BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
George w. bush is a good president

Bush has reached an all time low aproval rating, all time meaning of any past (or present) president here is the link to prove such: http://www.cnn.com... here is the popular vote: http://www.infoplease.com... MORE people wanted Albert A. Gore Jr. Thus most Americans do not aprove of George W. Bush. No child left behind (NCLB) is NOT more good than bad. it is only good for children who are not as smart as others. It makes (sorry if this offends anyone) dumb kids and makes them a little smarter, at the expense of the smarter kids. the grades it matters (1-5) is not set up equally. Meaning it is not split up in classes like 6-12. In the younger grades, children are LUCKEY to have Science/socialstudies for 5 mins a day every other week (alternating). That is what my school did when NCLB came into being. I talked to kids from other schools and they had no sceice or social studies, and almost no language arts. Not to mention because of it children ae missing out on PE, creating less exercise, not to mention nasty schooll food that is unhealthy, add those together, that is the reason the youth is generally overweight. Thus Bush= not a good president, but maybe a good comedian. That ladies and gentlemen is why I am opposed to Bush as our leader, he might be a good person with good ideas (and a horrible way of speaking them), but should not be our leader.
George w. bush is a good president

First, I would like to state that we are not at war on Iraq, we are at war on terrorism. When 911 happened we thought Afganistan was solely responsible, later to find out the terrorist were from iraq and iran also. Besides, youtube is not a credable source. Off the subject of war, George w. Bush has passed a bill (no child left behind), which helps students keep on track through tests. It also sets a standard level of education a student needs, so that no student is not ready for independent life. It also, awards the schools, that do good on the standardized test. George w. Bush was obviously liked by the majority of Americans because he was elected twice.
George w. bush is a good president

Here are some key points, I would like to point out. Bush is good. .. to those that will benefit him. However, you are incorrect. Bush lied in order to get the war on Iraq, but, everyone was supporting him on the war in Afgahnistan. Furhermore, GWB does not even know how to say a correct sentence. I have no idea how America was STUPID enough to elect such an idiot into office, twice. "Fool me once. .. .. shame on. .. .shame on you. .. .. fool me a-and you can't be fooled again. " -president George W Bush. some of his better work: . http://www.youtube.com... My point, he is NOT a good president, and anyone who is for the US, should be opposed to Bush, and vise versa.
The Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

Well, it seems my opponent has given up. He has dropped every one of his arguments, not supporting a single one. Not only that, but now he has resorted to trolling. His last round is nothing more than a copy of his argument from a totally unrelated debate about government conspiracies. [1] So in summary, my opponent plagiarized, never shown us any evidence he didn't plagiarize, dropped all his arguments, and went wildly off topic in the final round. Please vote Con. Sources: 1.http://www.debate.org...
The Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

As I printed for another debate: "I'm not here to win points. As long as I tell still another person is all I'm trying to do. Will you be in as much trouble as I am for it? As long as our Constitution remains we are safe today. When everybody knows, then, it will be futile to suppress this knowledge any more, therefore, I recommend spreading this knowledge." But in that debate I printed the "supreme grand secret": "Vagal stimulation is as effective as LSD." The "lost word" here is only the "royal arch secret".
The Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

I've heard some crazy stuff before, but that one takes the cake. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend you're telling the truth... Your job hasn't gotten any easier in this debate. You still have a long way to go to win this debate. So far, every claim you've made is without warrant. You've given us no reason to believe anything you have said. Here are just a few things you need to support with evidence if you have any chance of winning this debate: 1. There exists such a thing as "the Holy Spirit". 2. It is obvious that in the universe everything is trying to run down to undifferentiate into nothingness, or some are being built up by that which is running down. 3. Our person is a closed circuit in the arising reticular formation of the medulla oblongata of the brain. 4. Whatever undifferentiates this circuit causes pleasure. 5. Ultimately it can undifferentiate into nothingness. 6. There is a veil in the brain which veils the great satisfaction of deep sleep and other common causes of unconsciousness. Pleasures override this veil. 7. There is a secret sound, called the "lost word" which gives you moments of near nonexistence. 8. If the nonexistence was total you would remain permanently nonexistent. 9. This sound is the cylindrical sound. It induces other closed circuits which, by the attraction of confluency, causes the personal closed circuit some undifferentiation, which is that euphoria called "nirvana". 10. The "lost word" bypasses that veil, and shows that nonexistence will be the total satisfaction of all desires. Start by offering evidence for those issues. As it stands now, I ask the voters to reject them as the baseless claims that they are.
The Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

