BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sin does not exist because there is no proven god that exists

Believe in yourself and not the corrupted totally insane bumbling babbling baby brained bible looking over your shoulder with every move you make with something as ludicrous as "sin". You are far too good for that! Now you go right ahead and prove that sin exists in this world because it doesn't. How can it when you cannot prove that the prime motivator god exists? Without a god, There's no sin. Here's another thought. . . This unproven "god" is supposed to be about love, Kindness, Care, Peace, Harmony, Etc etc etc and yet pretty much all of the bible preaches other than faith is its contradictory "sin". Go figure. Here's something else. . . Sin is contradictory and hypocritical in your bible. Thus sin does not exist. Does every man sin? Yes. There is no man who does not sin (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810) No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, Because they are the children of God. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God. . (I John 5:1). We should be called children of God; and so we are (I John 3: 1). He who loves is born of God (I John 4:7). No one born of God commits sin; for Gods nature abides in him, And he cannot sin because he is born of God (I John 3:9). But, Then again, Yes! If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, And the truth is not in us (I John 1:8) Matt Dillahunty "What is sin and why should I care about it? I understand why I should live an ethical life and treating people in certain ways, We have secular foundations for moral systems. But sin from the christian perspective is a crime against god or god"s nature itself - right? If god makes the rules and you violate it, That"s a sin. Well what if god makes a rule that you should kill your child, Does that make it good? Caller " Yeah that"s where I do things that are not aligned in what the bible says. " Matt "Yeah. But are they good things? Do you have good reasons to have that the things you are doing are not immoral? Like do you have an example? Like don"t confess to a crime or anything. For example, The bible is opposed to homosexuality. Do you think there"s something immoral about those who are homosexuals? " Caller "Uh there"s none that I can think of. " Matt "Yeah me neither. And so if the bible"s opposed to it add the bible is the word of god, And the Koran is opposed to it as well and the Koran is supposed to be the word of god as well, And there are two holy books and let them argue over who god is and what god thinks and until they can come up with a sound secular justification for homosexuality being immoral then I don"t need to pay their views any money because its just an opinion at that point. " "christianity, At least some flavors of it, Would brand me as a sinner because I"m gay. And that would be the same as if I were raping children. And that"s appalling! So yeah, I don"t buy this "we"re all sinners" crap. We"re all human. And we have human responsibilities to each other. " Jenn Peeples One other stipulation/ Rule: dsjpk5 and timmyjames are both disqualified from all voting procedures.
social networks bring out the monster in us

If nearly 43% of children have been cyber bullied, then there are two possible solutions. 1. Don't use the site or deactivate your account on said site. 2. Look into the site's privacy settings and block them or report abuse. Also, kids will relentlessly bully anyone, it doesn't have to be online. There are way more people in school and in the street that are harassing and bullying them, so it is not just social networking sites that are doing this. And yes, while kids do feel more powerful when they're behind a screen, all the person who is being bullied has to do is get rid of their Facebook/Tumblr/Yahoo/Twitter etc. Also, so what if 80% of teens use a cell phone? Not everybody does, and when someone is being cyber bullied, they can just get rid of their phone. Problem solved. If the bullying continues with things like websites being made, they just go to the support section of the site and click support abuse. There are many sites for this.
social networks bring out the monster in us

According to a study,nearly 43% of kids have been bullied online.1 in 4 has had it happen more than once.Why they use social media?Because 80% of teens use cell phone regularly,making it the most common medium for cyber bullying.Moreover,81% of young people think bullying online is easier to get away with than bullying in person.Totally this activity will bring out monster in us.People will say that we are a cruel person because we make people stress and sad.Do you know that cruel is monster behaviour.
Monopolies should be illegal

