BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Angel of the LORD is evil

God never applied double standard on his creation. Murder is absolutely immoral. Like I state angels are not capable of killing because of there are not humans. Only humans are capable of committing murder to fellow humans. However, God did punish some people for those who disobeyed Him or to those who don't follow His Laws and it is the same thing how we human punish our violators. It is also for the Better good of mankind.
The Angel of the LORD is evil

Don't you get it? The concept of 'Angels' is a shell game. In ancient times when a catastrophe struck the ancient Greeks thought it was the anger of the gods. And the ancient Israelites thought that when catastrophe struck it was the wrath of the Angel of the LORD. So Con- When New Orleans was hit by the latest hurricane who was angry? 1) The Greek gods 2) The Angel of the LORD Well? It was neither. The Greek gods are not real. And the Angel of the LORD is not real. These are gimmicks to explain what seemed to the ancient mind to be unexplainable. So here is the explanation- The Greek gods and the Angel of the LORD are part of mankind. They are part of our memory now. But in ancient times they were part of our imagination. Either way they are part of mankind. If you will examine closely the history of education you will see that Christian higher education focused on ancient Greek philosophy/religion and ancient Israeli philosophy/religion. Christianity came to modern man just as much through ancient Greece as it did through ancient Israel. The Old Testament is mythology just as much as the Greek. It is all mythology that explains the way the ancient human mind worked. In ancient Greece it came out one way. In ancient Israel it came out another. Both branches of ancient mythology has been repudiated. God does not send the Angel of the LORD into battle. And the Greek gods don't get angry. It is because the Angel of the LORD never was and never will be. And the Greek gods never were and never will be. So there can be only one purpose for the concept of 'Angel of the LORD'. It is to get us to accept a double standard. The double standard is- Some people are above the LAW. While other people are not above the LAW. This is the most important concept in all of history.
The Angel of the LORD is evil

Don't you get it. Angels are not Humans. Right? If you answer Yes, then we are on the same boat. If No then, i define Angel for you. Angel is a supernatural being or spirit found in various religions and mythologies. In Zoroastrianism and Abrahamic religions they are often depicted as benevolent celestial beings who act as intermediaries between Heaven and Earth, or as guardian spirits or a guiding influence.[1] Other roles of angels include protecting and guiding human beings, and carrying out God's tasks.[2] The term "angel" has also been expanded to various notions of spirits found in many other religious traditions. [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel] Basically, Angels are not bound to the law of nature because they are not part of nature. So, angels are incapable of killing humans. Unless Angels become humans, then they are bound to the Laws of Nature and Moses. I hope you understand that God and the angels who follow God's will are not evil.
The Angel of the LORD is evil

With all due respect Con might be missing the importance of the double standard when it is taken from the abstract into the reality that we must live in. For instance- The term "angel" has been expanded to include the definition: Messenger of God With this definition in place if we allow the angels to be free from the LAW then it is easy for an entity such as the Roman Catholic Church to justify the actions of the California Roman Priests when they did what they did to the young people. The Roman Priests as messengers of God are above the law of California. With the above in mind what is the defense to "Messengers of God Gone Wild"? If the Angels are not bound by the law then the common people are not bound by the common law to respect the rights of the Angels. In other words the law of the fang and club is enforce- An eye for an eye. And a tooth for a tooth. Nothing in the LAW is there to protect the angels from us.
The Angel of the LORD is evil

Now, it's clear to you that the Law of Moses is not intended to the angels. However, it doesn't mean that angels don't have their own law to follow. basically, we don't have any record about this so it's hard to argue about the matter. But yet, the bible tells us about angels and their jobs in human world. Like Gabriel, everyone knows him as messenger of God. the angel of death is either Samael or Michael. Samael was not actually mention in Jerusalem Bible[the bible that I read since then]. if Jerusalem bible does mention Samael, kindly tell me the verses. Let's go to the point. Humans know that they are going die someday. that's basically part of nature and a fundamental truth. So basically humans are aware death but they don't know when or where. And God indeed manifested this truth. However, this is not killing because we humans know about this truth. Humans are aware about the law of nature. But then, some humans break the law of nature. This is done through homicide and suicide[murder]. If God is really evil, then HE would bring human soul to nothingness. But because of His love to Humans, He let us dwell in his home. Leaving with the Creator, humans has nothing to look for because that's the ultimate happiness.
The Angel of the LORD is evil