Bolonkib was just another one of my aliases. Bolonkib is the Mayan name for March 9, 1944, the day I was conceived. Lahunken is the Mayan name for November 12, 1944, the day I was born. Check out here "It Happened To Me .'. It Can Happen To You", and you will see why I am such a fugitive. Go to my Yahoo group EnergyandInformation and you can read all these posts. I expose un-Constitutionally suppressed secrets, even secrets about our own human physiology. The secret "vagal stimulation is as effect as LSD" is the most suppressed secret there ever was. I recommend that you spread such secrets, for, when everybody knows, it will be futile for them to try to shut us up.
Agnosticism is more appropriate than Atheism

Here is why your entire argument doesn't matter, attrition. A. You are giving god a definition yourself. I will then have to disprove "your" god or in other words a Spinoza god. B. If you dont give something a proper definition, it can not be "proven" or "disproven" or even debated. It does not exist if it is not defined in Philosophy. So, I have disproven god. I have disproven the Christian god. Therefore, I am atheist towards the Christian god. You can keep throwing gods at me, attrition, and they probably wont work very well. But that's all you're doing, creating gods to fit into the new discoveries scientists have made. We dont know where thunder comes from... give it to a god because it is unexplained... Now we know it is not a god. I can give you multiple examples like this. God is just a substitute until an actual law of nature is discovered by us. If you'd like, attrition, the invisible pink unicorn has just as much evidence as your idea of what a god might be. Unfortunately, it is not real (nor is it necessary, as I stated in my post above) to exist. There isn't much of an argument I can make against someone who wants to think up their own definition on things just for it to exist. I'm sure I could show you many ways in which the universe can exist without a god (and does work without a god). So, when you can establish just what god is, then we can talk if someone can believe in it or not. You can not believe or disbelieve something that doesn't have a definition, though. And that, attrition, is why I'm atheist and why atheism is above agnostic thought. Because atheists work on real things, real evidence. Agnostics work on the thought "We'll never know" because they never give things a true definition or think up things that haven't been established. They are the science fiction of ontology, and atheists are the science. And that, my friends, is my fever filled, strep throat, final argument.
Agnosticism is more appropriate than Atheism

Definitions: Agnosticism: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God or not. Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. It is safe to say that no one has ever proven or dis-proven the existence of God. Therefore, atheism is just another faith of a sort, in the final non-existence of a super natural being. The evidence doesn't support the existence, therefore God doesn't exist. Agnostics are more truthful, we don't have support of the evidence either way, but we'll keep an open mind. I might even go as far as saying that various religious groups conception of God doesn't exist, but that can't prove that a god of unknown origins doesn't exist. Prove to me, that I should be an atheist over an agnostic.
Always true and always right

You are not the OG child MolestorI am, The one the god the great the creatorThe past, The present, The future is child rapeBut you falsify the text the only kid you rape are the ones who are fat and duct tapedIt doesn't matter if you molest children, For I am the one that molest better than youKnow your place, You copy cat, You can always join my child rape crewLets dismantle your argument one on oneThat your arguments are as valid as your penis hunYou talk about being wrong and right that is a contradictory Rhymes so weak reminds the kid I raped called maryYes you molested children but you aren't original you are just a copy catAnd that is a fact
Always true and always right

Always true and always right I have molested children This will always be true It was true in the past It will be true in the future It is always true and always right Even if I die, I will still molest children Even if you lock me up, I will still molest children Nothing can stop me from molesting children Nothing can undo that what I have done Nothing can stop that I molested children You can do to me whatever you want But remember that you are just another human Who says I am not under special protection of God I am immortal, Even though I can die In the past, In the present and in the future Always true and always right Even when wrong, Still right I have molested many children Nothing could stop me back then I molested a child, Nothing can undone what I did Always true and always right I have molested a child, That is the strongest truth You can destroy me, You can set me on fire But you cannot stop me from molesting children Always true and always right I have molested children
The Bible teaches that certain dances are sinful.

Happy Feet taught me that judging people's differences is wrong, though we cannot continue sinning. I gave Pro scriptures but doesn't seem to bother. When I say I didn't see anything wrong with it. Supposedly it started to feel like when you go to a dance school for dancing lessons, then a preacher goes and tells, say you have a wife, that you were cheating on her by dancing. Does dancing make you a whoremonger? Married or not, Pro implies it does. And now this is where he gives us the origin of Caramelldansen, Maybe I should've have explain to him more what lewd is. Lewdness has nothing to do with dancing though we both agreed it's forbidden in worship. Lewd has something to do with profanity. So there is nothing else left. He still has not learned the importance of Happy Feet or Jesus telling us not to judge. If you think that dancing is sinful, vote for Pro. If you agree from the summary of Happy Feet, vote for me, Con. ConclusionThere is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28(KJV) [1]So thank you all and godspeed. References[1] . http://biblehub.com...
The Bible teaches that certain dances are sinful.

