BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible Teaches Total Depravity

I apologize, because I was unclear. I too believe that we can NEVER work our way to heaven. What I believe is that we are totally depraved to the point where, without an act of God causing it, we annot even turn to God. I believe that The Bible teaches that man, because of the fall, has been entirely seperated from God, and is in constant rebelion. We in and of ourselves can to nothing about this because we are totally depraved. I am sorry I was unclear. I will post a few verses as an opening argument. In the Old Testament God makes it clear that all men are completely dead in sin. This is made evident in verses such as Genesis 6:5. Gen. 6:5--- " The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." This verse is backed up in Jeremiah. Jer. 13:23--- "Can the Ethiopian [a] change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil." It is also made clear in the New Testament that all men are completely dead in sin and want nothing to do with God. Rom. 3:10-18--- "As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one; 11there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. 13Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. 14Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. 15Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16ruin and misery mark their ways, 17and the way of peace they do not know. 18There is no fear of God before their eyes." This I believe will do as a starter for the debate. I lok forward to your reply! Thanks, Renzzy
The Bible Teaches Total Depravity

First off, as con, i would like to point out that the Bible does not teach that we can, and have to work our way to heaven. On the contrary, the Bible teaches that we can never work our way to perfection. Look at the Ten commandments. The ten rules were set our to show us that we are sinners and are imperfect. We can never keep all those commandments and there for can never achieve perfection. The Bible's teachings do not teach total depravity, but actually, the exact opposite. This is why God sent his Son to dies for us. When Jesus died, he died for our sins and for our transgressions, so that we can be saved without works, because again, that could never be achieved. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith- and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-9. not by works, so that no one can boast." When we believe in this, we realize that when God wants us to do good works, it is because we want to, not because we have to. The Bible does not teach Total Depravity, but actually the exact opposite.
Black People Evolved From Toads

I believe that black people evolved from toads, because they are ugly, loud, and stupid. Black people are really ugly. Many of them are overweight, or they are really saggy. https://media.makeameme.org... https://i.pinimg.com... https://cdn.britannica.com... Also, look at that link I pasted above. Click on it, and you will see a disgusting toad. That shows what black people are like.
Feminism is cancer

Cancer: An abnormal growth of cells which tend to proliferate in an uncontrolled way and, in some cases, to metastasize (spread). http://www.medicinenet.com... Feminism: The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. https://www.google.com... Is: Used as to describe equals. http://www.merriam-webster.com... By definitions, feminism does not equal cancer. Despite the horrendous consequences of these two disastrous things, feminism doesn't attack and kill the host's body, it destroys the host's brain cells as well as other people's not under the harshness of this plague. Furthermore, as my opponent admits, the difference between feminism and cancer is... Cancer can be cured, feminism can't and must be destroyed by means of fire.
Politically Incorrect Troll Debates Part 1: White vs. Black

So much peeps jus' are so race to white gais, jus' cos we be white. Those blak gais deprive us of ow human whites, we ain't eben allow to own peepal anymore, and den day critishize urse for ownin pets, AND wan us to help dere cuzinz in another dam cuntry. Days exshpect show much, and dun' give nutin' in return. Dum blaks, tinkin dat jus cos im wite, i got all da money and a grate edmacation. I'll tell yoo wat, one of dose tings are tru, and I'm not afray ta use if we dun' get our rite to own da peeps 'neemore. Fricken' blacks tink they good trolls, can't eben troll. #BlaksAreIncest #Hashtag #Slavery #OPisAfaggot #stopblackgirls2013
Politically Incorrect Troll Debates Part 1: White vs. Black

He man, im DJ-BJ an im blak! Ya se man, dere's sum steeriotyps abowt blak peepul owt dere... fer instins dey's sayin we blak peepul playings bascetboll all da time...but dat ain't troo becowse we's busy holding our pants up...and we's ain't got no free hands. but sumtyms at nite we's playin bascetboll in owr underwear wen nobodis can see us. also, my frend dey tell me about a minority housing unit wear blak peepul can go and git free food and sheltr an all we havta doto get dere ista rob a gas station or sometin. I tink's Is wanna go dere. See ya!
Politically Incorrect Troll Debates Part 1: White vs. Black

Yo man, wasup. I'm young, white and famous, I got $10 hanging outta my anus. I'm a total lad brah, and I talk like im retarded so dose' homies o' mine gimmie summa dat respect. I leik to impershonate black dudes cos dey got all respect. #RomneyFTW #BlacksGoDie #OPisAFaggot #SmokeWeedEveryDay ^^^^^^^^^^ White guy impersonation :P SOURCES: http://www.youtube.com...
Politically Incorrect Troll Debates Part 1: White vs. Black