Con brings up a very important argument in Number One. It is age old, timeless and persistent. Con's first argument must be taken seriously because of the history behind it. Con's argument is a simple one. Here is the set up- Either The Angel of the LORD is evil or Jehovah of the Old Testament is in fact duplicitous And Con says that Jehovah of the OT is duplicitous because He has a double standard. Here are the two standards- 1 It is against the law for some to take innocent life but 2 It is not against the law for some others to take innocent life It all depends on the ranking of the individual, (plus maybe some other stipulations). Here is a side argument: God is a game warden who sells licenses to hunt human beings in season. The rules are simple: 1 The human(s) must be in season 2 The licenses are transferable Therefore the Archangel can buy a license to personally hunt down and kill innocent humans like animals. Or Michael the Archangel can transfer title of the license to another person or persons in the event that Michael the Archangel is too busy to hunt down humans like animals. The temptation being that the person or persons who take title of the license from Michael the Archangel may get drunk on the blood of the innocent and over step the quota. In this even Michael the Archangel is granted another license to take the blood of the perpetrator.
The Angel of the LORD is evil

The Bible is full of stories about good and evil. But what do we really know about it? Good and Evil are the two sides of the same coin. The LAW of Moses says and I quote- "Thou shalt not kill." But the Angels are guilty of killing. And more than this, the Angels are guilty of killing innocent life. This debate is about justification for killing innocent life. Shall the Angels of Heaven be justified for killing innocent life. If the Angels of Heaven are to be justified then here is Con's chance to show us how. As always my first choice resource in any debate is the Bible. But Con is welcome to use any means, and Good Luck Con.
Students should be allowed to do their homework on school recess if they want to

I will be debating that the average elementary school student should not normally be allowed to do his/her classwork and/or homeword during recess. This means extenuating circumstances are exempt, such as if the child has two broken legs and couldn't do anything else during recess anyway. I understand the definition of recess used in this debate is "a pause from doing something" so it may not necessarily be only the hour-long break used for physical activity, but I'll let my opponent clarify that at the beginning of his next round.
Students should be allowed to do their homework on school recess if they want to

Student : One who is enrolled or attends classes at a school, college, or university.[1] In this case, elementary school. Homework : Work, such as schoolwork or piecework, that is done at home.[2] But in this case, we will be arguing whether school should allow homework to be done at school or not. Recess :A pause from doing something.[3] In this case, at the elementary school. Rules : 1. No semantics 2. No trolling 3. No spamming 4. No profanities The first round is for acceptance only. The debate will start in the second round. If you think that students shouldn't be allowed to do their homework on school recess, feel free to join. 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
A book is not worth reading unless someone wants to ban it

PRO has stated that if someone wants to ban a book, it is because the book is popular, can you give an example? If we look at least the top ten best-selling/ most popular books of 2014, so far, we can see that none of them have had a controversial means behind them, proving that people don't need a book to be controversial for it to be interesting. YOU don't decide on what types of books everyone in the world reads. The top ten list includes children's books such as 'frozen' (no.2) and Dr suess' 'oh the places you'll go'(no.6); and teen books such as 'the fault in our stars' (no. 3), 'Divergent' series (no. 4,9,12,15). PRO is for the argument in saying that 'books are not worth reading unless someone wants to ban it.' No one is ever going to ban an English textbook, so is an English text book or any other example of a text book not worth reading? If children today don't grow up learning from a text book then they will become very illiterate. Lack of literacy is something that should not be increasing especially if something as simple as reading a book can help. Books are the backbone of the word, broad topic I know. But, for instance take the book 'Principia Mathematica' written by Issac Newton. The book explained his theories on physics. without his formulas we would not be where we are today in terms knowledge of the science behind power, gravity and many more. Therefore if we were to only read popular books that are so-called 'controversial' then we would just head down hill in terms of learning and being able to shape our world in the future.
A book is not worth reading unless someone wants to ban it

