BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity vs. Your Choice of Religion

My opponent has raised a few points objecting to naturalism as well as one point attempting to validate Christianity, but it is not difficult to see that his objections do not provide a very strong case for Christianity.Evolution My opponent’s claim that “o good mutation has ever been seen” is blatantly false. Several examples of beneficial mutations that have been observed are the adaption to high and low temperatures by E. coli, adaption to growth in the dark and selection for large size in chlamydomonas, adaption to a low phosphate chemostat environment by a clonal line of yeast, evidence of genetic divergence and beneficial mutations in bacteria after 10,000 generations. http://www.gate.net... God Pro’s argument in favor of Christianity is that the Bible has no problems in it. Not only is this in itself a rather poor piece of evidence for Christianity, it is also false. Contradictions in the Bible are obvious problems. I will just mention a couple. Order of CreationThere is a discrepancy in the accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 regarding the order of creation. In Genesis 1, God creates plants before he creates Adam, yet in Genesis 2, it states that Adam was created at a time when there were no plants. In Genesis 1 it states that Adam was created after animals, but in Genesis 2 it explains that God created the animals after creating Adam. http://www.biblegateway.com... The Last Words of JesusThe Bible is also inconsistent in how it portrays the last words of Jesus. Matthew 27 says that they were “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” while Luke 23 says they were “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit,” and John 19 says they were “It is finished.” http://www.biblegateway.com...http://www.biblegateway.com...http://www.biblegateway.com... Numerous other inconsistencies are present in the Bible, and the existence of just one of these errors is enough to dismiss my opponent's depiction of an errorless Bible. My also argues that “There has never been reasonable evidence against God.” This arguments commits the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. By my opponent’s logic, it would be reasonable to conclude that there exists an invisible flying pink unicorn on Mars because there has never been reasonable evidence against the existence of such a creature. Additionally, I would contend that an absence of evidence where evidence is to be expected is evidence of absence. One would expect there to be evidence for a God, and I contend that there is a lack of said evidence, therefore this can count as evidence of an absence of God. My opponent’s arguments fail to affirm Christianity. Feelings My opponent’s final argument against naturalism is that our feelings and pain cannot just be parts of the physical world. Despite my opponent’s incredulity at this idea, we have a decent understanding of how the brain and nervous system process both emotions and pain, leading us to the conclusion that these things are, in fact, natural. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://faculty.washington.edu...
Christianity vs. Your Choice of Religion

Naturalism is based on the theory that everything is material, physical really. So here is my debate. Evolution I will not go that far in to this, since it is not a major part. Evolution has many problems such as the lack of good mutations to affect the DNA strand. The majority of them are hurtful and takes away information, in thus, no evolution happens. No good mutation has ever been seen. God There are many pieces of evidence for God, such as the bible having no problems in it. The Bible has accurately explained many things in history and has predicted many things in science. Priests in the old times were commanded to run their hands under running water after the sacrifice. Many years later, it is found that this helps clean out the pores more. There has never been reasonable evidence against God. Feelings My honest problems is that naturalism feel that everything is physical. How can you write off all the feelings as nothing more than leftovers of the physical. Pain has been known to put great strain on the body, how does naturalism explain this.
Solar Energy Pros and Cons

This debate will discuss the perks and flaws of solar energy. #1: The first round is for acceptance. #2: The second round will shortly discuss the qualities of solar energy. #3: The third round will revolve around the reasons that make solar panels and efficient or inefficient energy source. This debate will be short and will aim at being easy to understand for non-professionals and people who are not familiar with energy or solar power at all. It will be a short expose of the reasons one should or should not consider investing in a solar power system. References are strongly recommended to allow others to get additional information about the topics discussed in this debate. Let the debate begin!
Solar Energy Pros and Cons

Initial Installation Cost:The price of solar panels is a big drawback that makes most families reconsider their choice and get back to conventional energy sources. The cost of a single, high-quality solar panel can go up to $1000 and large household usually require two or three panels to be able to sustain their home on a daily basis.Limited Production:Solar panels generally produce power during the day and don't function during the night. This limits the production with nabout 50% which also raises the power costs per day. It is also debated whether or not bad weather delivers little to no energy at all. This created the need of a second energy source that could work as a backup plan for extreme cases.Constant Maintenance:In order to function properly, solar panels need to be as clean as possible. This energy source is extremely sensitive to pollution and could require frequent cleaning in dry regions such as Sydney and other Australian cities which are often affected by dust storms. The cleaning of solar panels and the general maintenance of the power system are a downside and a challenge that not many property owners are willing to take.References:http://www.paulswindowcleaningsydney.com.au...;http://www.thesolarco.com...
Solar Energy Pros and Cons

