BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Satan Is An Evil Entity

Satan is not bad as people make it seem that he is. According to the well-known myth of Satan [1], he was once one of the best angels in heaven with God. In fact, he was second to none in terms of obedience, authority, and power to God. There are many interpretations on how Satan became evil, but the universally accepted myth is that Satan became jealous of Adam and wanted to be more powerful than God. Refusing to obey God and seeing Adam as an equal, God sent him and other angels that followed him straight from heaven to hell, where he became the devil and would spend all of eternity to deceive mankind into sinning so that they will not enter into heaven. However, I would like to point out that while he may be evil, he is not truly evil. As he is not truly evil, he is technically not an evil deity or entity, and therefore prevents Satan from being the devil. Just like how a person is corrupted is not considered to be evil, this innocent being is also not evil just because others assume he is. To first know what true evil is, we must find out the definition of evil, which is pasted below [2]: e"vil (ēvəl/adjective) profoundly immoral and malevolent. Note how the definition is profoundly immoral, and not simply immoral, so that means in order for someone or an entity to be truly evil, they must be immoral to the absolute extreme. That is not what Satan is. As all can agree on, Satan started out as an angel of God [1] - he started out as innocent and as a pure and good being. But then, he became jealous with envy and developed hatred towards God and arrogance towards Adam. Then the rest is history. What I'm trying to state is that Satan is currently an evil being, but never started out as one. He also only became evil because of envy, arrogance, pride, and ignorance. Yes, I just said that; his ignorance was his main tragic flaw besides his envy and pride. It was still extremely early in the Biblical timeline, and Satan - like the early humans and creatures - were ignorant and did not know any better. After misinterpreting God and Adam, he felt betrayed and began to became jealous. It wasn't entirely his fault as he didn't know any better as humans have never existed before. This is similar to siblings and parents - an older sibling discovers the parent loves the younger sibling more. He becomes jealous and hates the parent and the sibling. But is it really the sibling's fault or the parent's? No, rather it is ignorance that was the cause of it all. Just like the sibling metaphor, Satan is simply angry and confused like a small child and does not understand nor accept why God "rejected" him and favored Adam over him. Honestly speaking, Satan is just jealous and is doing all of these acts to get attention and have God favor him over Adam more. He is innocent and not truly evil. [1] http://www.apologeticspress.org... [2] https://www.google.ca...
Satan Is An Evil Entity

I accept the challenge in which I will be arguing that Satan is an evil entity. I am arguing that Satan is evil from the basis of the Bible account as I find no other source that can be used as a meaningful source for reference. I am a Christian and I will be arguing from that pre-supposition. However, my position, will not result in me not engaging in a meaningful debate. My opponent in challenging me is conceding some of the restrictions originally placed on the debate and also the restrictions as mentioned in his/ her acceptance statement. I have also requested an addition of another round so that the format could follow: Round 1 = acceptance Round 2 = opening statements Round 3 = rebuttals round 4 = closing statements Whilst my acceptance is not dependant on this request, I believe that it would allow for a more meaningful engagement.
Satan Is An Evil Entity

I am arguing that Satan is a good guy and not a bad guy as Christians, Muslims, and Jews claim him to be. The first round is for acceptance, the second for arguments, and the third round is finally for rebuttals. Any person belonging to those three religions should be warned to not join this debate unless they are religion neutral with such topics. If this is too offensive for you, then please leave now! If you are religion neutral, not heated by such debates, and have the skill level, then come debate...
Democracy is the best method of governing a state.

I find your definitions, as copied below interesting, though I am not sure I can completely agree with you. MONARCH: Power over almost all state affairs DICTATOR: Power over army PARLIAMENT: Power over the changes in the law and the appointing of a new dictator every five years I would vary it slightly as below: Constitutional Monarch (e. g. the UK's Queen) Really little more than a figure head with very limited control over anything, including his/her life. Absolute Monarch. Full control over his/her subjects usually backed by Army, police force, or combination of both. Dictator. Non-elected leader of countries Government who has seized control often with the assistance of the Military. May be either benign or domineering., Tyrant. Basically a cross between Absolute Monarch and Dictator, but usually holds his/her position by terror methods, usually supported by a secret police force. Democracy. A government either fully or partially voted into office by the people. May or may not have a Constitutional Monarch as it's figurehead. Whilst it is theoretically possible for all of the above to be benign history has not shown one example of such. It has however shown both benign and malicious democratic Governments. The very fact that it the only form of Government in history to give us truly benign governments, however briefly or however often interrupted make it the best form of human Government there is in my opinion. Whilst it is true that as a believer in Christ, and one who accepts him as my king I am looking forward to a time when human government is at an end, I know which kind I would prefer to live under until that time.
Democracy is the best method of governing a state.

