BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lucifer is not evil like god says.

My opponent conceded that the bible is god"s words, viz, what god says. Therefore God has said that Lucifer was his favorite, therefore my opponent is helping my side of the resolution. "God only showed Eve the good things in life. Lucifer showed her both sides. That is not being manipulative, that's showing the truth. " My opponent claims that Satan was telling the truth when telling adam and eve that they will be like god, which is false and I am sure that I don"t need to prolong this argument. And why would God need to show them the bad side if what you"re arguing is that God shows the bad side too much? "I'm not saying only humans do evil things. Illness was created by God. Natural disasters are called that because they are natural. Science can prove how they form. If we didn't have death, the Earth would be over populated. That means even less resources for people. The world is only so big. We can't have many resources and if we did, we would be even bigger hogs. " When someone says that God created everything, that includes the things that are created indirectly. If Lucifer didn"t exist it"s not like God would be actively striking illnesses on people without just reasons. Lucifer is the cause of the evils on earth today because God kicked him out unto it. And yes this point is valid because you didn"t specify which religion. And yes they are natural disasters because people don"t base scientific things off of religious things. Therefore Lucifer is the cause of the evils on earth. And I did mention that scarce resources is due to Lucifer. "Of course the amount of deaths is an estimate. No one truly knows how many died in the flood. " So my opponent conceded that he doesn"t know how many people died in the flood, therefore he couldn"t know if it"s over a billion. "The bible says god is just. So God says he is just and we are just supposed to believe him? " No but we are using the bible as if it were true. If not then we would need to start by arguing how the bible is the world of god, but since you conceded that, you are saying that the bible contains truth. Therefore the things said in the bible are considered as true. "Isn't he supposed to be forgiving? " He is forgiving and just, but just because someone has the quality of being forgiving, doesn"t mean they are forgiving to the fullest extent. Someone being honest, doesn"t mean that the person couldn"t tell one lie. Therefore God is merciful when he needs to be. "I mean when God brought in people who didn't have homes and gave them a job. Where does it say that in the bible? " I never said that, please read the argument I made again. "My overall point being, how can we trust a guy who has killed over 30 million people when he says a guy has killed 10 is evil? I know Lucifer has done other things but not as bad as God. " Lucifer has done worse things for the reasons stated. We can trust someone even if they have killed whatever amount of people if the act was just. Thanks to my opponent for arguing.
Lucifer is not evil like god says.

I am not proving your case when I quote the bible. The name for this debate is "Lucifer is not evil like God says". When I take quotes from the bible that show Lucifer is Gods favorite, it helps my case. It is not if I quote anything from god it helps cons case. God only showed Eve the good things in life. Lucifer showed her both sides. That is not being manipulative, that's showing the truth. I'm not saying only humans do evil things. Illness was created by God. Natural disasters are called that because they are natural. Science can prove how they form. If we didn't have death, the Earth would be over populated. That means even less resources for people. The world is only so big. We can't have many resources and if we did, we would be even bigger hogs. Of course the amount of deaths is an estimate. No one truly knows how many died in the flood. And you talk about justice. Massacring millions of people is considered justice? I know those people sinned but so have you and I. If God wants justice, why doesn't he kill us all again? Isn't he supposed to be forgiving? Yet he caused genocide because people didn't follow him. The bible says god is just. So God says he is just and we are just supposed to believe him? I mean when God brought in people who didn't have homes and gave them a job. Where does it say that in the bible? My overall point being, how can we trust a guy who has killed over 30 million people when he says a guy has killed 10 is evil? I know Lucifer has done other things but not as bad as God. I think that makes Gods word bogus. Thank you for debating with me, it was fun! =[^_^]= And please don't vote only based on who you agree with. Thanks!
Lucifer is not evil like god says.

"I stated them to show you and the voters that Lucifer is one of gods favorites, since they came from the bible and the bible is gods word." So my opponent has essentially conceded that he took quotes from the bible, which is the word of god, meaning what god says. Therefore the things in the quotes are what god says which proves my side of the resolution. My opponent still failed to understand what I"m saying. This is why I said that if you are providing me with quotes from the bible saying a certain thing, then you are my proving my case. My opponent strawman"s the argument by saying dictator vs. someone who just disagreed. Lucifer did way more than that, for one he had tempted Eve. And it"s bad to manipulate someone to do something when Lucifer knows what God will do in consequence for Eve eating from the tree. And the evil things aren"t only done by men. For example things such as illnesses, natural disasters, and death. Also deformities, scarce resources which lead to stealing and such things provided by my opponent, and temptation into evil. Therefore my point still stands. "From Adam to Noah"s Flood was 1656 years. If we assume for this period an average population doubling time of 74 years corresponding to 1804 to 2012 when humanity grew from 1 billion to 7 billion, then the world"s population would have been 10.9 million people at the Flood." My opponent neglects the fact that there are assumptions being made in this estimate, and that it"s an estimate. Plus let"s say this was the case, the thing that matters is the justice that went into it, which again since we are using the bible as true, the bible said God was truly just. Also my point still stands that evil is due to Lucifer. "God was making this person please him, but god did not deserve it." God did deserve it. I would also like to point out that my opponent totally neglected the definition number one for glorify, which is, reveal or make clearer the glory of (God) by one's actions. Therefore the voters can see clearly how my statement made sense. The thing God wanted to see was the virtue of the slaves. The virtue of being humble and helping others. And I"m confused on what you"re asking me to quote. You said the second part was okay, but if you are referring to the second part, there are several things I said.
Lucifer is not evil like god says.