Clean Energy Source:Solar panels are not a standard energy source and as such, they have one really important feature that differentiates them from the rest of the energy systems commonly used today.Solar panels are completely eco-friendly and once they are installed, they do no harm to their surroundings.Renewable Energy:The energy extracted from solar rays is absolutely renewable and possess no dangers of exiration in the next 6,5 billion years. Unlike the other types of dangerous fuels that humanity consumes on a regular basis, the solar enery can be utilized for nature-friendly projects that involve food production, heating and even industial purposes while delivering a fully green solution for manufacturers and large factories.Remote Power:In order to power up a remote area of the world, we need to plant generators and install wire systems that could spread thousands of miles across uncharted territories. The price for such project would be enormous, not to mention the fee for maintenance.The use of solar energy allows the placement of independent panels without the installation of serious wiring. The benefits of applying the use of solar energy have already been adapted in space stations. Same can be done for households and commercial buildings where green roofs can be combined with solar power equipment for the creation of untimate Eco-frineldy urbanisation.References:http://www.altenergy.org...http://energy.gov...
Great Britain- The Anti-Christ's last stand

I have put up some solid evidence that Great Britain is indeed the Empire of the Antichrist My first evidence 1)The beast has a mortal wound Revelation 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed and all the world marvelled after the Beast: It is said that King Arthur died of a mortal head wound at the Battle of Camlann between 516-550 AD. The prophecy from the Revelation is clear that the one of the head of the beasts which was wounded is indeed King Arthur whose spirit will return and possess a British (includes Wales, England & N. Ireland) the axis of Evil. There is a chance that the Revelation is pointing towards a future king possessing the spirit of King Arthur. 2nd Evidence 2)The Coat of Arms of Great Britain and Wales Second concrete evidence is that Great Britain has 3 slim lions as its coat of arms. Mark- I said 3 slim not strong lions. It is possible that those 3 lions had a body of a leopard. Let's not forget that the Welsh flag is a red dragon. I am sure I have talked about the red dragon in the revelation. 3rd Evidence 3)European Union – the Revived Roman Empire As I have mentioned earlier that Rome is too weak to rule the European Union so Europe wants a nations that is strong to rule the entire "continent." Who is the suitable country to lead such a huge confederation? France- No, Germany- No It should be a country that can sustain itself- yes look north towards Great Britain. 4th Evidence- 4)The Antichrist is not from Israel Daniel 7:24, 8:9, 11:21, 11:28 And the Ten Horns out of this Kingdom [Europe] are Ten Kings that shall arise; and another shall arise after them and he shall be diverse from the other Ten. And out of one of them came forth a little horn which waxed exceedingly great toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the Pleasant Land (Israel): A vile person, to whom they shall not give the Honour of the Kingdom, but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the Kingdom (of Israel) through lies, cunning deceit, and flatteries. Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the Holy Covenant [the Jews]; he shall do great exploits and return to his own land. This verse tells us that the Antichrist after making a contract with Israel will return to his land. Which land is the bible talking about? The bible is clear as it tells us that "he shall do great exploits and RETURN TO HIS OWN LAND." It gives us an impression that Antichrist is not from Israel. I guess I have provided all the evidence I need to prove that Antichrist is coming from the Great Britain (axis of evil) and not from Israel. THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER THE ANTICHRIST EXISTS OR NOT. THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT WHERE THE ANTICHRIST WILL COME FROM AND WHERE HE WILL OPERATE FROM IN THE LAST DAYS.
Great Britain- The Anti-Christ's last stand

Europe is not a Superpower Woah!!!!!!!! Which country do you live in? Europe currency Euro runs will on the American Dollar but it still cannot compete with the Pound. Proof that Great Britain can sustain itself. US Jealous Neighbors Afghanistan- the Taliban will be back again. They will never be extinct. China- The red dragon- the horse of Satan is the only nation that can take up the Super Power Status after the US and it will be waiting for an opportunity to attack the US if it gets the chance. The Middle East- Iran, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt are not friends of the USA. Are they? I never talked of Harry Potter here. You are bringing in subjects that are not supposed to be included in this topic. Europe does not worship Dragons You are right only god damned people of the Far East worship the Dragon or the Satan. But you cannot deny the fact that the Coat of Arms of Wales is a Red Dragon. My grammar may fail at times but that is the only reason you can put up in this debate thinking you might sneak a lucky win. Fine, my grammar is not fine I admit it but please stay in the topic. I have been called worst but I will not stop writing because I was born to write and write only. Back to the Topic Great Britain is in Europe- You have never seen the Map of Europe its' ok you can 1)My opponent has yet to prove that Great Britain will host the Antichrist. Ans. The beast rises out of the Sea and the British Isles is surrounded by sea. I have answered you first question. 2)My opponent has yet to prove that there is an Antichrist. Ans. The Spirit of Anti-Christ still exists. Christians consider that the people like Hitler, Nero had the spirit of the Antichrist. I wish a Christian was debating with me. 3)My opponent has confused Europe, Great Britain, and Rome with each other many, many times. He has also confused Italy with Rome several times. Ans. Rome is in Italy. 4)My opponent is connecting points that do not exist. It would make sense if you were a Christian. How can I debate with someone who denies the Antichrist? I did not start the debate on "Does the Antichrist really exists?" 5)There have never been 7 consecutive kings named Charles That is right. 6)According to scripture, the antichrist has never stood before, thereby negating my opponent's argument. Con wins by default. Vote con. The Antichrist has not come in flesh yet thought the Spirit of Antichrist has been present in this world since the beginning. I think I have answered all your questions. Instead of debating with me you have found other ways – like criticizing me, telling me that AntiChrist does not exist and making fun of my grammar. Debate with me.
April DDO Music Tourney R1 - Larz vs TN05

