BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tf2 is superior to CoD

In this debate I will be taking the place on the affirmative team. In my opinion, and soon to be yours, Tf2, or team fortress 2 to say by its full name is superior to call of duty. My first topic is the price. Team Fortress 2 is free, however for players who like to feel they are supporting the creators there are many micro purchases in game which greatly enhance your game and respect around the Tf2 community, however these are by no means necessary for a good game, but with CoD you need to buy a new game almost every year, plus DLC.Many paid Tf2 players complain about free to plays. However there are 'Paid only' servers for people with these issues. CoD would not be overpriced if they were not so similar to each other and we're released so frequently. That is all for my first argument.
Fulfilled prophecy is evidence that the Bible is from God

Prophecy: Isaiah 13:19, 20; 45:1 And Babylon, the most glorious of kingdoms, The beauty and the pride of the Chal·de'ans, Will be like Sod'om and Go·mor'rah when God overthrew them. She will never be inhabited, Nor will she be a place to reside in throughout all generations. No Arab will pitch his tent there, And no shepherds will rest their flocks there. This is what Jehovah says to his anointed one, to Cyrus, Whose right hand I have taken hold of To subdue nations before him, To disarm kings, To open before him the double doors, So that the gates will not be shut (Prophecy written between 701-681 BC). Fulfillment: In 539 B. C. E Cyrus and his troops dug a channel to lower the level of the river that protected Babylon and, just as the Bible had predicted, the city gates were left open. The Bible also gave the name of the conqueror, Cyrus, before he was born*. Before Cyrus, Babylon had already been defeated by the Assyrian Empire, but it was able to recover and later conquer the Assyrian Empire. The Babylonian Empire, however, did not recover from Cyrus' conquest, as the Bible predicted. *The name of Cyrus is found in Chapter 45. Some believe that Chapters 40 and onward were not written by Isaiah, but were written after the event. Their argument is that the change of style in these chapters suggests there was a change in author as well. However, the change in subject matter explains the change of style, and there is a lot of evidence that Isaiah wrote the entire book. For example, the oneness of the book is indicated by the expression, "the Holy One of Israel," which appears twelve times in chapters 1 to 39, and thirteen times in chapters 40 to 66, a total of twenty-five times, whereas it appears only six times throughout the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. (All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial, pg. 118, par. 5) Even if you do not believe chapter 45 was written before the event despite the evidence, chapter 13 was, which predicted the destruction of Babylon by the Medes, who joined the Persians in the conquering of Babylon, and its eternal inhabitance, which is still true today, over a century before the conquest. Babylon was the world power of the time. This is like predicting that a specific nation will defeat the United States and that they will never be able to recover. It is something that would be difficult to just guess. I will give another prophecy and its fulfillment along with counterarguments in the next round.
Fulfilled prophecy is evidence that the Bible is from God

For clarification purposes, I would suggest some additional points to keep in mind: 5. Prophecies should be predictions of future events (references about the past or the present do not count as prophesy). 6. Prophecies should clearly reference the event they are claimed to prophesy (for example, saying "My father will eat an apple pie" should not be argued to be a metaphor for Hitler invading Poland. ) 7. Prophecies should be coherent. For example, if one half of a prophecy is meant to be taken literally, the other half shouldn't be metaphorical. If one verse is considered prophetic, the verses that continue the narrative should not be discarded as non-prophetic. 8. The fulfillment of prophecies should be clearly verifiable. (For example, if we find a prophecy saying 'Jesus will wear pink and purple sandals', it should not be argued that this was fulfilled "spiritually" or "in heaven"). These are only suggestions, of course: I can't dictate the terms of the debate. However, I hope these principles will be useful in the course of the debate. Thank you for the opportunity!
Fulfilled prophecy is evidence that the Bible is from God

