BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Once Saved Always Saved

God can tell the future.....that doensnt mean he changes the future....every man has a free will and uses it...however it ends up bieng in the end...would be what god would know from the start....so a person can still choose rather they want to live for god or not...and if that person don't make it to heaven..it was not because they wasnt destined to go..it was because that they did not have faith and live for him...salvation is for EVERYONE not just "certain" peaple..and as for the children..you ask if they was in heaven or hell....im not the judge...God is...he knows the hearts of those children and HE is the ones that determen where each child goes.....if the children was to grow up...rather or not they go to heaven would be if they was to give there life to the the lord....evryone is born a sinner...the children may of went to heaven..but god is the judge...we are held accountable by what we know...and who is either one of us..to assume anything of anyone of the kids aint for us to know....we all all born into sin...and when and if a child should be held accountable for there salvation is for God to judge...He is the one that knows the hearts of us all......and unlike what you assume i believe....i am not for suicide or murder of anyone.
Once Saved Always Saved

I am against OSAS..cause it totally goes against what the Bible says...The Bible says that many are called but few are chosen....if you was to acctually read the Bible it would be hard to come up with a believe that once you are saved..that you will ALWAYS be saved....and the verse that says "he will never leave you or forsake you" does not tell me that i can never backslide....he wont leave us...we leave him...if we abanden him .he will abanden us......man is pridefull enough...if a person was to believe OSAS it would be harder for him to regret or be sorry for any wrong that he does....he may ask forgivness but wont be forgivin cause he aint really sorry in his heart....it would be easier to look down at peaple..a person who believes OSAS wont take correction..will be stubbern and never grow in his walk with the lord....the Bible says to STRIVE to enter in at the STRAIGHT gate....and that many will try and not be able to enter.....why would you have to strive for something that will automatically be yours without effort....the Bible says to sit down and count the cost and see if you are willing to pay the price and pick up your cross to follow jesus.....the Bible says that there will come a time when man will not endure sound doctrine but have itching ears and go to where they teach what they wanna hear...WHAT BETTER THING TO HEAR THEN OSAS?.....What better thing would your flesh wanna hear..then the subjust of you getting away with evrything.....some will say that if a person dont make it to heaven then they must of never truly gotten saved...i disagree with that...yes the person may not of really truly been saved...but on the other hand he could of been saved and gotton lukewarm or backslidden....the 10 Virgins of the Bible were ALL saved...the 5 foolish were saved also....they were foolish cause they let there oil run out...you cant run out of something you never had...even the 7 churches in revelation shows that you can be heavenbound at the moment and still not make it to heaven.
Evolution is true

As evidenced through the link you provided, they seem to think gene duplication accounts for the ‘new’ (however they define new) ‘information’. Gene duplication causes negative effects. Gene duplication is a mechanism that generates new genetic material in evolution. [1]The duplicated copy accumulates mutations fater than normal.[1] Gene duplication caused the apparent mutation of a duplicated digestive gene in a family of ice fish into an antifreeze gene,[1] which was a positive effect. You cited an example of variations within a created kind. ‘Transitional fossils’between ‘different’ Phacops would be variations within the kind Phacops.There is no such thing as a created kind. It is nowhere in the biological classifications.[2] So I assume you mean different species, which it certainly is. My source said different SPECIES of Phacops. [3]I will give you the oysters argument, con.Con's dinosaur-to-bird argument is inadequate. He only said that three of them were false, while there are 10 (minus the Modern bird which does not count) in my source. [4] 30% is not convincing enough for me.Must I really explain this? Oh no, two or more species of one kind! Isn't that evolution? You seem to think so. This is again variation within kind. And the Bible desribes living things multiplying after their kind. Of course, if someone insists on defining evolution as “a change in gene frequency,” then this example “proves evolution”—but it also “proves creation,” since varying the amounts of already-existing genes is what creation is all about.By using the word "kind" to refute my arguments, con assumes that creation is true in the first place, because it is a concept of creationism. Circular reasoning."[Evolution is possible] even with only the decrease of information." Explain this in the next round, please.I already explained it in the last round, but anyways...My argument last round:"Con also claims that if an amoeba has to evolve into humans, it will have to increase genetic information. False again. The amoeba genome has 670,000,000,000 base pairs,while the human genome has 2,900,000,000.......Amoeba-to-people is entirely possible, even with only the decrease of information. (see my arguments on mutations)"The source for the above claim is www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUGJ3Jh7fc. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://www.talkorigins.org...[4]http://www.talkorigins.org...
Evolution is true

