BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creation vs religion

A belief in God is a personal choice to accept a fact without requiring evidence. Faith, in other words. One may choose to believe in nothing, God, giant blue monkey, or various other alternatives. Since beliefs are taken on faith, and do not require evidence or even rationale, they are fundamentally impossible to disprove. But, one can be persuaded to accept or reject a belief, and argumentation is a means of persuasion. Your claim that "if nobody believed in God then you wouldn't either" is a bit of a tautology, but I think your point is that the only reason anyone believes in God is because they are told about Him. For a moment assume there is a God who wants you to love Him. If He wanted you to love Him, there would have to be a means for you to know Him, and for you to know Him, you would have to get the idea from somewhere, either from other believers, or one of their various canonical manuals. If He left evidence, who but the most ignorant and illogical wouldn't believe in Him. He wanted it to be a choice that everyone can make, something to be accepted on Faith, not evidence.
Creation vs religion

If I told you I had a giant blue monkey in my pocket would you believe me? No If I wrote a book claiming I had a giant blue monkey in my pocket and told you some fanatic story's about how it got there would you believe me? No If a billion other people who had only revived the same information as you, told you I had a giant blue monkey in my pocket, would you believe them? Obviously you would. The whole idea of "god" and the bible is ludicrous, if the bible claims that god is in all of us then how come there is actual hard evidence that shows primitive tribes who never new about a god would kill weaker members of the tribes or steal from other basically commit every crime in the bible? It was there nature or instinct. I understand why there is religion it keeps everyone in check and creates a harmonious life, "in theory". To go to the extreme of actually believing a god created us and listens to us, and that there is a heaven that we will go to when we die and sinners will be turned away ill laughable, the beliefs of a child, like if you misbehave Santa won't bring you any presents. My point is, if none one els believed on god you wouldn't either You only believe because you can't think of any other explanation as to why/how we are here, well none that you like anyway. A
Creation vs religion

I can relate to people who take the entire Bible literally, because I used to be one of them. I held a particular interpretation of the Bible as self-evident for the majority of my life, and later I came to the realization that belief is a choice, and I chose to arrive at my own beliefs for the things that mater. I think extreme beliefs can be a dangerous thing, depending on what you've chosen to believe in. So I've chosen to consciously and deliberately select what I believe in. I kept what I accept as the "core" of my belief: that God created the universe, and He sent his only son Jesus to deliver a message of love and a way to know Him, He was tortured and executed at the hand of the Romans, and rose again to ascend to the throne of God where He awaits us, if we would choose to believe in Him. That's just about the only thing I believe. For everything else, I have a certain degree of confidence that depends on the supporting evidence. I have low confidence that the Fall of Man was the actual sequence of events that transpired, and much higher confidence that God created the universe 14 billion years ago and by His design we evolved (through a process that far predates humans that requires death as a fundamental mechanism) into beings with the capacity to love Him. I have low confidence that a man built an Ark and saved two of every species of animal from a great flood that deposited the geological layers in the sequence we observe today. I used to believe those things, and I extracted them from my unshakable belief system because they are ultimately irrelevant to how I should conduct myself and to the outcome of my immortal soul. I'm in awe of God's universe, and I think we can better understand Him by understanding His creation, and science currently represents our best understanding of His universe. I probably don't represent the best adversary for your debate, since I no longer represent the extreme position of taking a particular interpretation of the Bible in its entirety and accepting it as my belief system. I wish more Christians would focus on Jesus' greatest commandment, and spend less time spreading the message that "if you don't believe X you will burn for eternity". I know my childhood would have been happier if I wasn't thinking about eternal torment all the time!
Creation vs religion

Yes I agree with you that in a basic form religion is a great moral compass For harmonious living, and it is apparent that you are one of the more open minded religouse people, unlike my catholic school teacher where lol, I just don't understand the poeple who take the bible very literal with out exception, if god have us free will wouldn he want us to use it? Instead of following ever detail of the bible if he is real I'm shore he would want us to follow our own moral code not somebody else's, personally I believe when you die it's the end, but the choices we make with in our live will influence weather we die happy or not. Just so you no I'm not trying to disprove or change anyone's faith I just want to understand more about it. I think that when religion is taken to literally it can have a very tragic effect on less intelegent people or kids for instance Being told you will go to hell if you commite a sin and don't repent you will go to hell, it can have a major effect on people self esteem
God Does Not Exist

Rules God in the debate is defined as: "The perfect, transcendent mind that caused of all time and space" The burden of proof will be shared. I will be arguing that God does not exist, Pro will be arguing that God does exist. This means that simply undermining my arguments is not enough to win the debate, my opponent must also have positive arguments for God's existence. The first round is for acceptance only; no argument will be posted in the first round. Failure to abide by any of the rules will result in a full 7 point forfeit. Good luck.
A complete gun ban in the United States

