BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Light Yagami became a Shinigami in the Death Note Anime after his Death

Light Yagami got reincarnated as a Shinigami after his Death and because the 8th rule of the Death note says "The human who uses the notebook can neither go to Heaven nor Hell." That suggested they can go to the Shinigami realm. In the Death Note Anime film; Death Note Relight 1: Visions of a God, an unnamed Shinigami meets Ryuk and asks him to tell his story about when he went to the human world... Below a video that shows the meeting: http://www.youtube.com... This Shinigami must be the reincarnation of Light Yagami. This is due to the following pieces of evidence (that can be seen in the video reference above): -The coat he wears looks very similar to the one Light was wearing when he died. -He walks up stairs to meet Ryuk, which could be seen as a subtle reference to Light's death in the Anime. -The way he tosses the apple to Ryuk, as Light did when alive. -A red tie (which looks like Light's) is wrapped around the Shinigami's head. -The Shinigami walks into a bright flash of light at the top of the stairs. -The fact that he inexplicably knows Ryuk's love for apples without asking the other Shinigami. -The fact that Ryuk says "Light" after the Unnamed Shinigami leaves. -The red eyes that in the anime shows Light's 'Kira' personality. -He carries a scythe, similar to how Light does in some pieces of artwork. A bit like this one: http://ecx.images-amazon.com... -The limp displayed while walking up the stairs is similar to the way Light limped out of the warehouse as seen in the Anime. -The Shinigami's mouth is shaped like Light's "Kira" smile. -The Unnamed Shinigami does not stay to hear the end of Ryuk's story, yet he is very interested about the human world... If he is the reincarnation of Light, he knows how the story ends and does not want or need to hear about it. -The Shinigami sports a messenger bag almost identical to the one Light often carried with him in Season One. Now it can't be co-incidence that this is just another ordinary Shinigami. That fact that it has all those Light Yagami features means the Death Note Anime makers intended to make this Shinigami to be the reincarnation of Light Yagami. If it wasn't meant to be Light Yagami then the Death Note anime makers wouldn't have given it all those Light Yagami features. I'll end my first stage here...
Contradictions in the Bible

Let's finish this up and get to the voting. This has been quite an interesting debate if nothing else.First, to my opponent, I meant not the punctuation remark as an insult. I simply struggled to read and understand what you were saying in some of your points because of a lack of proper grammar and punctuation.And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.Genesis 1 and 2... once again My opponent seems fond of reading some of the passage and not the rest. So let me clear this up. Yes, Genesis 2 says there was no man to till the ground... and that is why there were no plants. What my opponent neglects to see is that there was no point between there not being any plants and creation of man where God creates plants.Not only that, the text continually uses, in the Hebrew, vav consecutives and vav narrative preterites to continue the story. This means that there was no break in thought between no plants and the creation of man. It is all one continuous story. God made plants before man in Genesis 1. God made plants after man in Genesis 2. If you want to look at the vav consecutives, I left a link at the bottom of this debate.Feeding of the 5,000... againMy opponent has stated, with no evidence, that the accounts of the feeding of the 5,000 are different incidents. However, he provided no textual evidence to back that up. I provided ample evidence in previous rounds for why it was the same event described in contradictory ways.And yes, my opponent admitted that these accounts contradict. This is why he changed his strategy from reconciling the stories to saying they are different stories altogether. This is not saying my opponent admits the Bible contains contradictions. I had hoped he would acknowledge the nuance, but alas, he resorted to name calling.Jesus riding into Jerusalem... againMy opponent provided no rebuttal. He has simply stated his assertion without evidence. In previous rounds, I have laid out clearly why this text contradicts. I need not bore the reader here.Also, if we're keeping track, we have one count of calling me delusional and multiple times calling me childish things like "mr liar." And that doesn't even count the comment section. I would encourage my opponent to read James 3 and consider whether its imperatives align with his speak.I hope this debate was interesting and no doubt entertaining for the reader. Vote as you see best. http://biblehub.com...
Contradictions in the Bible