Welcome, whoever accepts this debate. Definition: Evolution= a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations: accounts for the origin of existing species from ancestors unlike them.[1] I have the burden of proof and will start this round. For this debate, I will use this format: P1. If evolution is true, then X. P2. X. C. Evolution is supported by X. 1. Mutations One of the ways evolution works are mutations. There are beneficial, neutral and harmful. [2] An example of beneficial mutations is found in E.coli, which adapted to the thermal environment and became more fit. [3] Plus, beneficial mutations are not rare. E.coli in a controlled environment of maltose at 37 C, 12% of the mutations increased fitness. [4] With the high rate of mutations in certain environments, it is not unlikely for evolution to happen in a long time. P1. If evolution is true, then mutations, including beneficial ones, should be observed. P2. Mutations, including beneficial ones, have been observed. C. Evolution is supported by mutations. 2. Transitional Fossils Transitional fossils, such as ones between dinosaurs and birds, have been discovered. [5] [6] P1. If evolution is true, then transitional fossils exist. P2. Transitional fossils exist. C. Evolution is supported by transitional fossils. 3. Observed Evolution Macro evolution, or evolution on a speciation level, has been observed. [7][8] Examples include the Faeroe Island house mouse [8]and Rhagoletis pomonella, a fruit fly, which has evidence of speciation.[9] P1. If evolution is true, it will be observed. P2. Evolution is observed. C. Evolution is true. Sources: [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] Bennett, A.F., Lenski, R.E., & Mittler, J.E. (1992). Evolutionary adaptation to temperature I. Fitness responses of Escherichia coli to changes in its thermal environment. Evolution, 46:16-30. [4] http://www.gate.net... [5] http://www.talkorigins.org... [6] http://pandasthumb.org... [7] http://www.talkorigins.org... [8] http://www.talkorigins.org... [9] page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American
Hydra's idealogy in Captain America Winter Soldier

Racism- During the firefight with Shield, I didn't see a Hydra agent shooting a black man before a white man. Also, the Insight helicarriers targeting was automated and computerized, meaning it wasn't going to fall prey to bias. And as time was of essence, Hydra wouldn't have wasted time choosing black targets over white. Defense- Hydra was an undercover organization and hadn't expected their cover to be blown so soon. Hydra planned to launch the Insight carriers into space, and when the time is right activate its weapons. But the time wasn't right, and their forces were weak. Lastly, it was a Captain America movie, and in the MCU universe they never let the villain win, even despite overwhelming odds. Once the Insight helicarriers would be in space, their weapons could be fully deployed. They wouldn't be vulnerable to close range attacks. The helicarrier was designed by SHIELD anyways, blame them, and so was the weak encryption. Suppose if Insight helicarriers had been deployed in other movies of Marvel. The villain would be easily took down before even the fight began. No, I think the directors realized this bug wouldn't let them continue future movies, and therefore they took it down. And of course, the oh-so righteous Captain America. Lastly, coming back to the resolution, I think Hydra's ideology is correct as the sacrifice of a few would ensure a better tomorrow. There could have been other means such as an engineered plague, simple weapons assault, turret development, but whatever it may be, it will result in a world that will be safe. I would like to quote Alexander Pierce here "It's a matter of time a dirty bomb goes off in Moscow, or an EMP fries Chicago. Suppose if your daughter were being dragged to an execution stadium by Pakistani militants, and you could stop it with a flick of a switch, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you all??"
Hydra's idealogy in Captain America Winter Soldier

Exactly, you all distrust Hydra so much. But I didn't see evidence of racism or such in what glimpses we had of the organization of Hydra. Plus, Hydra wanted control, and that's why they had to kill potential 20 million threats. They even had former SHIELD on their side, which reduces prejudice. As for protection from the attack, Hydra had not expected Captain America and his team to turn up, and they had to rush their hand. Also, Hydra manage to take down SHIELD as well, for SHIELD was shut down after that. Hydra and SHIELD forces were evenly matched, but when you have a super-soldier with a vibranium shield charging through your heli-carriers, it is hard to defend your territory. The winter-soldier took out all the SHIELD pilots and downed Falcon, but Captain America beat him with his super-strength. Hydra's encryption seems rather weak though, for out of 100's of chips surely one can't make the helicarriers target each other. But then originally it was supposed to be inaccessible by anyone, and take down invaders come in from space as well as threats on the ground. Hydra couldn't send many operatives on the ship while it was launching for they wouldn't have survived in space, and after the ships were off the ground, it was hard to reach for the normal soldiers.
Hydra's idealogy in Captain America Winter Soldier

HYDRA is run by humans, and many humans are ruled by prejudice. HYDRA never once specified a program to ensure bias based on race, religion, nationality, gender, class, sexuality, disability, skin color, etc would be put in place. Who's to say Hydra would pull the trigger on someone not because of their potential to be a criminal but because of the color of their skin? Furthermore, even with much of former SHIELD and the Winter Soldier on their side, HYDRA could not protect their helicarriers from a single attack; it's easy to see a villain like Loki, Ultron, or even a weaker antagonist like Aldrich Killian take over the program with ease and target innocent civilians - or politicians, secret agents, law enforcement, and/or military who stood in the way of their twisted evil plans. In summary, HYDRA had no way or desire to fight prejudice and corruption within their system, and had horribly weak defenses guarding a program that could kill all of mankind. They were not making the world safer or better; they were simply putting all of mankind, especially minority groups, at risk. SHIELD was right to destroy HYDRA and forsake their ideology - they did it not because of misconceptions about HYDRA but for the safety of the global population.
Animated bands are better than real-life bands.

