
Smash Melee(pro) vs. Smash 4(con) [Competitive play]

Why Smash 4 is more competitive than Melee More accessible to new players New copies of Melee and new game cube systems have not been made in years, while a copy of Smash 4 and a wiiu/3ds can easily be purchased in a store. This makes new players who are interested in trying competitive Smash for the first time more inclined to play competitive Smash 4 over Melee. Being able to attract more new players will continue to give competitive Smash 4 an advantage over Melee. [1] More training options Unlike Smash 4, Melee has no online capabilities, which means that if you want to learn to become better at Melee, you need to find another person who you can train with in real life, and even then if that person is either much better or worse than you, you won"t be able to push each other to become better. With Smash 4, finding other people to play online is easy, and online smash 4 has minimal lag compared to Brawl, which makes it more viable for competitive practice. In addition, if you are getting too good for random online matches for Smash 4, you can use friend codes obtained from Smash forums to challenge other competitive players to get even better practice. And even if you want to train without a friend or internet connection, Smash 4 is still better to train competitively than Melee since Smash 4 has Amiibo players capable of reaching level 50 which are more challenging than the level 9 CPU's in Melee. [1] More competitively viable characters During the APEX 2015 Smash bros tournament, out of the top 16 players in Melee, only 9 different characters where used while out of the top 16 players for Smash 4, 18 different characters where used (some players used more than 1 main character). More unique competitively viable characters adds more depth and diversity to competitive Smash, which helps make competitive Smash 4 even better. [1] Miscellaneous things unique to Smash 4 1. Smash 4 has game mechanics like footstooling and run turnaround cancel. 2. Smash 4 can receive future patches to fix any mechanics which might later discovered to be too unbalanced, which helps ensure the game will continue to stay competitively viable. 3. Smash 4 has custom moves, which if eventually accepted in most standard tournaments would add even more diversity to competitive Smash. Source [1] http://kotaku.com...
Smash Melee(pro) vs. Smash 4(con) [Competitive play]

Thank you for accepting and Good Luck. I would like to start by comparing certain aspects of the games from a competitive standpoint. 1. Scene Longevity- While Smash 4 may still be growing as a community melee is a tried and tested competitive fighting game that has gone through the wringer and come back stronger than before. Smash 4 has yet to be tested like this and it is uncertain that when it does whether it will survive or not. 2. Competition- There seems to be those who think that the 5 Gods(Mang0, M2K, Armada, PPMD, and HungryBox) are the only ones who can win a major event or are unbeatable. This is not true Players that are on a high level can take games and sets from these monsters on a regular basis. Players like Shroomed, Plup, And even Myself have taken sets from them and knocked them into losers brackets. In Sm4sh Their is quite an obvious leader in Zer0(who won 53 straight Sm4sh Tournaments.) where only players like Nairo(#2) can take sets off him on a great day. 3. Mechanics- Sm4sh has limited technical option compared to melee. Melee has Wave dashing, Ledge hogging, Meaningful air dodges, Moon walking, Wobbling, Wave shining, Chain grabbing (Removed in Sm4sh), and countless others that Sm4sh does not give players access to. Conclusion: Melee is a game better designed whether intentional or not for competitive tournaments.
Bible is a work of fiction

Thank you 13millerd, I believe that the earth"s molten core was proven a while back by studying the movements of seismic activity but that"s beside the point though. I would like to point out that "The reason that people can believe that the bible is historical facts is the simple fact that the bible has never been proven wrong" is not a sufficient enough argument. Using science to explain the parts [which are very few] that can be explained while dismissing the rest as magic, supernatural, and metaphorical really does not help. It is as if I was arguing that Harry Potter is non-fiction and that the wizard world indeed does exist. How can you prove me or JK Rowling wrong if we both claimed that it is true and that whatever you can"t believe is because the wizards are magic and you won"t understand it? Rowling has obviously stated that she is writing the book etc. so we accept that work as fiction. However, if we were in lesser times when people did not have access to information, most knowledge came from whatever the monarch says is true, I believe there might be a lot of people who would use that gullibility of humans to exert power over them. There was a claim that religion was created and enforced by the leaders of states to rule over people because using fear of a higher being was a lot cheaper and simpler than training and raising the upkeep of a policing force which would make sense in a primitive world. We now have the means of overseeing the general public through surveillance cameras and an adequate police force basically making religion obsolete. This brings up more questions like "who actually wrote the bible?". My research tells me it was Moses and a few people who contributed here and there. But let"s say Moses DID in fact write the bible and that these are the words of god. God must have communicated with Moses in one way. I would picture Moses writing down what the voice in his head was saying much like Ms.Rowling when she writes her novels I would assume. If god threw down a book onto Moses, why did Moses have to rewrite it himself? As for your Bayes theorem, if I"m not mistaken, that would be the only theorem that might give god a higher chance than evolution [I would like to see the calculation on this by the way]. However, this is due to the fact that Bayes theorem itself relies on beliefs. Evolutionists leave any option open as possibility where as creationism has one option and it believes that THAT option is indeed the end of story. Therefore you can see why I would not take this theorem seriously in this case.
Bible is a work of fiction