An secondly, I would like to apologize for taking so long in the posting of this round of debate, I've had a very hectic weekend, but that besides the point. On to the debate! The con correctly stated that it would be a legal nightmare, and a lot of work to seize all of these guns off of the street, but as we are debating A complete gun ban in the United States, rather than the practicality of a complete ban, I may nullify this point and move. Yet, rather than do that, I will instead address this points for the sake of productive debate. What would make the most sense in the terms of massive gun seizures would be government approved gun collection checkpoints, where for a certain extent of time, people may turn in any now illegal firearm, and be pardoned of the crime. The next step would be after the collection, the national registry of gun owners could be pulled as they are in violation of federal law, thus allowing a legal way for law enforcement to address and seize any other illegal firearms. Now on to the next part, "It is said that 6% of murders are committed with legally acquired guns (12). 6%! That's tiny. Criminals acquire their guns by, straw purchasing, stealing, gun trafficking, black market etc. " Now according to a source cited and used by the con, most guns are illegally purchased through straw sales, or corrupt businesses. The con was also very quick to bring up how easily this law is circumvented through illegal trade, but would like to request the con to specifically address this following statement, and that is: "If we were to make illegal and seize a majority of firearms in the United states, which would lead to the elimination of straw sales and corrupt gun sales, how in fact would criminals acquire weapons effectively? " My answer, is simply that they wouldn't. By slashing the volume of firearms in the United States, and cracking down on the black market, we may in fact reach a point in which we will not see gun violence to the extent that we see it today. And finally, the last major point by the con side, "This brings me to my next contention, a gun ban would only result in a reagression of other weapons. Knifes already populate a significant amount of homicides (15). Despite criminals having easy access to guns, they could easily use a knife if they saw fit. " This may probably be true, but i ask you this, Have you ever heard of a mass stabbing? a knife Bank heist? The truth is that while we may find new ways to attack each other, we should not let that form keeping us from banning the especially dangerous ones. I wish the con the best of luck in their 3rd round, and I eagerly await their response. Source: . http://www.pbs.org...
A complete gun ban in the United States

Now, as the affirmation on this argument, i normally would be fighting the uphill battle against the current laws and precedents set by the courts of the United States of America. The Second amendment, is quite possibly the most controversial guaranteed privilege in the entirety of the Constitution. It's exact wording, is as follows,"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " However, as we are debating whether or not to ban guns, rather than the more common, whether or not banning guns is legal, I am freed of any arguments on the legal side, i therefore may shift this debate to philosophy and morals, rather than a debate centralized on judicial precedent, and legal wording. Now, what is a gun? A gun as defined by Webster's dictionary is: "a weapon that shoots bullets or shells. " Well, how do we define a weapon then? A weapon is defined as follows, "something (such as a gun, knife, club, or bomb) that is used for fighting or attacking someone or for defending yourself when someone is attacking you. " We suddenly can derive a very clear picture from a philosophical vantage point. A gun is either a weapon that we would use to attack someone, which is bad to do, or as a tool to defend ourselves. Now, any gun advocate or supporter would tell you the merits possessing a gun in a defensive situation, yet, the opposite appears to be true. A study conducted by the CDC found that with gun usage, simply possessing a firearm would increase the risk of death three-fold and the risk of accidental death, and or suicide by a tenfold increase. Any increase in death, is certainly not good and as guns seem to increase the chance of death of the actual owner, does gun ownership really keep responsible people safe? Furthermore, if hypothetically we could were to remove every gun off of the street, we would not need a gun to defend ourselves with. And this would drastically drop the risk of homicide as a disturbing study revealed that one in ten people with sever anger issue has access to a gun, and up to 20% of those people, are armed at all times. To conclude, we simply do not live in a society that requires everyone on the street to be armed, and the truth is, as long as people have access to dangerous weapons such as guns, no-one is safe. Armed or not. Thank-you con for the opportunity to debate, and i wish good luck in the next round Sources: . http://www.pri.org... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://wellness.gwinnettmedicalcenter.org...
A complete gun ban in the United States

PrologueI will be playing devil's advocate. I am fairly neutral with this subject, however, I want to try and improve my debating skills.FormatR1: Arguments from ProR2: Argument from Con and refutations from ProR3: Arguments and rebuttalsR4: Pro waives, Con refutesAcceptanceAsk politely in the comments if you want to accept. This should be impossible to accept.VotingVoters must provide justification for their vote, otherwise the vote can be removed.RulesStandard debating rules apply.Good luck to my opponent...
David Hasslehoff would agree with Imabench

Imabench is looking for freedom in his quest, and this debate is about whether or not David Hasslehoff agrees with him based off of the lyrics in the song the (I've been looking for freedom. [1] ) that was famously sung by david near the berlin wall. Please forgive me if I have any minor spelling errors I look forward to a good debate, not only am I breaking my debate boycott (I want DDO to have some form of priority to making 2v2 debates a possibility, without awful workarounds that don't credit victory to the team.) but this will also be my final debate, first round is just for acceptance. Source: [1] https://m.youtube.com...
The new Pantene ad feminist ad "not sorry" is a terrible ad and a bad influence of feminism.