I just want to let you know, I like debating, but this is my first actual debate. I don't disagree with you that those types of animated bands are better, but I like watching the actual musicians perform. To make my point I will be using actual bands and orchestras. They perform music like Mozart and Beethoven. For me, part of the music is seeing the musicians faces, and seeing the different instruments.
Animated bands are better than real-life bands.

Thank you for accepting my offer to debate! Firstly, we'll need to define "animated". The animated bands I will be using as examples in this debate are Gorillaz and Studio Killers. While their voices and instrumentals are provided by real people, they are primarily based in an animated world. I will also be using Vocaloids for my point. My first point is, as these bands are animated, they have much more artistic liberty, and they can also do things generally impossible for humans to do in their videos. Cases in point: : "Jenny" by Studio Killers () and "19-2000" by Gorillaz (). In the Jenny video, the pictured character (Jenny) turns into a tiger. Due to the fictional universe, this is completely possible. And the 19-2000 video has everything from UFOs to stunts to a giant moose in the middle of the road. These things could be done with special effects, sure, but they wouldn't have the same effect as the animated version. And while live bands could produce animated videos, the whole schematics of the band couldn't constantly be set in that fictional universe. Another part of the artistic liberty is the ability to take on difficult issues (LGBT issues with Jenny, government with the Demon Days album) without the risk of physical harm to the performers. My second point is live performances. Such musicians as Mariah Carey and Taylor Swift can't, in general, compete with their studio recordings. Both have been shown to not be as good live as on album recordings. However, such bands as Studio Killers () don't have this issue, as their music is prerecorded, and will remain the same throughout the shows. One of the best examples is the MTV EMA's performance of Feel Good Inc. by the Gorillaz and two rappers (). Though the performance by 2D and the other members is great, the live rappers are lackluster, at best. Thirdly, there's much more ability for fan creativity with fictional/animated bands. While live bands are real people with real lives, fictional characters are, well, fictional. And finally are Vocaloids, their own entity. In lieu of my own windy explanation, information on them can be found here: (https://en.wikipedia.org...). They sell out shows frequently, and have millions of fans across the world. Many of them can sing in many languages. They can also sing in lower/higher ranges than humans. These are my arguments as to why animated musicians are superior.
Animated bands are better than real-life bands.

I do agree that seeing instruments would be a good part of a performance, but note that in the Gorillaz performance, Murdoc, Russel, and Noodle all had instruments, and the appearance of them did reflect the actual notes being played. Also, thanks to motion capture, the emotion and movements portrayed are quite close to what you would get if the providers of the instrumentals and vocals were performing themselves.
Who is stronger Hulk or the Abomination

As of now, I believe that PRO has ultimately conceded to my points, saying "abomination was already super strong in human form and that makes him twice as strong when in hulk form" -- Simply put, I should therefore win the debate because PRO has conceded that Abomination is stronger. PRO also states "if u knew ur marvel and didnt have to search the web to back up side u would have already won this battle". -- This implies that even PRO believes Abomination is stronger, and that people who know Marvel will say Abomination is stronger.
Who is stronger Hulk or the Abomination

No fall to you biases. My favorite probably is the Hulk; however, many sources throughout the internet and the comic/movie itself concede the Abomination is about twice stronger than the Hulk in his normal state. This means I win by the facts. If the hulk is enraged, however, this changes. If the PRO wants to win, the topic should be rephrases as: "Is the Enraged Hulk stronger than the Abomination? Since the question is only: "Who is stronger Hulk or the Abomination?" -- we must assume the normal Hulk because there is no adjective modifying Hulk. I will cite some articles here: "Blonsky is transformed into a massive green-skinned monster that starts out with physical strength exceeding that of the Hulk." -- http://hulk.wikia.com... "Originally, the Abomination is twice as strong as the Hulk" -- https://en.wikipedia.org...(comics)#Powers_and_abilities "The Abomination gained greater strength than the Hulk at the latter's "normal" level of strength" -- http://www.marveldirectory.com... The last source is from the marvel directory. This probably means i win without the rest of the rounds.
1 is a prime number.

One is not a prime number. A prime number is a natural number (positive integers (whole numbers)) greater than 1 that has no positive divisors other than 1 and itself. By this definition, negatives can not be prime. Some examples are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, and 109. If you still aren't completely sure, go to with website. https://primes.utm.edu...
1 is a prime number.