http://www.youtube.com... A simple little composition I made. Sorry for poor quality, I wasn't allowed to enhance it more to minimize all those pops and stuff and make myself more audible haha. Excuse my cellphone going off briefly around 2 minutes in too lol. See, this is why we need to allow broad audio enhancement in music competitions haha. "My home is in another world" lyrics Time gets old Memories hold But all he could forget Angels dark Still burn his heart Too late to be a threat Love no dream Espouse no theme Face everything alone For all he'd be a mystery Stranger so unknown And he lives on the sidewalk Watching life pass him by And he sleeps in a bubble Soaring to clear skies My home is in another world In a world so far away My home is in another world So he prays every day My home is in another world A world he well recalls My home is in another world Still wondering if it's there at all Had no chance At first glance To make it where he is Desperate will Exploitable To reach the world that's his Walks the beat Down narrow streets They question whence he came But they can't see With empathy They scarcely know his name And he lives on the sidewalk Watching life pass him by And he sleeps in a bubble Soaring to clear skies (chorus repeats twice)
god

As my opponent has forfieted round 2, I have nothing to counter. However, I will offer a brief comment about each claim.1) "there is no god in the universe" cannot at this time be proven or disproven. Specific gods could be disproven depending on their nature. For example, a volcano god that will erupt if a sacrifice is not provided could be disproven simply by withholding sacrifice. But for there to be absolutely no gods, especially considering how broad a definition is considered, is beyond impractical, it would be impossible.2) the definition of "mentally disturbed" would need to be provided, shown to include all believers before I could refute this. As far as I can tell, being mentally disturbed is not a characteristic commonly accepted by the psychology community in reference to believers solely because of their belief in a god.3) again, nothing except a bald assertion has been given, so I would need more to work with in order to refute this.
god

As I see that Pro is a new member to the site, I’d like to extend him a warm welcome, and look forward to a lively conversation. Pro seems to have articulated his position to have three separate components, all of which he’ll need to defend in order to his statement to be true and for him to win. i. There is no god in the universe. ii. People who believe in a god are mentally disturbed iii. When bad things happen, believers falsely attribute it to god rather than admitting it is their fault. As he is both Pro and instigator, the burden is on him to prove all three of these statements. If he cannot substantiate any one of them, then he ought not to have made them in the first place. By using the lowercase “god” rather than the capitalized “God” of Abraham, and by making no mention specifically to Islam, Judaism, or Christianity, I can only assume that my opponent is making these claims with respect to theism in general, and not just the practitioners of any one particular religion or denomination. If I have incorrectly stated his position in any way, I ask for his clarification. Otherwise, I accept, and look forward to hearing his opening argument in round 2.
Studying English(Pro) vs Math(Con)