I am sorry that Pro feels that way.While Pro thinks that dancing is sinful, the Bible doesn't give clear specific instructions whether it's sinful or not [1}"No one’s perfect, I agree. But are you saying that this means we all can just sin? “Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” (Romans 6:2)"Now I never implied that we should continue sinning.While he points to Colossians, it is true that we are no longer under the law, including the Sabbath, we may eat things like pork or lobster that may offend other people, and yes we shouldn't be judged for what we eat.But the one thing we never do is dance in worship including clapping.[2]We look in Exodus 32:19 (KJV) [3]:And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.Moses was angry that the Israelites were dancing in worship to a golden calf.Let me explain to the movie Happy Feet. This is where the main character Mumble who cannot sing but could dance which was offensive to his kind, was banished, meet televangelistic-like penguin, but then return. Turned out dancing was a form of communication. I know that Happy Feet offends other Christians.This movie isn't an attack on Christianity, though we are not to dance in worship. As for Charamellden, why does Pro think it's an adult visual novel? If anime is an adult visual novel, then no one should read it. Some anime are dirty and some are family oriented like Flying House and Superbook.So I apologize that Pro feels if dancing is sinful, then no christian should dance. Again, as I said in Round 2 we have free will, we are not perfect as those who are not christian? Does it mean we can continue sinning? Like he quoted in Colossians, of course not. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9 (KJV)Christians will admit and correct their wrongdoings. God chastens (corrects) us from our wrongdoings. For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. Hebrews 12:6 (KJV)Time to rap this up, back to Pro.References[1} http://www.gotquestions.org...[2} http://www.gotquestions.org...[3] http://biblehub.com...[4} http://www.imdb.com...[5] http://biblehub.com...[6} http://biblehub.com...
The Bible teaches that certain dances are sinful.

Thank you. What the instigator here is living in a world of Happy Feet [1][3], if anyone have watched the movie, where dancing is forbidden and what people are commanded to do (like the penguins in the movie) is sing just as according to Ephesians:Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; - Ephesians 5:19 [1][2]In his own teaching, he saying that we must not dance to this music, athough dancing in church is forbidden. He still thinks we are still under the law which Jesus Christ has done away with by His own Death on the Cross. This is considered a form of legalism.Definition of LewdnessLewd (adj) - Obscene or Indecent , as language or songs; salacious. [7]I will reexamine that five dances he claims that are lewd.The Argentine TangoI don't see anything wrong with it. It only shows expression for love.CaramelldansenNothing wrong with it either. It shows a bunch of happy and silliness from Japanese Anime characters.Belly DancingOkay. He's right on that.The BumpAlso known as Happy Happy Joy Joy, if I know from Ren and Stimpy[3]. It's not lewdness, although you can injure your friend or yourself by performing this dance.Booty DancingBoth the Pro and I agree also known as twerking. Twerking is very lewd because people see this on ABC's Dancing with the Stars [6], people also have done this on Youtube [5] and was reported by the UK's DailyMail.[4]While 2 of the 5 dances Pro has listed, 3 of them I see nothing wrong. As I said, Pro is living in a world of Happy Feet. Funny how he quotes from verses 3-5 of 1 Peter 4 he's going to give himself an account to God.As I say to him as quoted from this scripture:Judge not that ye be not judged.For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? - Matthew 7:1-3 (KJV) [1][2]Pro needs to take the beam out of his own eye. Christians are not perfect as non-Christians are according to Romans:As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one. - Romans 3:10 (KJV) [1][2]We have free will to do whatever we want although that we must judge the sins of people for the right reasons, like drugs, alcohol or marriage. But remember we are not to judge for the wrong reasons.So thank you and I will turn this back to Pro.References[1] Scriptures come from the King James Version. public domain. Sources from Happy Feet and Ren and Stimpy can be found on IMDb.[2] http://www.biblegateway.com... [3] http://www.imdb.com... [4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [5] http://www.youtube.com... [6] http://abc.go.com...[7] http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Bible teaches that certain dances are sinful.