Thank you likewise for the debate! My opponent suggests that Isaiah 13:19,20 and Isaiah 45:1 constitute a fulfilled prophecy. 1.This prophecy is not coherent. In other words, it is constructed by taking excerpts from two different sections of text. There is no evidence that 45:1 and 13:19-20 are both referencing the same event. 2.If we interpret Isaiah 13:19-20 as referencing the destruction of Babylon in 539, then it is clearly a failed prophecy. -It says Babylon will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations, -It says no nomads would pitch their tents there, -It says no shepherds will rest their flocks, -It says the stars, sun, and moon would go dark. But all of these prophecies were false, as many people lived in there for hundreds of years after the empire fell (1), and there is no record of the celestial bodies going dark around 539 BC (at least, not in any unusual way) My opponent says that Isaiah 45:1 prophesies that the gates of the city of Babylon would be open when Cyrus attacked. However, 1.The verse does not reference the city of Babylon anywhere. 2.When Cyrus attacked the city, the gates were not open. He and his men lowered the level of water, and went under the gates to infiltrate the city. (2) 3.As my opponent pointed out, many scholars believe that Isaiah 45 was written after the fall of Babylon. My opponent claims that differences in style can be explained by a change in subject matter, but this contradicts his claim that the subject matter of these sections is identical (they both supposedly refer to the attack on Babylon in 539). The single shared phrase unique to Isaiah is not surprising, as the second and third authors of Isaiah were deliberately extending the text of the first Isaiah. 4. Finally, my opponent says that Isaiah 13 claims that the Medes (not the Persians) would conquer Babylon, and then seems to suggest that this was fulfilled by the Medes joining Cyrus in 539. However, Cyrus conquered the Median kingdom in 550BC (3). Saying that this fulfills the prophecy of the Medes conquering Babylon (since there were technically Medians in the Persian army) is like saying Belgium attacked France in WWII (since Germany conquered Belgium, and then attacked France). This does not constitute a fulfilled prophecy. (1)https://en.wikipedia.org... (2)https://en.wikipedia.org... (3)https://en.wikipedia.org...
Is Yraelz gay

na i was just trying to make friends in an unusual way sorry for the inconvenience The thing is im bisexual anyway so this argument makes no point whatsoever so Friends? ps:the rest of this stuff is just placed to extend the context. Once upon a time, there was once a guy who was very much in love with this girl. This romantic guy folded 1,000 pieces of papercranes as a gift to his girl. Although, at that time he was just a small executive in his company, his future doesn't seemed too bright, they were very happy together. Until one day, his girl told him she was going to Paris and will never come back. She also told him that she cannot visualise any future for the both of them, so let's go their own ways there and then... heartbroken, the guy agreed. When he regained his confidence, he worked hard day and night, slogging his body and mind just to make something out of himself. Finally with all these hardwork and with the help of friends, this guy had set up his own company... "You never fail until you stop trying." he always told himself. "I must make it in life!" One rainy day, while this guy was driving, he saw an elderly couple sharing an umbrella in the rain walking to some destination. Even with the umbrella, they were still drenched. It didn't take him long to realise those were his ex-girlfriend's parents. With a heart in getting back at them, he drove slowly beside the couple, wanting them to spot him in his luxury sedan. He wanted them to know that he wasn't the same anymore, he had his own company, car, condo, etc. He had made it in life! Before the guy can realise, the couple was walking towards a cemetary,and he got out of his car and followed them...and he saw his ex-girlfriend, a photograph of her smiling sweetly as ever at him from her tombstone... and he saw his precious papercranes in a bottle placed beside her tomb. Her parents saw him. He walked over and asked them why this had happened. They explained, she did not leave for France at all. She was stricken ill with cancer. In her heart, she had believed that he will make it someday, but she did not want her illness to be his obstacle ... therefore she had chosen to leave him. She had wanted her parents to put his papercranes beside her, because, if the day comes when fate brings him to her again he can take some of those back with him. The guy just wept ...the worst way to miss someone is to be sitting right beside them but knowing you can't have them and will never see them again. The End."
Is Yraelz gay

Yraelz is gay because I said so. But all that said, Yraelz lines here are not impressive, and not brave -- basically tough love. And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community. We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity. Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. And last week, it even crept into the campaign for President, with charges and counter-charges that served to obscure the issues instead of illuminating the critical choices we face as a nation. So let us say that on this day of all days, each of us carries with us the task of changing our hearts and minds. The division, the stereotypes, the scape-goating, the ease with which we blame our plight on others -- all of this distracts us from the common challenges we face -- war and poverty; injustice and inequality
Is Yraelz gay

Hmmmm, I happen to be in agreeance with you that being gay is not a choice. I also feel that being straight or any particular sexual orientation is a choice. But all of this is based on the premise that I do not feel I can suddenly choose to be gay/bisexual/asexual. Though I have wished once or twice that I was asexual (meaning in this context that I find nothing attractive in a romantic way). Though I do have a question on your last comment that I would ask you answer in the comment section if you see it. You said, "I would believe that over 50% of gay people would love to infact experience the love of a woman rather than a man." Why would this be? Or why do you feel it is true?
Is Yraelz gay