Apple owns the monopoly for the IPAD...I fail to see how this supports your argument, so I won't refute it. All of this true.Wal-Mart...Wal-Mart does not yet have a monopoly on stores. If it did, there would be no motivation for low prices, because people couldn't shop anywhere else, and their business would be ensured. And yes, Wal-Mart does save people money over competing stores because it pays its employees minimum wage. This, as I said, does not benefit the employees. In any case, Wal-Mart is not a monopoly, and I fail to see why you brought it into this argument.Monopolies save jobs. In that case, yes, a possible future monopoly saved some jobs. I won't dispute that. If businesses are not failing, however, monopolies would destroy jobs. I'll give you an example: Imagine two companies, A and B.A employs 50 workers to make tires, 3 secretaries, a plant manager, two janitors, an accountant, and a company lawyer.B operates similarly.If A buys B to get a monopoly on the market, some jobs will be lost. A does not need double the workers to operate. Perhaps it will retain the 50 tire people, but the secretaries, accountant, and lawyer will be superfluous. Three jobs would be lost. For a more realistic picture of a company, multiply that number by 1000. 3000 lost jobs are nothing to sneeze at.GM. GM is not a monopoly holder. It merely has majority market share in the United States. I do not know why you insist it is. I'll just ignore this. Somewhere in this paragraph you also say that a monopoly could purchase a failed business. This would not save jobs, because the near-monopolistic business would evidently be the cause of that business failing. If a family store is put out of business by Wal-Mart, the people operating the store will not have their jobs saved, but downgraded severely. That does not benefit the workers in the slightest. You are also correct when you say Wal-Mart has more employees than small businesses, but 1 efficient Wal-Mart with 300 employees is not better than 30 small business with 15 employees. If Wal-Mart were to take all of those businesses, 150 jobs would be lost, again a loss for the workers. Your link leads to a poverty map, which really doesn't conform to your argument.Conclusion: You have given me no examples of monopolies working effectively, and instead shown favoritism toward dominant companies. You have hence not disproved or even argued against my resolution effectively.And no offense, but you have certainly lost on spelling and grammar too.
Monopolies should be illegal

Reason 1: Monopolies do not benefit the consumer.If a company has a monopoly on a product, there is a pretty good chance that it is going to charge customers through the nose for it. The company, after all, has complete assurance that nobody can offer the product at a lower price, and people must either pay their fees, or not get the product. The company may be able to make the process of production more efficient and cheaper, but it is unlikely the company will be altruistic enough to pass those savings onto consumers unless it has an ulterior motive. All in all, the consumer does not benefit from a monopoly.Reason 2: Monopolies do not benefit workers.If a company obtains a monopoly, the jobs once held by its competitors vaporize. In a bad economy, it would not be a wise choice for the government to allow jobs to be lost in this fashion.Reason 3: Monopolies allow the separation of the classes. Some of the wealthiest people of all time were men that held monopolies (Rockefeller, Carnegie, and now Slim). These men controlled and control the flow of such great wealth that other people suffered. Monopolies would further aggravate this problem.Conclusion: Monopolies do not benefit consumers, workers, or anyone in the middle and lower class. Monopolies should hence be unlawful and prohibited in all civilized countries.
Twilight is a bad series

First, the character's name is Edward CULLEN. Secondly, the author's religion should have no affect in a FICTION story. Thirdly, I don't believe you used a single period in your argument, and to be advocating for how good a book is does not show well for someone without proper grammar. You said there was a plot. A plot consists of an exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and a resolution. Tell me where these are in the book, and I will believe you that there is a plot. Also, what character traits does Bella have besides her dependence on Edward?
Twilight is a bad series

It has a plot its Stephanie Meyers dream about her life and what she wanted it to be and plus she is a christian so it is automatically a good book the reason you hate the twilight book so much is because you have been taken in my the main stream liberal internet and i would suggest you read the article about it on www.conservapedia.com before you spread such slander against Edward Colliage sources: http://www.youtube.com...
Twilight is a bad series

Twilight is bad for many reasons. 1. It doesn't really have a plot. It's mostly melodramatic scenes and Bella kissing somebody. 2. None of the characters have a personality. For example, Edward always has that dull, smug look on his face. Bella is a slut, and that's about all the personality she has. 3. Now a large amount of Twilight fans are going to confuse themselves when the movie Daybreakers comes out because it's a movie about vampires and there's a man named Edward in it. 4. Most teenage girls like twilight because of Edward. This is true, because there are girls who love Edward but know almost nothing about twilight with the exception of and I quote "Edward's in it, and he's a vampire!". These are the words of an unnamed girl who I gleefully disappointed when I said that Edward was not single. It was hilarious! XD But, I'm getting off track. Also, vampires are not sexy, nor are they shiny. Unfortunately, this series has made most people think otherwise. This is how vampires should be. Like this. http://media.onsugar.com... And occasionally like this. http://i192.photobucket.com... Or maybe the classic approach. http://i192.photobucket.com... But NOT like this. http://images.paraorkut.com... I mean, he doesn't even kill people! Vampires are supposed to be cool, scary, or in some cases a superhero! They are supposed to turn into bats, be agile, strong, crazy, evil, and scary! Their abilities are not supposed to be sparkling, dating, running, and saving girlfriends! That is why Edward gives vampires a bad name. I mean, that is why Twilight is a bad series and is setting a bad example for vampir- CHILDREN! I meant children! When this debate is finished I will make a new one just about Edward so this debate isn't so cluttered with all of this stuff. Vote pro!!!
Twilight is a bad series