I thank CON for positing an interesting resolution. I'll keep my opening brief.This resolution is the same as "If someone wants to ban a book, then it is worth reading." (http://lsatblog.blogspot.com...)I present this syllogism as my argument:p1 - If a book is popular, then it is worth reading.p2 - If someone wants to ban a book, it is because the book is popular.c - Therefore, if someone wants to ban a book, it is worth reading.Explanationp1 - Any book that is popular is going to become part of a societal zeitgeist, and becomes worth reading just to become more familiar with societal norms.p2 - Books that are not popular won't even be known to people, so it won't be subject to a ban. The flip side to this popularity is that it gets exposed to a wide audience with diverging opinions. Of these varying opinions, someone, somwhere will invariably take issue with the book and seek a ban on it.c - The conclusion naturally follows once the link between banning, popularity, and worth is established.---My opponent's case, that "Reading is a means of escape and relaxation," is not mutually exclusive from my argument. There are popular books meant for escape and relaxation, and these books will invariably find someone, somewhere, looking to ban them. An example would be New Age books which generally deal with relaxation techniques; these are banned by some Christian denominations as quasi-religious and incongruous with Christian beliefs.If the book is not worth reading, it is not popular, and thus won't be subject to a ban.
911 inside job

Here are some other damning peices of evidence. -Molten steel flowing from the south tower Not aluminium at 440c as NIST claims, anyone is free to experiment with some aluminium cans some gasoline and some wallboard(gypsum) at home to see if they can get a yellow colour of molten flowing aluminium by mixing in organic materials.-FEMA steel beam 'melted like swiss cheese'No source of the sulphur has been identified and it remains a mystery as to why the steel melted straight through and formed a eutectic mixture of Liquid Iron and Sulphur. The product of a Thermate reaction however is a eutectic mixture of liquid iron and sulphur.Sulphur cannot be from gypsum again as its bond to sulphate in the CaS04. - Nano thermite found in wtc dustHighly energetic material found in wtc dust when ignited iron spheres are formed in an exothermic reaction that match the iron spheres in the wtc dust. -Im no pilot but many highly skilled pilots cannot replicate any of the 3 planes flight paths on 911 in a flight simulator carried out by the unskilled hijackers who could barely fly a cesna-Pilotsfor911truth.org
Rap Battle

I live up to the hype and kill everything of me this battle is like putting the cast of lost vs glee I'll leave you blind from the heat, wont be able to see First to the face followed kick and then a knee I'l go to my mid-evil roots and slay you like you were a dragon Stick a hard hat on you and put in you the short bus on a red wagon Your like a girl that i need to break up with, you never stop naggin I got my halo on, so I'm going to pretend i'm an angel in church and start tbagin [1][2] This isn't even a battle, I'm just doing this for fun Lay you on the ground and introduce you to my gun her names rose and shes a whore that likes to cum So when I put my finger to her she sprays and does it on re-runs All I need is 16 bars to beat you, it's like a jail cell In the world of gaming, I'm a razer and your a dell Anything you throw off me bounces of my exterior shell So when I take your soul from you, get ready for a long try to hell [1] http://halo.wikia.com... [2] http://rvb.wikia.com...
Rap Battle