I infact believe that being gay is not a choice. I would believe that over 50% of gay people would love to infact experience the love of a woman rather than a man. Being gay is actually a forced decision which was brought upon since the day you happened to be born. People like me on the other hand "Bisexuals", rather have it much different. we are a minority in the social community and often find it hard to cope. Around 70% of Bisexuals do not reveal the fact that they are, but try to make themselves seem as heterosexual as possible. I on the other hand feel comfortable to talk about my sexual situation as i feel no harm in it whatsoever. The main reason thought that gay people try to hide the fact of their homosexuality, it because of the reason of "rejection from society." At one stage i feared the same rejection factor but had to make a tough decision. The decision lead me to acceptance from my family and friends and now im happily in a relationship. Overall, being gay is not a decision but something you are born with and must accept to live a happy life.
Is Yraelz gay

Hmmm, I tend to hold a rather high standard for what is a friend is to me. Especially when it comes to online issues where I never actually know the person for real. But yeah, as an online friend, friends. Anyways, I suppose as far as voters go, I don't have anything to debate, so I'll leave that alone. You're story on the other hand was rather touching and at the same time somewhat realistic. The feeling of losing someone that one holds close to the heart because of some kind of feeling of inadequacy seems rather familiar to me. Strangely >=E On a side note I can see where your story could have a very large application in a gay man or womans life. In the sense that if the person they happen to like is not gay their is very little to nothing that the gay person can do about that. Thus they are condemned to be sitting right next to someone with the knowledge that they will never have said person. Though this brings up an interesting point. Do you feel that being gay is a choice? Do I get another story in your final round?
Marco Rubio makes a better 2016 presidential nominee than Paul Ryan

It's not quite so hard pressing to to rank one more moderate over the other, but that is irrelevant. Rubio has mastered the elastic popularity risk, but he has not put that to the test on a race for the most powerful seat in the nation. Ryan, however has. Rubio does calculate his critics well, that's the makings of a good politician, but Ryan takes his head-on, which was demonstrated in the first weeks of the campaign. Of course Rubio has admitted he's been wrong, on a bit of a side note anyone who says they have never done anything wrong is a blatant liar. I agree that they Republican Party needs to adopt a strong platform, but they need Ryan's platform, to talk about things considered democrat grab issues as well as conservative grab issues.
Marco Rubio makes a better 2016 presidential nominee than Paul Ryan

I would be hard-pressed to rank either as more 'moderate' than the other, but while Ryan adopts firm opinions (ie. $1 debt is a higher priority than $1 growth [2]) alongside their permanent popularity risks, and Romney adopts elastic opinions to cater to poll numbers (ie. abortion), Rubio has mastered the 'elastic popularity risk' to absorb the best of both worlds. The immigration controversy defined his ability to firmly resist pressure from the left, the right, and the poll numbers, and to bounce back later [3]. He knows how to raise money on the right without arming the left with sound bytes to rally its base. He coldly calculates his criticisms of opponents while relishing his every chance to praise them in between - a reverse strategy from that of less talented politicians. He is explicitly open to admitting he is wrong. Ultimately the entire republican party will have to adopt a similar strategy before it returns to its grand old glory. 3. http://t.co...
Marco Rubio makes a better 2016 presidential nominee than Paul Ryan

With the deepest respect to Senator Rubio he is only slightly more well known than Ryan himself. I do greatly admire Rubio truly I do but Paul Ryan is less polarizing than Rubio especially in my state which is a swing state (Wisconsin). This article highlights how even moderates don't do so well and shows how conservatives wouldn't do well ( I hate admitting this but I must face reality and any conservatives out their I'm open for argument on this topic). http://www.huffingtonpost.com... This as well http://articles.chicagotribune.com....
Marco Rubio makes a better 2016 presidential nominee than Paul Ryan

Despite similar voting records, Rubio's self-reflective rhetoric allows in his future a fact-responsive, technocratic shift that gives him an edge over the factual ignorance of Paul Ryan's blame game. Rubio has walked the line of Congressional compromise on immigration, which will become increasingly important to the republican party overtime. Rubio has never given a speech of deception like Paul Ryan's 2012 speech to the RNC [1], nor written a budget resolution that fails to do justice to the basics of conservative economics [2]. 1. . http://www.foxnews.com...2. . http://www.forbes.com...
God is existant