I bring those quotes up because I know they are in the bible. I in fact added the verses because they were found in the bible. So how could I neglect the fact that they are in the bible? I was not stating quotes because I confused it with what people think. I stated them to show you and the voters that Lucifer is one of gods favorites, since they came from the bible and the bible is gods word. Yes, I understand what you are saying about balancing good and evil. But which side is truly evil? The dictator who caused multiple genocides? Or the son who disagreed with him? You say the evil acts are due to Lucifer. I assume you are talking about murder, rape, stealing, etc, from humans today and in the past. But god created free will. "God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can't. If a thing is free to be good it's also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible." -C.S. Lewis I know millions of people died in the flood because of science. I can't explain it better than this website. https://biblescienceguy.wordpress.com... And thanks to free will, Lucifer isn't the cause of evil on Earth. So Lucifer did not do as many evil acts as god. God has killed 33 million people and Lucifer has killed 10, according to http://www.abovetopsecret.com... Anyone in their right mind can see that God and Lucifer aren't what people think of them as. You say "God wants him to show that he is willing to embrace suffering and be humble and servile as a way to glorify God." Servile: Having or showing excessive willingness to serve or please others. Glorify: Describe or represent as admirable. Especially unjustifiably or undeservedly. God was making this person please him, but god did not deserve it. That is just based on definition. The second part of the slavery paragraph seems okay. Can you please show where in the bible it says that?
Lucifer is not evil like god says.

Lucifer is described to be the greatest of all gods creations. https://darrellcreswell.wordpress.com... Which means the only being he comes second to is likely god. Lucifer is gods favorite and the most beautiful angel. He allegedly tried to take over heaven, apparently was the result of pride, jealousy, and discontent. But lets be honest, Lucifer was doing this as no doubt he disagreed with how his father was running things. Many beings can relate to him because there are a lot of bad dads out there. As well as one-third of all the angels left god for the sake of following Lucifer. Now ask yourself, someone as powerful as god, losing followers to someone less powerful. Who do you think is right in that situation? Because normally when you can chose between the most powerful being and the second most powerful, you go with the most powerful. Unless the most powerful is that unlikable in which case you go with the underdog. My point being, maybe Lucifer was onto something. Again I point out that God made Lucifer better than everything. So when this guy who is better than everything says "Hey guys, this dude that created us is actually a prick." Maybe Lucifer was made a little too well made. And because of that he was able to see right through God. After all it wasn't Lucifer who was responsible for the whole Noah's ark incident. It was god who committed genocide against the entire planet with the exception of a few human beings and a small group of animals. How can you not agree with Lucifer at this point? Because based on that you can see where God made a horrible mistake. Lucifer has not to this day committed such a massive genocide against the human race. God also has crazy rules. Like if you eat from the tree of knowledge I will kill you. What kind of crazy crap is that? Of course Lucifer is going to look at a mentality like God and go what the hell is wrong with you? They say Lucifer uses every conceivable way to deceive and destroy people. But that doesn't seem likely to me. What it appears is someone out of all the angels was willing to stand up and say God I don't really agree with you. And as a result God did everything he could to slander this angel to make himself look good, and this angel look like crap. All for the sake of continuing his following and have human beings like you worship him. I mean what happened when Lucifer disagreed with him? That's right, he got kicked out of heaven, just like when you disagree with a crappy parent, they will kick you out of their house. And what does God plan to do with Lucifer, this son that he loves so much? He plans to burn Lucifer alive in hell. That doesn't sound like a compassionate, kind, loving god. That sounds like a monster who would set his own son on fire. My point is that Lucifer isn't the evil monster most people think of him as. He just disagreed with the most powerful being. And in return that being kicked Lucifer out of his home and into everlasting torcher where he always is getting burned.
Batman Can't Beat Superman