Let me start off saying that I personally am not a religious person. However, that does not mean I had written off religion completely. About 5-6 years ago, I went out looking for "the truth" so I started researching and reading multiple doctrines etc including the bible. Out of all those, the bible was one of the easiest to dismiss for me because it was just so unbelievable. Yet I find it astonishing that so many people believe that the stories in the bible actually happened. Just from the beginning, how the heaven and the earth were created by god in 6 days. Even if that was believable, how did god create day and night and light before he created the sun? What was there before he created these things? How long was he standing or floating there before he decided to create these things? Who created god? Why do creationists insist that the idea of an eternal universe seem so unbelievable because it defies laws of thermodynamics but find it absolutely believable that there is a man-like being out there who oversees and overhears everything for eternity? But most importantly, if this is a historical narrative, who was witnessing this and writing it down? Next there is Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. There was a perfect garden which had one tree which they weren"t supposed to eat from" Why was it there in the first place? What kind of fruit grew on it that makes people get shy? And what the hell is up with the talking snake? I can go on and on with these stories" but they just sound like The Hobbit or Narnia or whatever so why should I or anyone for that matter believe that the bible is based on historical events?
Bible is a work of fiction

Many creationists seem to refer to the bible as a historical narration including Ken Ham who during his debate with Bill Nye kept saying "There is a book that tells you". So as an exploration of religion, would anybody be willing to debate me on this. Wikipedia states "Fiction is the form of any work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not real, but rather, imaginary and theoretical" and that is what the bible sounds like to me. As this is an exploration of religion and a strive for understanding, 1st round may be used by the Con to make a statement and in fact may even have an extra round to get his/her point across.
College Dining Hall Hours and Meal Swipes

Yes. I believe that college students should receive more than 14 meal swipes per week for $2,765.00 per semester because I paid $1,950.00 per semesters for 10 meal swipes per week. Calculating that math shows that I pay $195 per meal swipe per week and you pay $197.5 per meal swipe per week. If you pay more for your meal swipe, I suggest that they revise the meal plan with more swipes.
Repentance is Not "Turning From Your Sin" in Relation to Salvation

You say, "There are several problems with Pro's arguments. " But then you say, "This one argument refutes Pro's position. " You say there are many problems but you only point out one perceived problem. Your argument is moot; you are using the equivocation fallacy. The definition of salvation does not necessitate the inclusion of salvation from the power and presence of sin. You are imposing these two definitions onto the one I am attempting to argue about. You say, "First, he has taken one part of salvation, and concluded that since repentance (defined as turning away from sin) has no part in this area of salvation, then repentance in relation to salvation must not mean turning away from sin. But this is absolutely ludicrous. This would be like me arguing that citrus has no relation to fruit, but then define fruit as all non-citrus fruits. It simply makes no sense. " This is erroneous, your analogy lacks any substantial meaning in this debate. You still have not adequately addressed my point that "turning from your sins" has anything to do with salvation. You say, "Based on the resolution, then, which does not specify that salvation applies to justification only, Con ought to win this round because Pro has claimed, 'turning from your sins' is apart of sanctification' and thus has conceded the resolution since salvation is not only justification, but also sanctification and glorification. " When did I agree to this "resolution? " The definition of "salvation" which I have been referring to throughout this debate does specify that salvation applies to justification only (salvation from the penalty of sin). Of course I have no problem with "turning from your sins" in relation to sanctification, but this is why we call it "sanctification" and not "salvation. " Your three-part definition of salvation is arbitrary. You say, " All other arguments made by Pro are inconsequential. This one argument refutes Pro's position. " How are my other arguments inconsequential? I believe the prospective coherent reader will understand that my arguments are relevant and very consequential. You have refuted nothing except within the framework of your perceived "resolution" of the definition of salvation.
Repentance is Not "Turning From Your Sin" in Relation to Salvation

There are several problems with Pro's arguments. First, he has taken one part of salvation, and concluded that since repentance (defined as turning away from sin) has no part in this area of salvation, then repentance in relation to salvation must not mean turning away from sin. But this is absolutely ludicrous. This would be like me arguing that citrus has no relation to fruit, but then define fruit as all non-citrus fruits. It simply makes no sense. Based on the resolution, then, which does not specify that salvation applies to justification only, Con ought to win this round because Pro has claimed, "'turning from your sins' is apart of sanctification" and thus has conceded the resolution since salvation is not only justification, but also sanctification and glorification. All other arguments made by Pro are inconsequential. This one argument refutes Pro's position.
Repentance is Not "Turning From Your Sin" in Relation to Salvation