Back with more facts, there were several research revealed why women tend to apologize more. Researchers analyzed the number of self-reported offences and apologies made by 66 subjects over a 12-day period. And yes, they confirmed women consistently apologized more times than men did. But they also found that women report more offenses than men. So the issue is not female over-apology. Instead, there may be a gender difference in what is considered offensive in the first place. The research appears in the September online issue of Psychological Science. In a second study three separate offences were rated by 120 subjects on a seven-point scale. And women consistently rated the three offences as more severe than men did. Turns out that men are just as likely as women to apologize for a given offense. But their threshold for thinking they have committed an offense is higher. It is wrong to manipulate the fact of apologizing more makes female weaker. source . http://pss.sagepub.com...
The new Pantene ad feminist ad "not sorry" is a terrible ad and a bad influence of feminism.

My argument is that this campaign could effect feminism and society negatively. It is common to say sorry when you interrupt when someone is talking. Same for the woman entering the office. Pantene is trying to say that those women's personalities are subservient. But really they're just being considerate. I know the Rocky's speech very well and I understand sometimes you can't be sorry in life and have to stand up. But we are not talking about life and death, but basic daily manners. Such as saying good morning to your neighbors and such. I admire people who is strong and would stand up for themselves, but it doesn't mean that is an excuse not to apologize at times when necessary. It worries me that highschool or middle school females use this campaign as an excuse to forbid "sorry" in their sentences. It is not only senseless but gives a bad influence on our idea of basic manner.
The new Pantene ad feminist ad "not sorry" is a terrible ad and a bad influence of feminism.

I don't see why the ad is terrible since the target audience is women who will now associate the product with confidence (this is in fact brilliant advertising and I applaud the ad's directors for their ingenuity).Aside from that, the concept that women apologize too much and should do it less often is not really detrimental.In all the scenarios, it is very common for women to speak that way then they shouldn't be sorry for being selfish in a way that men do all the time without apologizing. Interrupting someone, using tour authority over them or handing your baby to them to carry is not something you should feel the need to apologize for and yet it's pretty common for women to that (in fact seeing women talk in the latter way in the video was very refreshing and shocking for me to see).I am going to put on a great Rocky speech for you to understand that you can't go around in life feeling sorry for yourself and everyone else and need to suck it up if you're going to find happiness and succeed.http://www.youtube.com...
Should Hunting be legal

Yes hunting certain animals like wolves, tigers, and lions is bad but you don't have to worry about elk, deer,and moose going extinct. There are so many of them that if we didn't control the population of them they would start running out into highways way to constantly, and when car hits moose the moose usually survives but the car is totaled. For this reason I think hunting certain animals is good and helps keep a steady balance in the population of large game. Also trail heads and other outdoor parks get most there money from hunters buying there hunting supplies. Now poaching is wrong yes and killing an animal and not using its meat is wrong, but you have to keep in mind some people depend on hunting and if certain animals get to over populated then highway and back roads would be very dangerous places. Thanks for reading this.
Should Hunting be legal

Hunting is an important part of my life. The reason I say this is because I live on a ranch pretty deep in the Rocky Mountains where we raise cattle, chickens, horses, and grow crops. We can't just go to a grocery store every week because the nearest store is a two hour drive away, don't get me wrong we go to the grocery store every once and a while but we mostly obtain our food from our crops, some times our cattle, our chickens, and hunting. Now you may be thinking why we would have to hunt if we have cattle, crops, and chickens, we hunt because the cattle are our main source of income, same with our crops we eat them but we can't live off of vegetables, so we hunt for a lot of our meat. Also the people who think that deer, elk, moose, and other mountain game will become endangered because of hunters don't have to worry because on our ranch you can't even go two miles without running into some sort of elk, deer, and sometimes moose (moose are really dangerous by the way). Also elk, deer, and moose eat our crops and hay we grow for our cattle which doesn't help anyone but the moose, elk or deer. So bear in mind all you anti hunters that some people need to hunt to survive, although I am against poaching and hunting endangered animals, but that's a completely different topic. so leave a comment and a vote and give me a good challenge. Thanks.
Rap battle of EMOTIONAL PERSONAL STORIES [original content]