I will argue that God exists.Argument 1God = a maximally great beingThis definition accords with what people generally understand God to be, if my opponent disputes this definition, then he is free to explain why.My argument has the following premises, followed by a conclusion.P1: God is defined as a maximally great beingP2: There exists at least one possible world where God exists (i.e it is possible that God exists).P3: A being that exists in all possible worlds (a necessary being) is greater than a being that exists in only some possible worlds (a contingent being).C: God, by definition, must exist in all possible worlds.If God must exist in all possible worlds, then he must exist in the actual world, since the actual world is possible.Therefore, God exists in our world.To explain the argument, consider that, if God is defined as a maximally great being, then it is contradictory to assert that God is not maximally great.We have two possibilities; either God exists in some possible worlds and exists contingently, or God exists in all possible worlds and exists necessarily.The first option is contradictory, because if God was only contingent then he wouldn't be maximally great (as it is greater to exist necessarily) - so this contradicts his definition.As the negation of an absurd conclusion must be true, the second option must be correct. This entails that God exists in the actual world.In order for this argument to be refuted, my opponent must demonstrate that God does not possibly exist.Argument 2We know that millions of people claim to have had religious experiences, nearly half of Americans. (1)For each individual claim, we have only three possibilities:1. The mystic (the person who had the experience) is lying2. The mystic is deluded3. The mystic is telling the truthWhilst it is probably the case that many mystics are either lying or deluded, it is a huge assumption that this is the case with every single claim. The likelihood of people lying is low because people only really lie if there is sufficient reason to do so; yet there is often no reason why someone would fabricate a religious experience.The likelihood of people having been deluded is low because those who have religious experiences mostly have stable mental health and have no history of mental disturbances. If God was proved to be impossible or extremely unlikely then this would increase the probability of the mystic having been deluded, yet there is no such proof and there are many other arguments that suggest that saying that God exists is a plausible proposition.Therefore, the likelihood that every single claim, out of millions, is either a lie or a delusion is an unjustified assertion and a very unlikely circumstance.The conclusion is, therefore, that there are some mystics who are telling the truth, and that they actually did experience God.As God must exist to be experienced, an experience of God proves that he exists.Therefore, God exists. (1) http://www.patheos.com...
Existing scientific evidence justifies believe in God

In this debate, I will be showing how scientific evidence already demonstrates the existence of a Theistic God that is consistent with the Judeo-Christian God concept.I will be in the affirmative of this proposition while my opponent will be on the negative.The Theist God in question ,within the confines of this debate, will be a Personal cause who is the creator (i.e. Immaterial) and sustainer ( i.e. ruler) of the Universe and is omnipotent , omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, spaceless and timeless, eternal, and necessary being.
thbt only actual christians should be allowed to have chrismas break

You have failed to consider those who believe in God and technically follow the religion,but don't go to church or put up Christmas trees etc. because of certain reasons,one which can be parents who don't want their child to be Christian,ban them from being "actual Christians". In another case,just because someone might not believe in God and Jesus doesn't mean that they should be deprived of some free time to go back to their families and show their love for them through Christmas traditions.
Racism and slavery in America had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with each other

Why should that be points taken off for no putting Roots in italics? It's because grammar does count.Just because it is "faction" doesn't mean they never said the N-word. And probably will not do any justice in proving your argument.As I've said, the reason the enslavement of Africans happened was because of their status as heathens. As a matter of fact, the particular brand of slavery you're talking of began by a black man (as I've given in the sources). Note con has not given any sources to back up what he said. He hasn't even came up with a logical argument to defend the similarities.Very funny coincidence isn't it? The fact that white-men were mad that they couldn't have black men and women slaving away on their farms to give them profit. The fact that you are backing up slavery is ridiculous. Also, I don't care if Lincoln was a racist or not. Just because he abolished slavery doesn't turn it either way.How about afraid of what they feared blacks were capable of doing to not just them, but their women, and their property. That's why the Klan was formed. Whites were paranoid of what blacks were capable of doing. They were paranoid of their world being destroyed by "those non-white savages." That's why the Klan was formed.Neither does putting two different topics into an argument. When old plantation owners found out that blacks would be able to roam the streets, instead of picking the cotton for their "massas" they reacted in the only way they deemed fit. Attack someone who can't defend themselves, because if they did, they would be accused for beating up a white man for no reason. It's not fair.It was giving rights to the non-whites in general that the whites were not pleased about. Not only that, but you have more a case if you say that poverty was the reasons whites did those dramatic and drastic things. They were not happy that they weren't on top. http://www.colorado.edu...While open racism was pretty much common everywhere, white folks in the South, being poor, had a jealousy of blacks and other non-whites who were on top of them, which led them to kill (and this system of deceit, continued by LBJ) There's a reason why I put that. Last time I checked, the Klansman were not trying to abolish the 13th amendment, which was to abolish slavery. It's the 14th amendment (which had to do with rights, and nothing to do with the 13th amendment by the way, since it was passed years after slavery ended).http://en.wikipedia.org...;