You quote, 'Deliverance or rescue from danger, evil, difficulty, sin, or destruction. When a person believes in Christ's work on the cross, salvation occurs in three basic steps. Justification (salvation from the penalty of sins) at the moment of belief, sanctification (salvation from the power of sins) throughout one's life, and glorification (salvation from the presence of sin) in the future.' Although I believe the truth of the later two definitions of salvation (from the power and presence of sin), I am arguing that repentance in relation to the first definition of salvation (from the penalty of sin) does not involve a turning-from, giving-up of, or cessation of one's sins. You say, "When seeking to determine how repentance ought to be understood with relation to salvation, we shouldn't rely on what the word originally meant in Greek. Instead, by examining the context of statements in Scripture regarding repentance, we ought to determine what view of repentance is held by Scripture." I agree with this standard, but it is important to recognize the meaning of the Greek in relation to how it is used in scripture. Agape and phileo are two Greek words which denote love, the former being God's unconditional love toward man and the latter being brotherly love amongst men. While Greek definitions tell us these should be two distinct words, scripture uses these interchangeably as evidenced by the following verses: Titus 3:4; Luke 11:43; John 5:20; 2 Timothy 3:4; John 11:5; John 20:2; 1 Corinthians 16:22; 2 Timothy 1:20; Romans 12:10; 1 Thessalonians 3:12; Titus 2:4; Ephesians 5:28; 1 Peter 2:17; 1 John 2:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:9; 1 Peter 1:22. And there are many other examples of words being used interchangeably to describe the same thing. So by cross referencing scripture, we get the ultimate understanding, but understanding the Greek is an important element, especially where a word is uniquely biblical such as "hell" or "damnation," and where there is a unanimity in the Greek words behind the English (i.e. "repentance"). I agree we should not "rely" on the Greek word's original meaning, but it is a factor which should be considered and not left out. Let me state my position clearly: I believe repentance is necessary for salvation, but that it does not involve turning from one's sins. We must repent (become guilty before God in recognition of our transgressions) and then, and only then, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior who shed His blood as our propitiation to pay the penalty for our sins. Consider Matthew 9:13; Mark 2:17; and Luke 5:32. Surely there are none righteous (Romans 3:10). Jesus was telling the people that He has come to call those who recognize that they are sinners. Consider also Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; Acts 20:2 and 2 Peter 3:9. We see that repentance comes before salvation. I believe that "turning from your sins" is apart of sanctification and is provoked in us to do so by the Holy Spirit, but this has nothing to do with salvation (from the penalty of sin).
Repentance is Not "Turning From Your Sin" in Relation to Salvation

Before we get into the main arguments, I'd like to set out my interpretation of the debate. First, in order to refute the position proposed by Pro, I do not need to prove that repentance is only "Turning from your sin. " Instead, I will take the position that this is a key aspect of repentance in relation to salvation, but not necessarily the only aspect. The second point we need to understand is the meaning of the words, "in relation to salvation. " What we are not debating is the definition of repentance as a prerequisite or means to salvation. Rather we are simply looking at how repentance ought to be understood as it relates to salvation. Thirdly, we must gain an appropriate understanding of the word, "salvation. " Salvation can be understood as, "Deliverance or rescue from danger, evil, difficulty, sin, or destruction. When a person believes in Christ's work on the cross, salvation occurs in three basic steps. Justification (salvation from the penalty of sins) at the moment of belief, sanctification (salvation from the power of sins) throughout one's life, and glorification (salvation from the presence of sin) in the future. "1 Finally, we need to lay a standard that we can apply to determine which understanding of repentance ought to be accepted. The standard that I would like to offer, since Pro has not yet explicitly offered any standard, is that of authorial intent. When seeking to determine how repentance ought to be understood with relation to salvation, we shouldn't rely on what the word originally meant in Greek. Instead, by examining the context of statements in Scripture regarding repentance, we ought to determine what view of repentance is held by Scripture. I wait for Pro to make his arguments. 1. . http://www.basictheology.com...
Repentance is Not "Turning From Your Sin" in Relation to Salvation

The word "repentance" in the New Testament, when in relation to passages on salvation, should not be defined as a command to cease from sin or turn away from one's sin. Instead, it should be understood as a command to become guilty before God in recognition of your sin, which in turn will lead you to recognize your need for a Savior. The Greek word "metanoia" indeed carries the idea of guilt, shame, regret and a change of mind about something (in this case sin). I have seen many gospel tracts which say you must repent (which is true), but then go on to describe repentance as turning from your sin. This is false as this would be a works salvation, and Ephesians 2:8,9 is very clear that we are saved by faith apart from any works.
Eli manning shouldn't of won super bowl 46 MVP

First lets remind ourselves that someone deserves a Super Bowl MVP based on their entire game. Being the Most Valuable on two plays, regardless of their importance does not outweigh an entire game's effort. (There's a reason Adam Vinateri doesn't have a Super Bowl MVP. Also, one does not have to have an exceptional game, he just has to be the most valuable. However, as my opponent pointed out for me, Eli did have an above average game. The rest of his team, even if they played well, did not have as big of an impact as Manning. Also, we have to take into accout leadership, and the fact that the Giants team felt confident that they could pull it out down late with the World Championship on the line. The fact that his entire team could rally aroun him shows that he was very valuable. The Patriots were three-point favorites going into the game, and Brady still couldn't pull out a win, which tells you enough about how valuable he was.