I was born in Venezia By a hearth blessed by Hestia. Born an raised to destroy The world itself my toy. And I never miss with my Glock 43 so you best get out the way for i shot you in the knee. I'm in-charge with relations with the IRA so if you f*ck with me you gona pay. My first kiss i rememba i was swimin in Vienna And I saw this pretty chick who was starrin at my d*ck when i got glared at by her father i pulled him right into the water and i kissed here really hard man that guys a tard n his face got so red i thought he'd loose his head but then he heard my name and backed away instantly tame For I'm a Provenzano I'll tern you in to a soprano and you'll scream in frustration as i perform Castration And you may be fiendish but I'll chop of your penis so if you starten to inflame don't f*cken play my game ______________________ I think i did this right
Rap battle of EMOTIONAL PERSONAL STORIES [original content]

I was born in hell,Raised in it,Satan abused me well,Pain to the infinite,I know no limit,Nothing can break my spirit,I was broken once upon a time,But I got myself back together as well as I rhyme,I rhyme, and rhyme was a crime,I'd be doing a life-time,In that prison,I have risen,Now I'm sour as a lime,I can burn you up like an acid,Get girls to suck me off when I'm flaccid,And in hell, there's no chicks,Just pu$$ies with d!cks,So I'm happy Of all I did.Look at me now, I'm the king,I'm the master, of disaster,On the phone brring brring,"Hello, WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ASK SIR?!"I ask for you to just shut up,listen to me I'm the boss you're anything but,Ring ring you my B!tch, I'm CEO,Of a business named masculinity... You get me bro?!I'm the devil,I'm the god,Any level,I'm the mod,I'm the admin,I'm the creator,I'm the porn director,I'm the masturbator!I'm the fastest zebra of the herd,Fastest lion of the pack,Strongest gorilla of the band,I'm the duck with the loudest QUACK,I'm the dominator,liberator,Anarchist, tyrannical,Self contradictive operator,Of this existence,It's my insistence,That this poem must end because if it does not................................I will explode with words,Erupt with joy,To say things you've never heard of,You get me boy?You get me girl?I'm out of this world,That's all, thank you, you're f*cking beautiful.
Rap battle of EMOTIONAL PERSONAL STORIES [original content]

RationalMadman you belong in a trash can with rhymes so stale your gona fail what where you thinkin challengin me so if i was you i would totally flee So lets jump back to my emotional story And talk about the time I went across the sea in a dory see the Mediterranean It not episcopalian As I neared near africa runin out of stamina got attacked by a eland bet they dont have those in New Zealand lets just say i had a real good dinner case god knows i could be no thiner but lets go back to you mockin my name even if im shore you just bein a pain. so lets start whith a littel filler cause you gota know my family raised me a killer But thats not all i am im a singing boy too and just so you know its cooler written a 2 so that is my name cause i got nothin too gain if i used my surname Provenzano thou i could call u a stronzo
Rap battle of EMOTIONAL PERSONAL STORIES [original content]

Your 'emotional personal story',Is all about sex... Dude I worry...Your IQ must be 100 or below,Just assuming, I don't know,Anyway let me just go with this flow,I like to accelerate later on,At first site back, relax take it slow.You know? Bro..... No? OH... Okay Listen' up YOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.......OOOOOOOOoooooooooooo....You a little 'singing boy',No not the first you're version two,You imitate, don't innovate,You are nothing more than a view,Of the old singing boy that came before,That you replaced but are more than a bore,Than he was, because, like Santa Claus,The only HO-HO-HO sexual rewards you get are from WHORES! Get a hoe, take it slow,You're come in three seconds if she were to go,A little faster,What a disaster,You're like a non-weed-smoking rasta...Farian, Communist North Koreans,Have bigger d!cks than you'll ever have,but don't' worry, man,Their 3 inch wonders are the orient,So mystical, shoot like pistols, they are so divine and heaven-sent,Just kidding, what' your 2 incher doing out and about?To be hilarious for all others to scream and shout?Is that the purpose for your openness, why ask, I have no doubt,You want to make up for your size with the amount of words you use to express sexual bouts!Anyways, onto the rest of my poetry,My style so unique you just know it's me,RationalMadman is here and it's really truly nice to see it's so silly to think we...Are fighting, when the winner will be me, inevitably, undoubtedly, every victory, between you and I, will always be ME!
PlayStation 4 is better than the XBOX ONE

A PlayStation 4 is better than an XBOX ONE because the controller is more superior and the charger for the PS4 doesn't have a huge power box that you have to drag around, just a simple cord. The PS4 also has a user replaceable hard drive so that the user can have more space for his or her PS4. The XBOX ONE does not have a user replaceable hard drive. I do not have long contentions because I simply re-word everything I see.
PlayStation 4 is better than the XBOX ONE

Now, PlayStation 4 has sold over 18.5 million systems sold world wide, while the XBOX ONE has only sold over 10 million systems world wide. PlayStation also has a virtual reality product (Project Morpheus) that can be connected with the PlayStation 4. The PlayStation 4 is lighter and smaller, for easier portability. in summary, this shows how a PlayStation 4 is better than a XBOX ONE.