Accept only if you're African-American, please, because I am the White guy in this new series of debates. It'll work like this: I, the white guy, will pretend to be black and portray black people in an insulting manner. When my opponent's turn comes, he (or she) will pretend to be white and portray white people in an insulting manner. Whoever trolls more successfully is the winner. HOWEVER: There is to be no profanity and/or racial slurs (for example: slave, ni**er), no sexually explicit material, and no violent threats. Trolling is permitted, as this is a troll debate. This is meant to be an entertaining debate with no real purpose. Unless one of us takes our trolling here too far, I ask voters to not vote on conduct. I ask voters not to vote on spelling, as one or both of us might intentionally misspell our words to assist in our trolling. First round is for acceptance. May the better troll win.
Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. You Can be FIT AND FAT at The Same Time.

Clearly, you don't care in the least about the rules. Did you even read my Round 1? You were not meant to post your argument in round 1, just acceptance. Not too tough to understand.One does not start a debate with questions about the debate. You should have asked me before accepting. We have a private messaging function here. USE IT! Also, sarcasm won't make you win this debate. In your first few paragraphs, you just repeated the same sentence in different ways so many times. Makes your argument long but doesn't impart a lot.The topic of the debate is - Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. Means - being fat can be directly linked to being unhealthy but not in every case.By saying that fat people can be fit, I naturally don't mean obese or overweight people with heart diseases or diabetes. Because then it would be hypocritical. I start with rebuttals because - 1) You have already destroyed the proper format.2) My main argument was going to involve power lifters. And now, for the debate to sound sensible, I will have to include my main argument in my rebuttal." proven to have short life expectancies, possibly due to being fat" How can you really defend your side when you are not even sure about it?"they also use short bursts of energy before the "athlete" is required to rest" Yes, power lifters are meant to use short bursts of high energy. That's how they lift heavy weights. They wouldn't be able to lift such heavy weights with long bursts of comparatively lower energy. Power lifters get fat because while training, they don't care about getting showy abs and stuff, they care about getting maximum strength. Their strength would actually reduce if they didn't have fat. Also, the fat acts as a cushion for them while lifting. If one gains cool biceps and abs, (muscles generally) over a short period of time, without also gaining fat, that's steroid usage.You say that chubby people have trouble doing exercise. Lets take your own examples, Sumo wrestlers and power lifters. You even know how intense their workouts are? Real intense, I can tell you.Comparing humans with lions for a debate where I say being fat isn't always directly linked to being unhealthy. This argument you made would have been applicable had I said that being fat is never directly linked with being unhealthy. You should really read the rules, man.
Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. You Can be FIT AND FAT at The Same Time.

My position on this debate is PRO, i. e. One can be fat and fit at the same time. Opponent's position should be CON, i. e. One cannot be fat and fit at the same time. Round 1 is acceptance. It would be much appreciated if one asks for my permission before one accepts this debate. Round 2 is main arguments. Round 3 is rebuttals. Round 4 is further arguments. Round 5 is conclusions. No new arguments to be made in this round. Rules - 1) Please be respectful.2) Cite all sources at the end of the debate, i. e. after conclusions in round five.3) Use proper spelling and grammar; Make clear and easy to understand arguments.4) No straw man (Misinterpretation of opponent's arguments)5) Follow the debate's proper format. 6) No troll debating.7) Focus on explaining your opinion and don't copy everything from various sites. Use your own brain and cite your own opinions. Don't bash the opponent's opinions as untrue. This is a debate.
Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. You Can be FIT AND FAT at The Same Time.

Seeing as I made an argument in round 1 I will not post an argument in this round to make it fair. It has been a good debate. Health risks linked with being fat- https://www.niddk.nih.gov... Obesity rate in America- https://www.google.co.uk... Fat girl problems- http://www.essence.com...
Manga Vs Comic

Most manga don't have colour other than black, white, and some shades of grey. This can lead to some confusions. For example, if you're reading a manga, it'd be nice to at least be able to correctly imagine it in your mind. It's like watching a black and white version of Charlie in the Chocolate Factory to "use more imagination" All you're doing is limiting your ability to correctly invision the film in your mind. Comics have less pages, which allows them to be cheaper, and for people to not have to wait as long to receive them. This also allows them to be smaller, which means you can fit more onto a shelf if you are collecting them.
Free-will is a more irrational belief than young Earth Creationism