With all respect, Sir, I posed that example because I know it is that which you understand the best. I could have given the example of Satan taking all the power in full person. He himself stepping upon the throne of the world. But that, you might have found provoking. I actually have got a bit enough from discussing this affair with you, Sir. I love to debate about religion, but not in this debate. Unfortunately, you have not much else to present.Personal Conclusion Democracy cannot be the best way of governing, because of it's slow progressing. Every part of the country, economics, science, culture, and so forth - everything goes faster than these politics. Why monarchy (possibly run with a theological Law) is the best way of governing:As long as you have a good monarch; when the command lies with one person only, the government is able to follow the way the world changes and promptly give the right reaction. Anyway, if the monarch is to handle by a Law that cannot be changed without the permission of a senate or parliament, nothing can go wrong. And as long as another dictator has the sole power over the military forces, the monarch cannot abuse his might.MONARCH: Power over almost all state affairsDICTATOR: Power over armyPARLIAMENT: Power over the changes in the law and the appointing of a new dictator every five yearsDear voters,If you believe that this Government could work, please vote for me. Overlook that which has been stated unto you since childhood, and go meet logic. Do as I do.
Democracy is the best method of governing a state.

Interesting, you say not to discuss the religious aspects of this topic and then launch into a question on just that. No, you cannot have democracy under a theocracy, though those who have chosen to accept Christ's rule are currently under Theocracy first and whatever human Government is in power in our area second. We will all be glad when the human element is removed forever. Only those who wish to accept Christ's rule will be allowed to exist, since Christ's rule is, and will be, the only rightful and beneficial rule there ever could be. That is the idea of the destruction at Armageddon and the final test. That may sound harsh, but God cannot allow those on Satan's side of the issue to disrupt the peace of His creation for much longer. The principles we will be expected to live by are published in scripture, so people are being asked to make their choice now, whilst the resurrected will be asked that at the final test. Until then our only choice is between democracy or tyrrany, and whilst for me personally it makes no difference democracy is, for the reasons I have already given, the most acceptable choice.
Democracy is the best method of governing a state.

If my opponent wants to discuss religious affairs, I am glad to do this, but not in this debate. I think it has been a depressing waste of time to read or write most of the former argument. Since we still have to rounds to go, stick to the topic in the near future please.I'd like to ask you, now we're at it: if the 'down side' of governing other than democracy is, according to your saying, a Government whihc which gives you no choice of human rulers; how about those wicked followers of the anti-Christs? They'd rather kick off Jesus too, wouldn't they? Is democracy an option there?And anyway, there is a saying: a one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind. If you have a state full of idiots, which lamentably is often the case nowadays, they'd vote for anyone, and not rarely a bad one.And to give you a chance to defend your last argument properly, what good side can you find me, for example, in the person of Adolf Hitler?
Democracy is the best method of governing a state.

Admittedly, this is not entirely germaine to this debate, but if you feel that this world is run by God you are sadly mistaken. One only has to look at the world around us, and then compare it to what is God's requirements for his people to see this is so. Christ spoke of all his followers being united with his Father and himself in the same ways that they are united. Paul echoed that thinking when he beseeched the brothers to all speak with one mind. Do you see any such unity in the world around us now? Only in small pockets and even then they are diametrically opposed to others. Also both Christ and the Apostles made it very clear that it is Satan who is in charge. I did wonder if you were thinking of theocracy but even that would depend on which God. We will before too long have just such a theocracy, when Christ has risen and destroyed all human governments, and then his kingdom will be sole rulers of the earth. However, only under the Aegis of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ will this work. Certainly not under Islamic rule which is far too oppressive, and has proved so even where it has been tried. So while I agree that Democracy has it's flaws I still believe that for the present it is the best form of rule since at present there is no better. When God steps in, through His son, that will be a different matter. Since the debate is entitled Democracy is the best method of governing a state, then the question can only apply to the current time, and while thee earth is still divided into states. Yes, I agree, the down side of voting in a good leader is that he (or she) too can be voted out and replaced by a bad one. However I still see that as preferable to being under a Government whihc gives you no choice of human rulers. Another problem is that, as history shows, no human has sufficient intellect to rule effectively in all ways. Rule by committee (i. e. the UK Parliament) scarcely fares any better. No matter what the ruler they have got some things wrong and some right, the only difference being the balance between the two.
Democracy is the best method of governing a state.