Firstly I would like to point out what my opponent said about him not being able to understand my point due to the lack of punctuation, I don't know about you but to me that doesn't make any sense. Mate you look at the text properly. Genesis 2:5 it says And every plant of the field before it was in the earth and every herb of the field before it grew Then it says there was not a man to till the ground. I think the Bible cannot be any more obvious or you're just delusional since you keep coming back to this text. I called you a liar because you claimed that I said that there are contradictions in the Bible I never have and never will. Feeding of the 5,000 again they were two separate incidents. Jesus rode on a Colt into Jerusalem again read what I said Mr liar. You twist my words alot that's why I call you a liar. I'll pray for you my friend.
Contradictions in the Bible

Once again, I will be rebutting my opponent's claims to unionizing the BibleI struggled to find my opponent's point in the last rebuttal due to a lack of punctuation, but I did catch a few things that have continued to be repeated despite repeated statements on why it is wrong. "The plants came before Man" Again, let me quote straight from Scripture on why this is wrong from Genesis 2:5-7And every plant of the field before it was in the earth and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.Very clearly, there were no plants in the earth at all before manMy opponent claims the Bible says plants came before man, but the text tells a different storyNow on to the feeding of the 5,000 again"when you said both events happening at the western side of the sea of Galilee give scscripture to back it up." (sic)Sure. If you read the passage for yourself you can see that is true. Mark makes it clear that the disciples went "to the other side before unto Bethsaida" after the feeding(Mark 6:45) And Bethsaida is on the East side of the Sea of Galilee, making the feeding on the west sideJohn also makes it clear in 6:22-25 that they went from an area near Tiberius to Capernaum on the "other side of the sea." And where is Tiberius? The west side!I'd also like to address the "Mr. Liar" insult. My point was that you recognize that these stories are not reconcilable and so resorted to a different tactic of saying it was two separate incidents.And back to the entry into Jerusalem, what did Jesus ride?"And I think Jesus rode on a Colt based on what it says in Mark and in Matthew Jesus asked them to put their Garments on the Colt and the @ss but in Mark it just says He sat upon the Colt so again not a contradiction"I'm confused as to why my opponent does not see the contradiction. He stated it. In Matthew, Jesus asks for a colt and a donkey, the disciples find a colt and a donkey, Jesus saddles a colt and a donkey, and He rides a colt and a donkey.In Mark,Jesus only asks for a colt, the disciples only find a colt, they only saddle a colt, and Jesus only rides a colt.Ignoring the text and calling me "Mr. Liar" is not fixing a contradiction.
Contradictions in the Bible

Sorry about that I misread the verse. The plants came before Man just like all of his creation a then He "planted" a garden east towards Eden and and then it talks about the tree's that God made to "GROW" every tree that looks good to the sight ect God did not create anything else He just made it to grow so again not a contradiction. Just a recap God created the plants on day 3 and made it to grow on day 6 after He had created man. Different crowd Now for 1 and 2 you're just making assumptions just not stating facts this debate is about facts not opinions, when you're stating a claim eg when you said both events happening at the western side of the sea of Galilee give scscripture to back it up. And I think Jesus rode on a Colt based on what it says in Mark and in Matthew Jesus asked them to put their Garments on the Colt and the @ss but in Mark it just says He sat upon the Colt so again not a contradiction Mr liar I "NEVER admitted to there being a contradiction in the Bible I only said that it was two separate incidents when Jesus met the crowd. Also I don't seem to see a contradiction because there isn't any. God bless you I love you all with the love of God and have a good day :)
Contradictions in the Bible

I think you didn't read the passage it says that after God made Adam God made a Garden east towards Eden then it says the tree's that God made in the garden. Genesis 2:7-9 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Again not a contradiction Again I repeat myself the feeding of the 5,000 happened in the mountains then he probably met a different crowd. Sorry I missed it, I don't know what Jesus went into Jerusalem on also how is it a contradiction it's just not specifically saying what he went into Jerusalem on. Ps If you don't like my reply I don't care take it or leave it.
Contradictions in the Bible

I don't think my opponent actually read my argument...A. Genesis 2:5-7 "and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Clearly man is made before plants. Not so in Genesis 1. Plants there are created on the third day, man on the 6th.B. My opponent did not actually address my questions. Mark clearly says they stepped out of the boat to a crowd, while John is depicted as the crowd coming to Jesus on a mountain. In Mark, the disciples ask about food. In John, it's Jesus.My opponent's only rebuttal is to claim that the red letters must come from Jesus Himself... based on Louis Klopsch's 1901 Red-Letter Bible. Not exactly an excellent argument.C. "it doesn't say anywhere that he went into Jerusalem on a @ss."Matthew 21:6-7 " 6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, 7 and brought the @ss, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon."^^^right there. It does.
Contradictions in the Bible