I accept.YEC- the religious belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago, as described in the Biblical story of Genesis.Free Will- the ability to exercise conscious control over one's own actions In order to negate the resolution, I only have to show that belief in free will is more rational than belief in YEC.
Free-will is a more irrational belief than young Earth Creationism

The atheist-controlled or anti-religious media has come out to attack Creationism, but not free-will believers even though based on modern science free-will is much more of an irrational belief than denying evolution or the arguments young Earth Creationists use. The reason why most people don't know this is because the media and society hasn't come out to attack free-will believers like how they've attacked Creationists. Atheists haven't made documentaries or web sites and stuff about it because they don't really care about evidence, science, or proof.
Peter Capaldi is a brilliant doctor

You have contradicted yourself. You begin by saying: " Capaldi's doctor is supposed to be old and grumpy " You then say: " they do add funny moments " This makes no sense. If they want him to be old and grumpy then why would they add funny scenes and lines for him? Could you also provide citations for this particular claim since it doesn't not help your side in any way without proof. You have dropped my walk comparison argument which still bares equal weight.
Peter Capaldi is a brilliant doctor

Capaldi's doctor is supposed to be old and grumpy that is why he was chosen, they felt the eleventh doctor was the optimist and as like any other regeneration he brings a new feel to the doctor. they do add funny moments which i believe was very successful. Matt smith was supposed to be the doctor who was soft on the outside and dark on the inside, which is what changes in 12. the doctor now acts like a damaged man who cares for nobody but himself when really all he wants is a hug.
Peter Capaldi is a brilliant doctor

Peter Capaldi is a terrible doctor. He acts as if he has depression[1]. There are no moments of happiness, only sadness or (supposed) fear. He distorts the role of the doctor from being a serious but humorous character into a serious character who is mostly serious but occasionally attempts to be funny but fails [1]. He walk has been compared to the walk of Mr.Bean (which is intentionally stupidly done [1][2].[1]https://www.facebook.com...[2]https://uk.pinterest.com...;
Drug Legalization

I argue that drug prohibition has not lead to decreased levels of consumption(. http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov...). In fact data shows that overall drug use has only increased over the years. Making drugs illegal has not brought down levels of use and has created a black market for drug-users. Now people have to interact with drug cartels to get their fix. This has lead to increased violence as discrepencies cannot be settled legally but people are left to their own to settle their problems. Legalizing drugs means that the government can not only bring in revenue from an untapped industry but can regulate it to see that people are not getting their pot laced. Also, legalizing drugs means that addicts do not necessarily have to commit crime to feed their habit but can seek help without the fear of prosecution. I argue that taking drugs is the same thing as drinking alcohol. It is up to the individual to use them in a responsible manner and the government has no right to tell a person what they can or cannot put into their own bodies.
Drug Legalization

I will take the pro position for the legalization of all drugs. Con will take the argument against the legalization of any and all drugs. Round 1: Acceptance, Definitions Round 2: Opening arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing arguments, Voters Definitions: Drug: A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Legalization: to make lawful or legal http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Riemann's Hypothesis can solve why we have a reality and an imagination.

Maybe you are lost and if you get saved you will know you can't hide your imagination from God who gave it to you. Can you imagine burning in Hell forever? God loves you and wants you to get saved. He paid for your evil words and thoughts and deeds Himself becaue the only way you can pay is to burn in Hell forever and God loves you, He does not want you to go your own way away from Him into the fire of Hell. If you finalize your death in your sin and evil imaginations thinkng God has no right to leave you in the fire of Hell, you will be proven wrong. The fire of Hell is not worth the pleasures of sin. The pleasure of knowing your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven is much better than the pleasures of sin which fills you with evil thoughts, words, and actions. Jesus is risen from the dead and He is Lord. The Creator became the Saviour and if you reject Him, you will be judged by Him and yoru death will be on your own head and you will be rejected by the Saviour the same as you rejected Him in preference for the temporary pleasure of your sin and you will be cast away forever into the fire of Hell. Can you imagine that reality, or must you be in it before you can imagine it?
Riemann's Hypothesis can solve why we have a reality and an imagination.