REBUTTALSa.) Criterion DisputeSide proposition has stated that "I am the instigator, I had provided the criterion I wanted to debate upon." This stretches the line-the opposition has not provided any criterion in Round One, and even if he had, his criterion has been disputed by side-opposition and it seems that side-proposition has been unable to refute it, or provide sufficient reasons to reject it. Frankly, this debate is not base on age. This debate is based on the "intrinsic value" criterion-and to this, side-prop. has attempted to use the "ease" criterion. But in terms of consistency, building a straw-hut is much easier than building a luxury palace-yet we would all prefer to live in a luxury palace than a straw hut. Ease does not increase desirability.b.) EnglishThe opposition has attempted to refute my statistics on the number of total English speaker, but de minimis non curat praetor. (The statistic presented by side-proposition is ±500m of the stat., which is predictable due to the extreme difficulty of measuring language speakers) However, what is not de minimis is the assertion that English is the "is the most used language" in the world. Chinese is; accordingly to a study by Ethnologue, Chinese has 1,197 million speakers, whilst English has 335 million speakers. The opposition expects to find that a math test in China will be written in English. [1]c.) ExcelThe opposition has an intimate relationship with Excel. He thinks that it would be able to answer any question in anything. Let us talk about Cartesian co-ordinates here. The well known Cartesian formula is y=mx+b, or slope-intercept form. Now, the opposition thinks that Excel does this for you-no it cannot. This is where Excel ends-one must find the points of the graph, or the slope of the line described by the formula, then add it in into Excel. And apart from this, when it comes to Parabolas and Functions, Excel's ability is severely limited by that. The opposition says "who cares about the past?" If you don't, millions of people do-do we really want to prostitute our rationality in some AI-thing in which we would be unable to understand if not for our mathematical education? Does it ever bother side-proposition that by doing this, the computer is smarter than us?ISSUES IN DISCUSS:a.) Criterion DisputeThe opposition has been disabled from providing any form of persuasive argument for the criterion of ease, which henceforth leaves us with the intrinsic value criterion, which the opposition still has not refuted, except using several ad hominem-type arguments i.e. "I made this"b.) ArgumentsThe opposition raises almost no argument whatsoever in support of his baseline. No good arguments were raised in support of the values of the study of English. c.) RefutationsThe opposition's refutations are de minimis in reducing the argument of my case. The resolution is NEGATED!CITATIONS;[1] http://www.ethnologue.com...
Studying English(Pro) vs Math(Con)

Con should have read round 1 a bit more properly. It states that I am in 7th grade, so we are talking about the usefulness in that time, and I am sure no young quantum physics guys are common yet. Firstly, the proposition side has not (a) provided an adequate criterion for indeed having a good debate. He suggests that the "[ease of] to study [which can be thought] of as better than the other." However, this criterion is, frankly, lame and ultimately, worthless. English is easier AND better than Math. And since I am the instigator, I had provided the criterion I wanted to debate upon, and therefore con may not have accept it if it is 'lame'. For ultimately, what Ms. Excel can do is all based on math, which is based on the ability of someone to do math. And half the Math sums are based on whether you understand the questions or not, which may be in English. And no, 1.5 billion people speak English- source- http://www.statista.com... Furthermore, English still is the most spoken language, and there may be a few English speakers in every country. Although all the world know math, suppose some statistics had to be shared on the internet for global issues. How will an Indian understand Chinese, or vice-versa? English is the most used language, that is for sure. From the start it was about which was more difficult 'formulas boggle my head' yet Con has drifted to usages of these subjects. The question here is which is better to study, English or Math?? Ms. Excel- Who cares about the past, now that Ms Excel makes graphs, why we need to do it on paper? Reading a graph is a different thing, maybe we can learn that but why waste time making those things? And as for Cartesian grid, Ms Excel has different graph formats. You could choose the one which seems similar. Unless Con can provide enough reasons to show Math is easier and one is more likely to study it than English in school if it was optional, I can say that the resolution is resolved.
Studying English(Pro) vs Math(Con)

I think you have set off on the wrong direction. I didn't mean whether the subjects have certainties or not, but which subject is easier to study and can be thought of as better than the other. Also I am talking about studying them in school. While you put in terms English rhetoric and semantics increases difficulty, the same thing can be done for math. While Math is mostly about numbers, I could twist around the straightforward definitions of say algebra to confuse the students. In English too they can be expressed in a far more understandable way. Math can at times lose its usefulness. It is just like my friend said 'Just learn the four operations, add, subtract, divide, multiply and then throw the book in the bin. I have not been using algebra in my daily life, as we don't take the time to substitute a value for the place of x and switch around things, for it goes automatically. For example I ask what number to add to 5 to get the sum of 9? You will say four, not run around for a piece of paper or write a variable and then solve it. For further reference I will refer to my debate 'Is algebra useful in our daily lives?' What is the use of graphs as well, when we have soft wares in which we can just put the values and the graph will pop up? Ms. Excel has that facility. I don't get why I need to draw it. Furthermore, English has a lot of uses in our daily lives. We always need to speak, and English is a global language. We also get times when we need to convince others of our view, like arguments and even this debate, and usage of semantics and rhetoric help in convincing the other person. Even without semantics, knowing good vocabulary can help muster more reasons to persuade the other person. Plus English can be entertaining if you like reading novels, while Math entertainment is more limited compared to the wide range of books available. Math is hard, but you say life is hard. But who said death is easy? It is a painful process, whichever way you wanna die. English is easier than Math, simply because it has more uses so our expertise is increased. From all subject except foreign language to even games, English prevails.