I disagree with Pro's premise that Batman lacks any chance to beat Superman, and that such a defeat "can't" occur under any scenarios. While Batman is not the most impressive of superheroes, and his only advantage over others like Tonto and Zorro is that he has somewhat newer gizmos, at least he isn't allergic to little green rocks called Kryptonite. It really isn't that hard to imagine a scenario where Batman offers the somewhat naive Superman a gift-wrapped present full of little green rocks which is not too brightly opened followed by Superman's head exploding, literally. That or just pelting Superman with the rocks, either one would work. Superman for all his powers is an all or nothing fighter, as long as there aren't green jewels in the area he's invincible, if there are green jewels then Dorothy (or Toto for that matter) could defeat him.
Batman Can't Beat Superman

Pro's arguments notwithstanding, Batman has, as I previously pointed out, already beaten Superman once. Batman in fact successfully defeated Superman just with a small Kryptonite Ring, not even a full shard of Kryptonite. Batman also made use of a sonic frequency device to give Superman, with his incredible hearing, severe and disorienting headaches, and fought Superman in a sewer with lead pipes to remove Superman's X-ray vision. http://thebatmanuniverse.net...With his sonic frequency device Batman can immobilize Superman from a distance, with his ring Superman is weakened if approaching, and if Batman acquires a larger piece of Kryptonite he can completely weaken Superman for an easy victory. Batman has already shown ingenuity in using Superman's weakness to lead, high sound frequencies, and Kryptonite in the past, and would certainly capitalize even further in future encounters. Batman as a detective has already figured out Superman's weaknesses, and has the financial resources needed to acquire even more Kryptonite or sonic frequency devices if he chooses to. As a result Superman can be placed at a severe disadvantage in any fight, regardless of the powers Superman has.
Batman Can't Beat Superman

I extend my arguments that Superman's glaring weakness to little green meteorites would make him too vulnerable for a probable victory, let alone so certain a result that one could say Batman definitely "can't" win. Batman may have inherited from his millionaire parents but is not just a posh fool, and rather an ingenius inventor capable of producing innovative weaponry to fit his fighting style. Batman is no fool and if there were any chance whatsoever of facing Superman in battle would not go unarmed but would make sure to capitalize on Superman's weakness. Batman actually has a Kryptonite Ring handy and used it to defeat Superman in Batman #612. http://www.complex.com... This alone should be all that is necessary to disprove the original premise that Baman can't beat Superman, since he has actually done so in the past. However, it is not only possible but probable that the savvy Batman would use his Kryptonite ring and even more Kryptonite in future encounters between the two; thus ensuring a high likelihood of a Batman victory. Therefore I have sufficiently established that Batman could and probably would defeat Superman. This is probably how the fight would go: http://bryoniczomborg.deviantart.com...
Knowledge is corruption.

PRO insinuates that I don't know what "knowledge" means. Here's a definition from Google: "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. "This seems entirely consistent with what I said with respect to "knowing everything," and with my remarks on PRO's technology points. Those contentions are totally dropped - which is enough for you to vote CON. PRO says, "Technology is made via the help of knowledge, is it not? "This is true - technology, such as cell phones, computers (which PRO is using right now), and more which have made our lives better required knowledge; without knowledge, none of that would have been possible. The example of Chernobyl is utterly irrelevant, because knowledge could have prevented that calamity - i. e. , LACK of knowledge or misuse of technology caused by lack of knowledge is the problem. His point on greed is likewise absurd. What he calls greed - which is independent of knowledge itself, because knowledge need not lead to greed - we call capitalism. Acknowledging the potential pitfalls of capitalism, in spite of the gains it may yield us, is a function of KNOWLEDGE. PRO's point completely flips on its side. PRO says, "If the bible places blinders on people, then all books do the same. "This point is completely ludicrous. The Bible is not, in the slightest, like "all other books. " Other books do not make claims as utterly absurd as the Bible such as the ones I mentioned in the last round. Rather, they're rooted in facts and things that we can readily observe. Further, they - save for other religious texts - do not contain orders for how people ought to live their lives, or recommend violence for their sake of their God. In other words, there's no mandate and no deception. But even then PRO completely drops my main objection to his reference to the Bible, which was that he was using an appeal to authority - that applies universally to any book or to any person, even to books that are signifciantly more credible than the Bible. As it stands, PRO hasn't in the slightest advanced his BOP.
Knowledge is corruption.