Are you an inferior simulation? Does lightning strikes mean that god just has bad aim? Is natural disasters just all of our anger being projected into the outside matrix? Does it matter what pill we take if it's all just a matrix? Do your loved one event exist? Do they really love you? Are they programmed to love you? Do they only love their perception of you? Do they even love you? Are we more or less real than Casper the friendly ghost? Is your brain just a hologram? Is your body just a hologram? If people have sex, is it all just a holographic event? Is sex real? If it's not real, then why not do it if everything is just a giant make-believe vat that makes everything seem real? Why not just spread viruses everywhere and take down the matrix with us?
Riemann's Hypothesis can solve why we have a reality and an imagination.

Are you serious? Are you sure you have a reality? Is your imagination real? Does it matter what you think? Are you having evil thoughts, or is it only your imagaination? Are you really thinking, or is it only your imagination?Did you solve the mystery or is your imagination fooling you? Are you there? Are you sure you are in reality and not only in your imagination? Are you sure your imagination is not reality?
Riemann's Hypothesis can solve why we have a reality and an imagination.

Rules: There is no "Acceptance Round". This is a philosophical debate, not a political debate, therefore in order to argue properly, you can only use analysis and a consensus; you cannot look for an answer, or make claims. Who ever can show best that they understand Riemann's Hypothesis, let alone solve it, will win this debate. Riemann's Hypothesis can be searched by you from any source, but you must research "Riemann's Hypothesis". First Analysis: "Considering that the Riemann's hypothesis dealt with numbers which created an infinite sequence, that was then curious towards why the numbers contained half values, the reason behind it was then posited to be the the imaginary units within a real value, which resonates in my brain for I am aware that 2+2=5 based on Einstein's theory or that the entire Universe is based on the Fibonacci Sequence and the Golden Ratio, which is to say that knowing that math is based on the entire Universe, having knowledge of how the Universe seems to be "skipping" numbers, is 'enough information to suppose that the Riemann's hypothesis is truly relational to how the Universe creates both, genuine matter and imaginary matter, hence why the human mind can create both real things and false things' - math is based on the human mind, which is why our emotions are based on Newton's Law. I may not be able to read the thousands of names and labels they gave this formula - I am able to tell what this formula is relating to by its pinnacle of interest. Therefore the Riemann's hypothesis is directing us towards a truth that explains why the Universe manages to create false units and true units within the space and matter which are based on the previously aforementioned designs. If anyone wants to solve this mystery, I suggest them to combine the knowledge of everything I mentioned, as this formula reflects on Einstein's theory, the behavior of the imagination and the reality we live in, the Golden Ratio, the Fibonacci Sequence and possibly other things I have yet to read on. " P.S There's even a show that was based off of this called, "Everybody Loves Riemann". Or maybe I'm resorting to the Riemann's formula by saying so?
Use of God Bless America in our Government

Although I agree with Hypnodoc in the comments section, I don't really feel like debating semantics (is that the word?) on this one. Just watch out next time. I thank troubleshootn for starting this debate. I ask that the voters vote based on the arguments presented and not on personal opinion. With that said, I negate: "[the] Use of God Bless America in our Government." CONTENTION I: America =/= Christian Nation. This nation was not founded on Christianity, and it should not act like it is. The very FIRST amendment to our constitution says that we have the freedom of religion. No where in the constitution does it even mention the words 'Christian,' 'Jesus,' or even 'God.' America is a MELTING POT where everyone can get a fresh start. America is not showing its principles when it says 'In God We Trust.' It belongs nowhere in our government. CONTENTION II: Only America? Yes, God Bless America. God, don't bless other countries? That doesn't make any sense. God said nothing about America in the Bible, nor do any people claim that he did. We are currently fighting a war in Iraq and against terrorism. Should we really feel that God should take a side? No. God [supposedly] blesses all people, not just those in America. In fact, Jesus and God would actually feel that war must end. He said, 'respond to evil with good,' which I have yet to see in America. He would condone all of us for becoming too power-hungry. There is no way he'd support what America was doing. CONTENTION III: Oaths. It is ridiculous to believe that swearing under God is useful. First, many people that go to court are not even Christian. So, why must they swear on a Bible? I'll swear on a book about the flying spaghetti monster, because it's completely ridiculous. There is no difference with the Bible. If they don't believe it, it's just pieces of paper. Second, it doesn't even have any effect. Numerous, probably hundreds of thousands, people lie under oath every year. It obviously has no effect on them. Therefore, there is really no reason to keep the oath, but there is still reason to take it out. I shall expand on my arguments later. I now patiently await my opponent's response.