A friend and I had a lengthy debate about whether or not 1 was a prime number. My friend defined a prime number as a whole number that cannot be divided by another whole number and result in a whole number. I then argued that 7 wasn't a prime number because it could be divided by 7 and result in a whole number. Then, he argued divided by another whole number other than itself or 1 and result in a whole number. Anyways we reached a stalemate. I said -5,-3,-,2,-1, 1, 2, 3 ,5 , and 7 were prime numbers. He said -5, -3, -2, -,1, and 1 were not prime numbers, but 2 ,3, 5, and 7 were. So who was right, is one a prime number? I say it is. Since if you divide one by 3 you get 1/3 which is not a whole number.
All Accused People Should Have the Right to Name Suppression Until They are Proven Guilty.

"press and public have a First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings.5 First, the Court must consider "whether the place and process have been historically open to the press and general public."6 Second, the Court must consider "whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question."7 Since Richmond Newspapers, courts have extended this "history and logic" test to establish a constitutional right of access to criminal and civil court proceedings and records.8 When the First Amendment right of access applies, the Supreme Court has held that a presumption of disclosure requires courts to grant access unless specific, on-the-record findings demonstrate that closure is "necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." There is well established tradition in common law and the SCOTUS that criminal and civil court cases should and must be open to public. The issue of the press to report this information is covered under the First Amendment. http://www.rcfp.org... http://www.casebriefs.com... A judge"s order that the media not publish or broadcast statements by police in a murder trial was an unconstitutional prior restraint. The gag order violated the First Amendment rights of the press and the community. http://www.casebriefs.com... A Louisiana law that punished true statements made with "actual malice" was overturned. The Court ruled that unless a newspaper shows "reckless disregard for the truth," it is protected under the First Amendment. http://supreme.justia.com... A state law allowing prior restraint was unconstitutional. This decision also extended protection of press freedom to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. http://www.casebriefs.com...
All Accused People Should Have the Right to Name Suppression Until They are Proven Guilty.

Well... I will put forth a little more argument for this topic, in addition to what I have already posted in the previous debate and in comments. The freedom of the press to report is well established and I think not a debated issue. The issue is whether the court system should make certain information available to the public. However, I think the position that names and information should withheld from the public deny's the basic legal system that our country is founded upon. Our court system is based on our constitution, but our constitution is fundamentally based upon a free and open legal system established through a long common law tradition. The free and open formate of our courts is the fundamental oversight we have of our legal system. Do we really want a court system that prosecutes persons without public knowledge?? Do we want a legal system that searches for dangerous criminals without the public knowing vital information that may help apprehend these persons, or know that they are loose in our communities?? The fundamental freedom, safety and oversight of our legal system is totally based on free and open information of courts in the public domain.
SSJ God Goku is Better than SSJ 4 Goku

He would've been killed. Bills was using only 70%. Yet still: Vegita, is a SSJ2 and he beat up Bills with this Sayan power up. It doesn't necessarily mean that Goku still had God powers, only that he powered up from the family in peril thing. Also he wasn't doing so well. He lost in almost the same amount of time at King Kai's planet, he only took more hits which couldv'e been from his when a Sayan gets beat up then healed they gain power thing. The only way he could keep up with Bill's speed was with instant transmission...
SSJ God Goku is Better than SSJ 4 Goku

The way this happened was the same reason Vegita got mad and beat up Bills: His loved ones were in danger. It shows a clip of his family in danger and fear of being killed. Gohan even does this when he beat up Freeza, attacked Nappa, beat up Raditz, killed Cell. This is nothing more than a trait the sayans have. When they get mad, and someone's in danger, they gain tremendous energy for a short time.
SSJ God Goku is Better than SSJ 4 Goku

Ok I almost decided to agree with you but the KEY difference between them is that Goku only held Super Sayan God up for a short amount of time. S S J 4 was on for a way longer time than Goku was as a God. Also, he needed help to achieve this form. If Goku as a ssj4 could just survive a couple minutes, he would beat SSJGod Goku.
SSJ God Goku is Better than SSJ 4 Goku

Ok so space we don't know because Ssj4 Goku never went into space, but man think.If Pikilo can destroy the moon when his power level is that low, (Like... 500-1000 maybe?) then don't you think they could destroy more than a few planets? Take Freeza for example. He destroys a planet and then starts laughing. It obviously doesn't take much energy. He does this in his FIRST form.
SSJ God Goku is Better than SSJ 4 Goku

I'll be honest I was just board when I started it and true I can't prove it its more hypothetical and I don't think there will be a official SSJ 4 because of gt plus I was thinking that Omega could at the most destroy a few planets Bills could destroy the whole d@nm universe if wanted to on top of that SSJ God Goku was in space and SSJ 4 Goku never went into space.