Hello. Below are the rules for this debate.1. By "The Bible," I refer to the 39 Old Testament books Genesis–Malachi (the books of the Apocrypha, for example, are excluded) and the 27 New Testament books Matthew–Revelation.2. It will be assumed by both myself and Con that the books mentioned above cannot contradict each other in teaching.3. By "teaches" I'm saying that the Bible's teachings indicate in some way "that modern dancing is sinful." It, of course, does not need to explicitly indicate such.4. The term "dancing" is very general; therefore, I will narrow it down to the following dances:I. The Argentine tango, "A dance on which the ballroom tango is based, with slow intricate footwork"[1] II. Caramelldansen (Swedish for "The Caramell Dance"), a type of dancing that became a meme and is associated primarily with internet culture. "The meme started as a fifteen frame Flash animation loop showing Mai and Mii, characters of the Japanese visual novel Popotan, doing a hip swing dance with their hands over their heads to imitate rabbit ears ..."[2] III. Belly dancing, "a type of Middle Eastern dance done by a woman who makes rhythmic movements with her hips and belly"[3] IV. The bump, "a primarily 1970s fad dance introduced by Johnny Spruce in which the main move is to lightly 'bump' hips on every other beat of the music. As the dance (and the evening) progressed, the bumping could become more intimate, bumping hip to backside, low bending, etc."[2] V. Booty dancing, a dance that can be read about here: http://www.wikihow.com...5. By "sinful," I mean that the Bible prohibits it.6. The dances listed above are assumed to be performed the way they usually are performed with the typical type of person(s) involved, etc. (E.g., It is assumed that mixed audiences are watching the dances and that the dances that are done with partners are between a heterosexual male and a heterosexual female.) The use of rare situations (e.g., a husband and wife doing the tango alone at home on a rainy day) are outside the scope of the debate.7. In order for the proposition to be correct, at least three of the five dances listed must be sinful according to the Bible.8. Con shall make his first argument in this round, Round 1, getting the first word; Con is not permitted to make any arguments against the proposition in Round 4, the last round, but may make a comment in order to avoid a forfeiture—giving me the last word.9. The burden of proof is shared. I will argue that the proposition is correct, and Con will argue that it is incorrect.10. All extrabiblical sources must be freely accessable via the Internet.11. These rules (including this one) will be based upon my interpretation of them, which shall be enforced by the judges. If you have any questions about the rules, please message me before accepting the debate.Thank you, and may the right man win! Notes [1] Definition taken from https://en.wiktionary.org...[2] Definition taken from https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] Definition taken from http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Pineapple does not belong on a pizza.

Not only does pineapple has multiple health benefits, including vitamin C, thiamin, and manganese, [1] but, human taste buds have been proven to be able to taste multiple flavors at once through layers. [2] And with sweet and salty being one of the most popular flavor combinations, [3] it is no surprise that pineapple brings out the richness and sweetness to pizza. 1.) https://www.livescience.com... 2.) http://www.encyclopedia.com... 3.) https://recipes.howstuffworks.com...
penis size dont matter

The resolution requires my opponent to maintain that size "dont" matter. Observe this definion:Matter: to be of importance; signify [1].To win, all I have to do is provide instances of where it does, which I have already done with my studies and my opponent's concession of that "[big penises] can hurt".Of course this is their opinion, but their opinion is of importance (because women make choices based on it). Therefore, the resolution is negated.Refs[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
penis size dont matter

well, there are conditions and there are people who say that it matters and it doesn't. This is a matter of opinion and not fact. I dont think it does. Thank you for debating with me because i always need an excuse to say penis. The first part of the sentence was english, the second part was french. "The reality is that sometimes penis size matters, and sometimes it doesn’t." thats a quote from one of your articles so i think this debate ends in a tie. Have a nice day. :)
penis size dont matter

A1: Matters to women Survey [1]: Women said: “18% length very important, 22% girth very important; 57% length somewhat important, 53% girth somewhat important”. Study [2]: “Women rate men with larger penises more attractive [but with conditions].” CA1: In my opponent’s eyes, it also matters “A big penis can hurt some women as well.” Can hurt = matters. Refs [1] http://sexuality.about.com... [2] http://www.livescience.com...
The God of the Bible Exist

I am not arrogant enough or presumptuous enough to assert that God does or does not exist. But, there is no evidence of God. So I have to conclude, That God does not exist. Your proof of God, does rely on the Bible as evidence. Succeeding documents are only derivatives of earlier texts. None of which are original. You refer of Hebrews relating their traditions. Wouldn't this have been happening all over the world? From Australasia to the America's. People passing on traditional information. Why should the Hebrew's be the one righteous race of people? You cite Polycarp of Smyrna. Indicating that already the original information has migrated hundreds of miles, over hundreds of years and been translated from the Semitic languages into Greek. Let's not forget that the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek between 300 and 200 BC. Some 2000 years before the Modern Christian bible evolved.. Let's also not forget that the earliest copies of biblical texts formed part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls were not original. There are no original biblical texts. Let me quote you form a scientific study. (Peterson and Peterson 1959.) Participants were tasked with memorising a 3 letter sequence. They were then distracted with another task. It took only 18 seconds for the original 3 letter sequence to be forgotten completely. If human memory is so fallible. How can you suggest that a text of information composed thousands of years ago and subsequently translated, copied and rewritten, can in any way be a reliable version of the original information. And let's not forget. There are no original biblical texts. So I reiterate. How can you prove that Moses's tale was fact and not fanciful? It is an impossible task.