Admirable it is, Sir, how you vitalize the spirit of Christianity in your handling... Now, you must now, every country is run by God. For God chooses what happens and what does not, God runs each and every state indirectly. But, man can take the decision to willingly apply the rules of God in his governing. And, for God works by one method, and there are indeed many kinds of theocracy, I do reckon theocracy to the ways of governing a state... I respect you, my dear rival. However I must oppose you in this affair. The quick rid of a bad ruler is not an advantage, because the good ruler will be rid of as well. And he might be followed by another bad ruler. And the most important: what decides what is good and bad? There we need theocracy. Good and bad in democracy is defined by the constitutional law, but a bad ruler, or rather a chain of bad rulers, can change the law easily.
Democracy is the best method of governing a state.

Somehow I managed to put this in comments foirst. Must have clicked on the wrong button. I thank you for the compliments, I hope I can live up to them, as it seems you are likely to also. I am forced to agree with you about the weakness of democracy, and would even go so far as to add that the reason countries like the UK are in the financial mess they are in is that Governments have to often given in to the people for fear of being voted out of office. However the point of this debate is not that democracy is either good or bad, but if it is the best currently available. I am reminded of a scripture which reads, basically "All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, [during] the time that man has dominated man to his injury." Ecclesiastes 8:9. This is true whatever form of human Government we have had over us. The big advantage of Democracy over all others is that if you end up with a bad ruler it is considerably easier to get rid of them and hopefully with zero loss of life. Even if you see that as the only advantage, it is a very powerful one for at least having a form of democracy if not the form we have currently. There is an old saying that power should never be given to one who desires it. That is true in Democracy, but an even more dangerous problem in any other form of human Government.
Democracy is the best method of governing a state.

I am wondering if you are promoting Theocracy, and if you are what form you feel that should take. So far human rule of all kinds has been flawed, but I do feel that democracy has shown itself to b the best method humans can However, to be honest I do not expect to win this debate since I am only arguing for democracy as the best form of rule by humans. So far, all we have had have been dictatorships, democracy, a fake form of Communism which was actually Socialism in disguise (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.) Absolute or partial monarchies, and a couple of counterfeit forms of Theocracy whihc in reality were dictatorships under the guise of religious leadership (Islam). All of whihc have failed in one area or another. The only record we have of a true Theocracy is the early days of Israel before they insisted on having a king, back to ones like Noah and Abraham who lived voluntarily under Theocracy. I shall allow the instigator of this debate to lead it wherever it goes and simply attempt to counter his argumentation.
Democracy is the best method of governing a state.

All praises be to God Almighty, and may He bestow his peace and blessings upon the prophet Muhammad.Democracy has been the way of ruling for many years in the West now. It would be foolish to say that there has been no single bit of good in it, but is it really the best was to govern a state?I shall take examples from history to prove my point, and factors in states run in other ways and how they go on. As my position in this debate shall be contra, the burden of proof lies upon my opponent. For this reason I will not yet start any argument before he gave his own first.Peace to all who read this.
Policy round

Well, this is the last round and the last speech. Sadly, it was wasted. Con spent it writing a counter plan. The thing is, you can't write a counterplan so late in a policy round. It must be in the first speech. This is, of course, a policy round. (Hence the title). Thus my opponent has failed to follow his own rules by posting a counter plan so late. I did agree to allow him to post new arguments in this speech since his last arguments were conceded by him because of the forfeit, but a counter plan is in no way acceptable. I regret to have to brush aside the last argument, but that is sadly what I must do. Please vote Pro because Con has provided no reason as to why you should vote Con. When you vote, please cast aside personal bias on the matter. Some find it a touchy subject. Vote on who won based on argumentation, not who you agree with. Since Con conceded (forfeit) his round 3 points, it's as if he never brought them up. The round 5 counterplan must be discarded simply because it is too late in the round. If Con had brought up new points in Round 5, I would have accepted them and rebutted them. But a counterplan must be the first thing he does, not the last. Because of this, Con has in essence said nothing against my case.
Policy round

Since this is just a trial for his aff, I'll just do a new cp Text: Obama should issue an executive order to increase foreign aid to Russia by 1 billion dollars Obs. 1 ï¿½€" Solvency Executive orders control policy and set agendas ï¿½€" key to presidential power Mayer 1 executive orders are an instrument of executive power that presidents have used to control policy. I view presidential leadership as both strategic and dynamic, a perspective that brings into sharper relief the utility of executive power to the presidency President holds power in foreign affairs Brownell 1 The President is granted greater leeway in national security affairs by the Constitution because as Chief Executive he is the nation's agent in the unique legal realm which comprises the Law of Nations. grants of power to the President are much more substantive in the area of national security affairs than in domestic affair Obs. 2 ï¿½€" Net Benefit Executive orders increase presidential power Risen 4 executive orders have gone to a powerful weapon in defining, and expanding, executive power used that power to construct and promote social policies. XOs are quick and avoid bureaucratic rulemaking ï¿½€" only the plan would get delayed by procedural requirements Cooper 02
Policy round