A. If you continue reading on to Genesis 8 it's talking about God making a Garden aka Garden of Eden and in Genesis 9 it starts talking about the God making every tree that is pleasant to the sight these are the plants that are in the garden so that is not a contradiction. B. The feeding of the 5,000 was in the mountains then they went down to the shore, Jesus asked about the food if you have a KJV "BIBLE" the words in red is what Jesus said so I don't know why you would think that it is a contradiction. They went to Capernaum then they went to Bethsaidanot a contradiction and last but not least Jesus ride on a colt into Jerusalem it doesn't say anywhere that he went into Jerusalem on a @ss. Btw Evolutionists has a weak argument because they're trying to explain something that never happens. Also micro evolution happens the other 5 are just religious.
Abortion

Con presented his/her position in absolute terms: Abortion should be illegal. As Pro, I will take the position that abortion should be legal in the United States for a one reason. Abortion – [T]he removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. . http://dictionary.reference.com... I am using this definition to avoid the discussion of ectopic pregnancies (which is beneficial to me as Pro), but I reserve the right to reference such pregnancies should my opponent present a "life at conception" argument; he hinted at such an argument, but did not clarify it. "From the uterus" is the important phrase for this distinction. Pro position: Con's position is absolute; therefore, I will submit that abortion should be legal since carrying a fetus to term could result in the death of the mother. [Although I will not take the position in this debate, I support reproductive rights in ALL cases. I am only examining a few arguments here. ] If Con clarifies his/her position in this five round debate, then I will adjust. Potential Death of the Mother: In 2010, Amnesty International urged President Obama and the US to examine our maternal mortality rate. Minorities were affected disproportionately in respect to prenatal care and "near misses" –cases of near death, increased 25% since 1998. . http://www.amnesty.org... The US maternal mortality rate is further examined here, and the results reflect the title: "A Human Rights Failure". . http://www.arhp.org... Even in one of the most medically advanced countries in the world, maternal mortality is still not addressed well. The potential for death puts the medical decision in the hands of the woman and no one else. No law abiding citizen need be forced into a life and death struggle to satisfy the changing moral whims of others. Outlawing abortion would make the decision for the mother in absence of medical necessity and such a condition cannot stand in a republic. Rebuttal of Con arguments: Con wants us to consider the drunken party girl and her irresponsible partner, or partners, but a maternal death could occur regardless of the circumstances inducing a pregnancy so these arguments are irrelevant. My position, only for this debate, is that abortion should be allowed in the case of maternal death, vodka and tequila shots notwithstanding. In addition, Con thinks unwanted pregnancy is a condition of partying, alcohol, and illicit sex, but he/she does not address the married woman who does not wish to carry a nine month pregnancy. Con goes through and asks us to "imagine" many things, but simple Google searches with remove the "imagine" and allow Con to present some statistics – I will address these agreements should he/she choose to present them. In light of my position, I see no need to mention post partum depression as the topic is irrelevant. Con presented little in the opening round and he must address the maternal death issue considering my position. Without addressing this issue, his/her argument cannot stand. Very Truly Yours, Sherlockmethod
Abortion