You are about to witness these extreme rhyme Your mother should manage your screen time Cause, guess what? A computer ain't a girlfriend. I bet reading my lines is torment, You can't talk, walk, or think Jerking of in a sock, now it stinks, Get a lawn mower, turn that thing on, Jump on it, scream, and others will sing along, I'm going to say this bluntly Earn your own money, Stop being a commie, Stop asking cash from mommy, And don't use welfare to rob me And as I write these Lyrics where it is prolific My rhymes so sick, they make you vomit, so atomic they drop bombs like hiroshima And Kicking your a** gives me euphoria.
Rap Battle

They compare me to thor with his iron hammer Catching criminals and throwing em in the slammer I'm like the hulk because I don't have any manners Hell now that I think about it call me bruce banner So what's poppin n00bie, i'm bout to burn you at the steak You want to step with me, best get ready to ache I'm like a disaster the way I'll make you entire world shake and quake The difference between you and I is that I'm real and your a fake I'm more lethal than injection is the south Bust down your doors and run in your house Run inside and put a gun in your mouth Just like rain, blood will start do douse This is a visit with a doctor and your about to get prescribed a dose of pain When you battle with me, once it's over you will never be the same I'd murder my own brother for fun, you may as well call me cain I'm so demented i may be the reincarnation of mark twain
Rap Battle

I'm here to win, Mikal, might as well stay quiet. I'm what's in, going to start a riot. Your from florida, I'm from New York, Where rap started, muslim on pork, I'm a rebel, I say what I want to say, as well as breaking a man's spirit, go away. I keep my rhymes simple enough so the crowds feel them, but complex enough so you know how real I am. You claim your conservative, ironic You voted obama, idiotic. You like guns but you can't shoot one. Why can't you realize that life is fun, You are so left wing to me, Libertarians, we want liberty. First thing you will say is "muh roads" We can pay them ourselves, mind blown, And why do you hate gays? Is it because they get more girls everyday? Don't even get me started on your race, but I don't care, so let's cut to the chase, I will murder you without a trace, Don't even bring up the 261 wins you got, It's a shame that you spend so much time online, Your lucky that I accepted, so don't push it, And I know I'm new to the site, I still can put up the toughest fight,
about coeducation

Case Against Co-Education Pro claims that: "in co education students are confident they dont shy with opposite sex because who people study in same sex school oor colledge they have diffelculties in in their next levelin job etc."Regardless of co-education or not, interaction among the genders is an inevitable part of life. This means that even if one does not attend a co-educational school, they will intermingle with both males and females outside a school setting. For example, one can learn how to be confident with the opposite sex through extra curricular activities and other forms of social interaction after school. If that individual is brought up in a household with members of the opposite sex, which is likely, they can also learn how to develop communication with them in that environment. Pro has presented no evidence to suggest that same-sex encourages shyness and that it leads to difficulties in the future careers of pupils. In fact, examples would show that many people who attend same-sex schools receive a higher quality of education, later attend universities and secure considerably lucrative jobs.[1.] http://www.singlesexschools.org...[2.] http://www.ascd.org...
Pokemon Is better than Yu-Gi-Oh

But seriously, good luck to you, CP! Contention 1: SO MANY OPTIONS: For Yu-Gi-Oh, the main thing is the card game, a manga series, and I guess the show. But Pokemon has a huge gaming franchise, a very long running TV show (since 1997), a card game (while not as popular as the yugioh card game, it's still popular), a manga series and large amounts of merchandise sold throughout the world. A lot of people don't have many video game systems or can't afford some of them. Pokemon is on practically every video game system and allows hours of entertainment! SO MANY OPTIONS! Contention 2: IT HAS MANY HOURS OF ENTERTAINMENT:For Yu-Gi-Oh, the main thing is the card game. You can spend alot of time on making decks and stuff, but how long before making decks and dueling people does it get old? Your just dueling, and there's not much else. The Pokemon games allow hours and hours of entertainment. It has a storyline, bosses, minigames, and lots of goals to try and acheive. Yu-Gi-Oh is a card game! There is no storyline, no minigames, and I guess you could count bosses if you battle tough dulers, but that's about it. Contention 3: IT'S CHEAPER:Average Pokemon game: $20-$40 depending on the game and store you go to. Cost to get a storebought Yu-Gi-Oh deck: $10-$20. While it seems like Yu-Gi-Oh would win this one, the Yu-Gi-Oh decks are labeled "starter deck", as in just to start you off. It's like weed, kind of. A "gateway deck", if you will. If you want really good cards and form a perfect deck that is personilzed with the cards you want, we're talking about hundreds of dollars! These things are expensive! Blue Eyes White Dragon, arguably the most popular card for Yu-Gi-Oh, costs $5-$15 average on ebay [1]. A Yu-Gi-Oh deck has to have a minimum of 40 cards. So, if you get the minimum amount of 40 cards, and then every card you buy is as cheap as $5 (which it probably isn't), we're talking about a $200 dollar deck. That is all! I just outlined the basics and I will try to go into more detail later. Good luck, CP! [1] . http://www.ebay.com...
Pokemon Is better than Yu-Gi-Oh