I accept. The burden of proof, in affirming a positive statement, is entirely on PRO. If he fails to prove this statement conclusively, you vote CON. PRO says, "The Bible says it, the more you know, the more corrupt you get. "This is nothing more than an appeal to authority - and a terrible authority at that, given the many factual inaccuracies in the Bible (the Great Flood, the notion that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that snakes can talk, the many inconsistencies, such as with the creation story, etc. ) It is true that the more knowledgeable people are, the more they intend to reject dogma, like the Bible - but the Bible itself, or the counter-factual dogma, is what is corrupt because it deliberately places blinders on people and prevents them from thinking clearly. PRO says, "Technology is corruption and demise. Chernobyl anyone? "This is nothing but a bare assertion - and how could Chernobyl, possibly, serve as a stand-alon example for why technology, ipso facto, is corrupt? How can technology by itself serve as a proxy forknowledge? PRO says, "It's good to not know all the details, ALWAYS. " PRO provides us with no reasons to accept this - in fact, not knowing all the details leads us to make stupid, uninformed decisions by definition. Second, he is misdefining knowledge. Knowledge is a matter of degree - it NEVER requires that we know everything, because knowing everything is impossible.
You choose the topic

Sorry that I ran out of time, this was the argument I was going to post. First, a rebuttal of Pro's 3 points.1) Tastiness deserves to be a nationally sanctifiedI agree. However, your evidence for this is off topic, as it goes toa) Nostalgia, as evident by your stating "Who doesn't remember. .. " andb) Shapes of waffles (They can be shaped like Texas). Neither of these points goes to waffles "tastiness," they go to memories and shapes. Also, if waffles have "tastiness," what does that entail? What makes something tasty? You need to define your terms.2) It would unite a divided legislature. As would any bill. We could make a federally recognized holiday for pancakes, for sour patch kids, or literary any other food or candy. This point doesn't show how waffles should be federally recognized, it shows how we should have the house and Senate pass a non-contentious bill.3) Waffles are fun, and wildly underratedYou are doing the same as with your first point. Your evidence is off topic. You show howa) Eggo is good brand and deserves to make profit, andb) Other snacks would make a comeback. This does not show howa) Waffles are fun, andb) Waffles are wildly underrated. Now, my constructive. Inequality. Federally recognizing Waffle Day (March 25) would necessarily discriminate against other breakfast foods. If we are to give attention to a specific food, we take away attention from other foods. Breakfast discrimination (referred to as breakfastism) leads to deterioration, not celebration.1) The Pancake's feelings would be hurt. We all know that the pancake is a delicate, sensitive food. It's fluffy, happy, and quite delicious. However, discriminating against it with a holiday for the main opponent of pancakes, waffles, would destroy its spirit. The pancake may resort to a life of crime, stealing maple syrup, sleeping in the dumpsters. The pancake would be unappreciated and unhappy. It's true, Eggo would destroy his Ego. 2) Cereal would lose its value. People value cereal. As a breakfast food, as a quick lunch, or even dinner. But does this influential powerhouse of a food get a holiday? No. The cereal industry makes a lot of income and gives a lot of jobs to American citizens. But, in the wake of the waffle crisis, cereal would no longer be as viable a candidate for breakfast. Conclusion:It's clear that breakfastism leads to unappreciated breakfast foods and a drop in economic gain from the unappreciated breakfast foods. If the government chooses waffles, it shuns away pancakes, cereal, oatmeal, and countless other breakfast choices.
You choose the topic

International Waffle Day should be a federally recognized holiday? *** Yes it should http://www.youtube.com... 1) Tastiness deserves to be a nationally sanctified- Who doesn't remember going to waffle house at 2am to eat because nowhere else was open where you could sit down? It's a magical experience, wolfing down that tennis-racket looking goodness. If you're staying at a Hotel in the great state of Texas, the waffles even come in the shape of the state! It's not even an option thing where you *can* get them in that shape, the griddle is shaped like Texas. Why isn't this something we should recognize on a federal level? 2) It would unite a divided legislature- In order to become a federally recognized holiday, a piece of legislation would have to pass through both the house and Senate. Particularly during an election season, this would be non-contentious and provide a much-needed sense of unity to help restore the US population's faith in government. 3) Waffles are fun, and wildly underrated- While Eggo had it's heyday back in the day, we don't really give the waffle the proper credit it deserves today. If we were to federally recognize national waffle day, Eggo would be primed to come back into the spotlight swinging. That would mean we would see the return of Eggo's hilarious marketing team b) If Eggo would come back to prominence the way it was in the late 90s and Early 2000s, it would pave the way for other snacks that got left behind. Conclusion- Waffles are the bomb dot com, and there is absolutely no reason not to affirm. Federally recognizing National Waffle day would be good for our taste buds, government and soul.
You choose the topic

Sounds like fun! Here are some extremely thought provoking questions I thought of:1) Should International Waffle Day (March 25) should be a federally recognised and celebrated holiday?2) Is TF2 is the best team based shooter?3) Should the Polls section of DDO exist (seriously, who ever uses it?)?4) Which is taller, a very short giant or a very tall dwarf?5) Do you know the Muffin Man?Choose, my friend.