Abortion should be illegal. If a woman is running around having unprotected sex with either one guy or multiple partners, that woman and that man should take full responsibilities for what precautions they did not take. Imagine ripping a life out of the woman's womb. The baby is innocent and had nothing to do with you and your partners carelessness so why punish it? For example say this woman is trying to relieve some stress and goes out with her girls to a party. Relieving some of this tension this woman decides to drink some vodka shots and some tequila, wakes up the next morning and a few weeks later she finds out that she is pregnant. Not knowing who the father is she decides to go to a clinic where she has to take a pill and the fetus will just flush out. How gruesome is that, forcing yourself to have a miscarriage because you got drunk and didn't know what you were doing. Well now the woman is sober and she does know what she is doing she is taking an innocent life and the mother knows. My next point is that financially you and your partner are not capable of providing a safe home for the child. To nip this in the butt you have choices to make such as give the baby to a relative and when you two are ready take the baby back or simply put the baby up for adoption. Many couples are trying to have a baby but can't and you can provide them with a healthy baby and the baby in a nice home as opposed to death the "easy" way put of this. Putting the baby up for adoption would be the best possible choice because you and your partner will feel happy knowing that your baby will be safe, have a happy life, and you won't have to live with the fact that you didn't have to kill your first born similar to what Abraham almost had to do with Isaac. The next best thing to do is give your baby up to a close family member because than you could know for certain that the baby is perfectly fine. One can go across town and visit the baby when ever the couple wanted to and the family will still remain close. One of my last points in which I will defiantly expand on later is the fact that women get postpartum depression. Imagine a woman who keeps her child but still feels depressed now compare her to a woman who was three months pregnant and is having her baby removed from her by unnatural causes the mother and the baby obviously will be negatively effected. With therapy a woman with a naturally born baby will recover from her experience but how do we know for certain that the mother who aborted her baby will ever recover? We don't, women are very emotional and in this situation a man will be emotional too little things will remind her of what she has done and it won't be pretty. The woman could go back to her old ways of partying or start abusing drugs or crying her eyes out every minute or something to fill up the void. My major idea that I am trying to portray is the fact that this baby you didn't plan to have is an innocent life and I don't want to see the baby be put at harm for something two horny teenagers didn't take it serious enough and risked the life of someone else.
Abortion

My conclusion is simple: Con's law would result in more maternal deaths due to its absolute nature. Under Con's law, a woman with an ectopic pregnancy is likely to die, and Con appears to accept this premise. I understand that Con does not want any woman to die, much less a pregnant woman, but his law allows as much, and he did not show a compelling reason to allow this increase in maternal death. Hoping that both the mother and child live is not enough to compel a female onto such dangerous ground. I have little concern over any issue in this debate other than maternal death, despite my position that abortion should not hinge on such a matter. I did not see a need to debate any other issue. All the material I presented suggests that maternal death rates would increase under Con's new law and such a position is not desirable. Maternal Death: Con presented an absolute resolution and I chose to combat the position by showing that abortion is much less dangerous than childbirth for some women. Updated statistics show that I am correct. This fact, in combination with the dangers of ectopic pregnancies is more than enough to reject Con's position. I see no need for a long conclusion.
Abortion

As you say that I should come right out with saying that mothers will die I can tell you let babies be murdered. The whole point on my stance against abortion is the fact that the fetus does not get any say it what should happen. Doesn't the baby have a right to live and it should be our job to protect it's rights. When you stated the fact that there are deaths in the mothers part and I came back and stated that abortions can cause a woman's death you agreed that there are complications with any type of operation. Pregnancies are a form of natural surgeries and there are complications with pregnancies. But if there is a case where the mother is experiencing complications the baby should have a right to live and the doctor should make a choice to help both of therm survive. Because what your stating is there are complications in the pregnancies and the mother's are dying since they don't have enough money and/or insurance to cover the procedure we will just kill off the baby in order to save the mother. But what you are stating has almost two debates in one you speak of our abortion topic but the second has to do with our healthcare. If the patient doesn't have enough money for her or her child to survive should we turn the other way? . http://www.bls.gov... There provided is a description of a doctor "Doctors make people healthier. When people get sick, doctors figure out why. " As stated in the article the doctor should provide the patient with quick alternate decisions other that abortions because he or she is meant to make people healthier not to end a life (the doctor is not God nor should he play God) that is just starting. Also during this argument I have provided many alternatives that woman can do that are not abortion like adoption which is probably the best method to choose from because it could prevent depression of the mother and provide happiness to another couple that is in desire for a new little member of the family. Now the families will split there ways and won't have to feel guilty if they did actually chose to kill the baby. I have also provided in the past arguments that fetus after 20 weeks feel pain. This is a major problem with abortions because not only are we taking away a life we are also causing the baby pain. . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... I feel that the pain and termination of a life is both a cruel punishment to both the fetus and the mother, the mother will lose her child and risks such as the post-abortion depression, and then the family morning of the death of a child. Also the fetus will be punished obviously the outcome is death. So in conclusion abortion should be illegal because it goes against our morals of "Thou shall not kill" its against religious laws and the states laws are just the same. So my main question throughout out this whole debate is why is this situation acceptable to preform.