Ok, I'll try First on on case, A. they have no solvency, this interferes with their plan, because they can't even prove that what they do is effective b orphans, fine l'll admit we need to help orphans, but only 1 billion? this is about 3$ per orphan evry day. This is going to food, health, education, and etc. 3$ a day gives you about 15 cents left over for nutrition, not to mention the HIV/AIDS program they plan to run C. National security, they claim that foreign aid helps nat security, but his statement is very vague, he provides no source saying that russia aid helps so much D. because his levy 2010 card outdates all other solvency, why trust him? he claims that russia can't solve even with foreign aid E. USAID is enivitable to be cut extend his inherency f. He has no warrant to say that it has helped children I give it to AFF
Oh god another rap battle...

If I'm a sponge then I'm Sponge Bob; you're my retarded side kick Patrick You deserve a raise if your job was to create a verse made my a-ss sick What's even worse is that you probably thought that it was adequate To be clear I wish I could make it disappear like a kids magic trick Visiting a rhyming dictionary; looks like you lost your balls and haven't found them Being a visionary I see that if you had to rap those words out loud - Then you'd be bound to mispronounce them; I'm not proud See it's not that impressive that all you did was post a lot of words that rhymed I suggest that next time you don't waste mine if you can't come up with something fine See I'm already painted and primed; you're tainted and haven't chimed With the standard I've set; see I'm the one that's sublime Kicking lyrics so divine that what you're spitting can be seen and deemed a crime I'm a straight up gangsta; you're a wanksta - don't be fooled, there's a thin line You're not cool, I schooled you and defined what should be considered; you got bitter and whined You're like the lowly lyrical mobster so why bother finding harmonious words to foster? I'm a rapping hero like DiNiro - the sanctimonious flow Godfather Gonna blow like Pacino getting dough in a casino up near Reno, Nevada What do you know? You're practically a zero, you're a Nada I'm lyrically superior and you're inferior; this competition's a slaughter The superstition is real; to battle me you're gonna need an armada
Oh god another rap battle...

YOU'RE LIKE A GREAT BIG F-CKING SPONGE... JUST WAITING TO GET SQUEEZED!! BY THE TIME THIS RAP IS OVER... YOU'LL BE CRAWLING ON YOUR KNEES!! 'Cuz I'm hotter than embers and cooler than ice at the same time My rappin' and rhymin' can be best described as sublime And cruel and malicious and vicious and capricious and pernicious and seditious I'm supernatural; factitious, expeditious judicious and cooly ambitious I'll build you up and tear you down like amansion made of gold, Let you think you've won and when you're done I'll come out and rip you cold I'll go insanely crazy, and I'm coming to destroy you, Obliterate, annihilate, eliminate, eradicate, and desecrate the fate; a new course your life will take! A downward spiral into the dark abyss that I create, A crude and shrewd and lewd attack I spring; oh so spate! You got lucky this round; I'm fresh outta time To continue puttin' you to shame with my seamless, flawless rhymes-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s.... *slithers away*
Oh god another rap battle...

My opinion's that I'm winning You're sinking - I'm swimming While ya going down like the Titanic in the Atlantic See ya getting frantic, all in a panic Have you going manic just as I planned it My rhymes are so combustible - they're volcanic Yours need to be adjustable and not so mechanic I mean you must be delirious - clearly not serious It's not eerily mysterious that you don't come near to us And By "us" I mean myself and my rhymes - See, they're their own entity I got plenty more where that came from; Rapping's part of my identity Bet by now you want serenity Cuz I'm about to blow you up like you're a Kennedy But too bad - I'm friendly but can't award you that amenity Nucca please, I'd be glad to show you up til I am seventy Your verse made me sick; luckily I have got the remedy: More talent, more style, more flare, more showy More gallant's worthwhile; I care - you know me I'm solely stupendous - you're homely and horrendous Hope ya don't get lonely when I lay your rapping dreams to rest Cuz yeah they're second best and should be put to death Glad you're not rapping this out loud - wouldn't want you to waste your breath You tried but demurely couldn't pass the test While I purely proved that I'm the best You prematurely second guessed But that was poorly done in jest As I'm securely surely blessed So all that talk of beating me's wishful thinking Dunno what you've been eating but it's clear that you've been drinking Here the only thing that's embarrassing was your phoney rebuttal If that's all you got then dear homie you're in trouble I don't mean to burst your bubble but Your stuff is rough just like the stubble so put Yourself together and come at me swinging double Meanwhile I'm ready to go for the solo home-run Coulda struck you out already but you know that'd be no fun