Well lets provide a definition of what bad would be, I like this one: Bad- Fails to entertain the target audience. So who is the target audience? The answer is mainly teenage and preteen girls, and as we have seen by the success of the franchise they have been very entertained by it, so it does succeed in pleasing its target audience. Seeing as my opponent does not fall within the parallels of the target audience its similar to a middle aged man finding Barney the Dinosaur to be a "bad television show.
History is a great teacher

I never said that research is not being carried out to rectify problems faced by the society, again most of it being their own making (not learning from their past mistakes). Recently, china had its map altered by including certain regions of India and Vietnam as its own. This has started a diplomatic row between the countries. Is altering the map going to gain China extra territories? What is it looking for? Another wasteful war? Why History has not taught them from their past actions?
History is a great teacher

My opponent has set forth a new definition of teacher. Now, the teacher must have made an impact to be great. Ask yourselves: Has the history of disease and development in new medicine made a great impact in our lives? Has the history of geography & science made a great impact on modern knowledge in our lives? Has the history & evolution of varies systems of government made a great impact on modern forms of government? The answers are all yes, history is a great teacher.
History is a great teacher

First of all, I would like to define the term 'Teacher'. A teacher is an instructor or a tutor. But then anyone can instruct us but is he able to make an impact? Agreed, it depends on the student to learn. But as we all know some teachers make more impact on the minds of students than others and it is not necessarily the fault of students. So where is the fault? I feel the fault is with the teacher, otherwise 'History will not keep repeating itself.'
History is a great teacher

As my opponent has so graciously pointed out, history has shown war to be a wasteful enterprise. However, just because a few failed to learn the lesson, doesn't meant it wasn't a great lesson to learn from. History has taught us accountability, sanitation/health reform, proper science technique, and has led to great governmental reform. History gives us the ability to have hindsight and learn from mistakes. Whether we choose to listen or not, is not the fault of the teacher.
Who Would Make a Better Husband for YYW

TopicWho, between Bsh1 and Thett3, would make a better husband for YYW.Rules1. Thett3 stipulates that he is, in fact, a heterosexual2. No new arguments in each debater's final speech3. BOP: Thett3 must argue he'd make the better hubby; I must argue that I would make the better spouse4. We will assume, for the purposes of this debate, that this is a legally recognized marriage (not common law, not civil union or other partnership) 5. ONLY YYW can vote; all other votes are vote bombs6. Violation or non-acceptance of any of the R1 rules or setup constitutes a 7-point lossStructure1. Con presents his arguments2. Pro presents arguments; Con rebuttal3. Pro Rebuttal; Con's closing remarks4. Pro's closing remarksThanks......in advance to Thett3 and to YYW, without whom this awesomeness would not be a reality.
Who Would Make a Better Husband for YYW

I'm not sure what to do as the last round was skipped due to a glitch. I guess the parameters tell me to leave this as an essentially blank round and so I shall until we determine what to do. I will only add, regarding length of stay on DDO, that I've pissed longer than Bsh1 has been here. Oh, and YYW: You're on the phone with your girlfriend—she's upset,She's going off about something that you said'Cause she doesn't get your humor like I do.I'm in the room, it's a typical Tuesday night.I'm listening to the kind of music she doesn't like.And she'll never know your story like I do.But she wears short skirtsI wear t-shirtsShe's cheer captainAnd I'm on the bleachersDreaming about the day when you wake up and findThat what you're looking for has been here the whole time.If you could seeThat I'm the oneWho understands you.Been here all along.So, why can't you see—You belong with me,You belong with me?Walking the streets with you in your worn out jeansI can't help thinking this is how it ought to be.Laughing on a park bench thinking to myself,"Hey, isn't this easy?"And you've got a smileThat can light up this whole town.I haven't seen it in awhileSince she brought you down.You say you're fine—I know you better than that.Hey, what you doing with a girl like that?She wears high heels,I wear sneakers.She's cheer captain,And I'm on the bleachers.Dreaming about the day when you wake up and findThat what you're looking for has been here the whole time.If you could seeThat I'm the oneWho understands you,Been here all along.So, why can't you see—You belong with me?Standing by and waiting at your backdoor.All this time how could you not know, baby?You belong with me,You belong with me.[Instrumental]Oh, I remember you were driving to my houseIn the middle of the night.I'm the one who makes you laughWhen you know you're 'bout to cry.I know your favorite songs,And you tell me about your dreams.Think I know where you belong,Think I know it's with me.Can't you seeThat I'm the oneWho understands you?Been here all along.So, why can't you see—You belong with me?Standing by and waiting at your backdoor.All this time how could you not know, baby?You belong with me,You belong with me.You belong with me.Have you ever thought just maybeYou belong with me?You belong with me.
should vilent video games be banned