Hello, and welcome to a very nerd-friendly debate. In this debate, I will be saying how pokemon is far superior to that of Yu-Gi-Oh. When I was younger, I was absolutely obsessed with Pokemon, and still to this day, I can tell you a lot about any pokemon from versions 1 through 3. I still know a bit about gen 4 and a little bit about gen 5. So challenge me! Bring it on!Rules:1. You may not focus primarily on generation 5.2. You may not say that "gen 1 and 2 were the only good ones".3. You can't argue against generation six as not much is known about it yet. I think that's it, and please only accept if your an experienced debater. No debaters with only 1 debate under their belt.Pokemon for the win!
If you do not believe in god (atheist/agnostic), you are automatically a Nihilist.

Welcome people of DDO!In this round I am supposed to cross-examine PRO's points. However he has not made any, since he forfeited.Therefore I'll provide some definition and make clear for my opponent what he has to establish to win.Atheist - Some who lacks the belief in any god/ believes there are no gods.Agnostic - Someone who does not know/ asserts we cannot know whether there are any gods.It is important to note that there is not just one kind of nihilism, but I suppose PRO means moral nihilism, existential nihilism or both.Moral Nihilism - The position that there is nothing in virtue of which moral propositions could be true.Existential Nihilism - The position that there is no meaning to life.I am an atheist of the latter kind and I believe both that there is meaning to life and that some acts are objectively right /wrong.To win, my opponent needs to show how exactly1) I don't actually believe these things2) being an atheist made me not believe them3) this applies to all other atheists as wellI wish him good luck with that.
Resolved: "Digimon: Digital Monsters" is an Outdated Show

"In advance I'd like to clarify that I understand Digimon: Digital Monsters to be referring to the franchise, and not only the first season of the show." I would like to sincerely apologize for not being more clear in round one. "Digimon: Digital Monsters" I only meant to refer to its first season. Now I will present my topics. 1. The antagonist digimon and their names are usually difficult to be scared of. Is it easy to be scared of a silly, stuck-up, adult man-sized monkey named Etemon who is clearly a mirror of Elvis Presley, or a something as basic and unoriginal as a talking bat with a round body? Why are so many fictional villains, super or not, such as Venom from Spider-Man comics or Scab, the leader of a gang called The Jokerz from Batman Beyond scary? Because it not only does it make it seem more imperative that their scheme fails, but also makes it easier to believe that they are the villains. This is the same reason why they have such scary names., and as I stated in round 2, the digimons' names have no effect at all and become cliche if you are older than ten years old. 2. Every episode, it's the same thing. Our "heroes" just got past one obstacle, now they're facing another one, it's not long before they meet a new digimon or discover something, they're discussing how to handle whatever problem they are facing, this new digimon is most likely one of the antagonists, and since the fights start so close to the end of the episode, they cannot be extended long enough, plus they have no variety. The digimon use a few attacks per fight and do a bit of the basic tussling because that's all they know how to do, rendering the fights somewhat predictable, and the good guys usually win.