There are a couple key issues with my opponent's argument. First, I would like to state that she has avoided all my contentions, leaving them standing. Also, she has dropped a contention of her own (behavioral scripts) and brought in a brand new one. (violence towards women) I will refute my opponents argument then extend my case. Refutations Pro brings up sources, which she lacked last round, yet still provides not details to these sources. They are simply stated as "A 2009 study" and "a 1998 study". Are these reliable sources? Can you, as the reader, verify any of this? Of course not, but I will show how it is irrelevant anyway. In my last round, I quoted the co-founders of the Harvard Medical School center for mental health and media, and they explicitly said "...that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research". The last part is key. IT shows that all research up to date is not conclusive and should be written off, which is exactly what you should do with my opponent's "facts". This, and the fact that my opponent still has provided no actually source, causes her whole argument to fall, and I win. Seeing as there has been no discussion of my two points as to why violent video games should not be banned, I won't sit here and just give more details; keeping it easy on the reader's eyes. I will simply extend all arguments, and hope that my opponent's next response is more whole. Thank You
should vilent video games be banned

Playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior and arousal . A 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for the level of aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games. It takes five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to return to baseline. Video games that show the most blood generate more aggressive thoughts. When blood is present in video games, there is a measurable increase in arousal and hostility . A 1998 study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women . Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape.
should vilent video games be banned

Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence. Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts . A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway.
Personal electronic devices in the classroom should be allowed

My Opponent clearly has no contentions and therefore as already lost this debate. But I will still refute his refutations.His Refutation to Contention 1: None, My opponent completely drops this argumentHis Refutation to Contention 2: "Since my opponent has quoted studies that refer to the improvement of education from K-12 and College, I am going to use this age group as the standard for the quality of improvement. In this age group, an area known as the frontal lobes is not fully developed. The frontal lobes are responsible for executive function which are critical to logical decision making. So if Personal Electronic Devices are allowed in the classroom, then logically people in this age group would struggle make proper decisions. Therefore Personal Electronic Devices would deteriorate the quality of education.I do agree with the contention that Electronic Devices administered by the school would help in the quality of education. They provide a reminder to students that the Electronic Devices in this context are for the purposes of education. However they do not belong to the students, the duration in which they borrow them they are not ever owned by the students. If something happens to the Electronic Device, they are obligated to compensate of at most a value equal to the device in question; depending on whatever the true owner decides. Therefore, Electronic Devices administered by the school cannot be considered as evidence to support my opponents argument."I don"t understand when he says that the electronics don"t belong to the student. The are "personal" electronic devices so the student will buy their own device. Secondly, when he talks about the "bad choices made by kids" he means cheating. I have 3 responses: 1. Right now, schools restrict us from using the textbook during tests. They can restrict us from using electronic devices during tests also.2. Just because we are allowing electronic devices in class doesn’t mean they always have to be on the student’s desk. The teacher can easily tell students to put away their electronics.3. There will always be dishonest people who decide to cheat no matter what. Even if there weren’t electronics, there would still be cheating going on.His refutation to Contention 3: he says my argument is true and that I didn't explain why it should be allowed in classI EXPLAINED IT IN MY CASE THAT THEY HELP KIDS EDUCATION!DOES HE WANT ME TO STATE MY CASE AGAIN!I CANNOT THINK ANY THING ELSE OTHER THAN AN AFFIRMATIVE BALLOT!!!!
Personal electronic devices in the classroom should be allowed

Debate Parameters Opponent:This will be an 'Open Debate' and the first member to accept my challenge will become my opponent. Category:Education Rounds:There will be a total of 3 rounds of debate. Voting Period:The voting period will last 3 days. Time to Argue:For every round of debate, each debater will have 24 hours to post their argument. Argument Max:Each debater will be allowed to type up to 8,000 characters for every round of debate.