BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Some of the Bible is not true

1: your argument was that every day people pray to god and do not receive an answer. The reasoning behind this ironically, can be found in Bruce Almighty. In the movie, a man who takes gods place gets so tired of all the prayers that he simply accepts them all. Chaos ensues, as we are human beings, we want certain things. I am sure many Christians would not mind winning the lottery, or a new car, or their family home back to life. Granting all these requests would throw the world and its economy into chaos, and people would become Christians because they want something and know they will literally get what they want. In the bible, when Jesus Christ taught his disciples to pray, he did not ask for anything literal or economical, but that gods will be done, forgiveness, and for subsidence for that day. Even when Jesus prayed, he eventually stated "thy will be done". We ask for things, and god may or may not give us at least an opportunity for them. What is important is that we communicate when we pray. 2. Your second argument was why Christians suffered into death, and why god did not just create us in heaven. Christians do not truly suffer unto death, in the words of one of the first great evangelists "to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. We are born with a new life, a spiritual one. If you are looking for a more "logical" answer, the let me state this. I don't know of any man or woman that is not willing to die for one they love. We should be equally willing to lay down our lives for the faith that holds up our very being. Finally, just look at what happened when just one who believed died, (although he rose again). Jesus changed the world with his disciples, and almost three quarters of them died. Finally, we were originally created in heaven, as Eden translates into the word for Paradise. We screwed it up, and a perfect God cannot be around sin, he would e forced to turn his gaze away. Fortunately, we are given this life to turn our eyes upon Jesus so that god can look at us and bring us into his kingdom.
Some of the Bible is not true

Rules Note: If either I or Con fails to comply with the following rules, 7-points will automatically deducted from that rule-breaker.1. No plagiarism; Don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.2. You may only troll when things get completely out of hand.Presentations 1. According to the Bible, if you pray in the Lord's name, your prayer shall come true. However, some pray, every day, and yet, their prayer doesn't come true. There were no restrictions. If there were so, it should have been listed.2. If God is so merciful, why do even Christians suffer to death? If he's merciful, he wouldn't let someone suffer to death. According to the Bible, pain strengthens and God establishes you. However, if you suffer to death, you won't be able to use that, as it's useful. And, God wants us with him? In that case, why didn't he just created us in Heaven?
If a penguin and a polar bear were in a fight the polar bear would win.

I dislike 500 character limits. In response to PRO, I'm darned certain that Polar Bears are not larger nor stronger than Penguins, nor do they have sharp teeth and claws. There is nothing to suggest that their swimming skills are all that great. Penguins have protective padding on at most times during combat. In defense of my own case, Penguins have a strict training regimen adhered to daily, whereas Polar Bears probably practice for an hour or so after school.
If a penguin and a polar bear were in a fight the polar bear would win.

I think that a polar bear would most definitely win. I think this because polar bears are larger and stronger and have sharp teeth and claws. The polar bear would win both on land and in the water considering what excellent swimming skills they have. Penguins are weak and defenseless against the almighty polar bear. "I would imagine that Penguins, having far more experience with fighting on the ice, would beat the unprepared, weaker Polar Bears." Polar bears are most definitely not weaker
If a penguin and a polar bear were in a fight the polar bear would win.

I'm looking forward to a good debate. For the sake of clarifying the resolution, Polar Bear: http://www.fairmontpolarbears.com... Penguin: http://sports.yahoo.com... I'll allow PRO to elaborate on why Polar Bears would beat Penguins in a fight in the next round. I would imagine that Penguins, having far more experience with fighting on the ice, would beat the unprepared, weaker Polar Bears. Good luck in the next round!
If a penguin and a polar bear were in a fight the polar bear would win.

"Last time I checked penguins and polar bears don't go to school." Last time he checked? I find it hard to believe that Pro EVER checked my sources. Polar Bears are clearly athletes of Fairmont High School, and thus do go to school. No, Penguins do not go to school. They are full time employees in the National Hockey League, and therefore have more time to train because they need not waste time studying. Going by the uncontested sources provided, this has nothing to do with animals.
If a penguin and a polar bear were in a fight the polar bear would win.

"I'm darned certain that Polar Bears are not larger nor stronger than Penguins, nor do they have sharp teeth and claws." Its proven that polar bears and larger AND stronger and that they do indeed have sharp teeth and claws. "Penguins have a strict training regimen adhered to daily, whereas Polar Bears probably practice for an hour or so after school." Last time I checked penguins and polar bears don't go to school.
Wikileaks is a threat to United States national security.

I should have probably stated this at the beginning of the debate but as the instigator of this debate I believe the burden of proof lies on you. Also the video to the right is irrelevant So first semantics. Your points simply do not matter because you have not shown that Wikileaks is not a threat to national security only that they are possible benefits to national security. As I stated in round Wikileaks clearly threatens national security by revealing national secrets it reveals information that makes it more difficult to maintain diplomatic relationships, harder to run the war and more difficult to maintain political power. Now with that said i still think many of your contentions are simply not true. 1st- While it may promote good behavior in some, it merely promotes paranoia in others. To say that the ability to be discovered will force good behavior in all is simply to innocent a view. 2nd- This kind of ties in with the last one. Just because some negative videos about the the military have been released does not in any way mean that there will be a change in behavior. The potential for videotaping incrementing videos was not created by wikileaks it is merely a place those leaks can be posted. I think its rational to assume that soldiers as they are about to fire on innocents all the sudden decide to stop because of the potential for videotaping. I would assume that there fairing on innocents is usually inspired by panic, or mistaken identity. 3rd- Oh man starting to play dirty. Well while wikileaks may appear to be down that is just there main website. I present to you. This site is just filled with wikileaks mirrors, which basically means wikileaks is up and functioning for all respects in purposes. so your point is negated. All right as I have shown Wikileaks clearly poses to national security whatever its benefits mights be. The site still exists for all intents and purposes so it still is a threat. My opponent provides no evidence for his other assertions besides logical conclusions which can be easily refuted without any data to back them. Wikileaks compromises a nation secrets and therefore poses a threat to national security, I don't really understand why my opponent urges for a con vote unless he was referring to spelling and grammar which is most certainly in his favor. So far he has only introduced his point, forfeited a round, and elaborated on his first couple points. looking forward to the next round I also want more links under my debate like all the pro debators so I am going to include a my like the wiki links video down here and also a link to the best video ever, but is quite irrelevant to this debate http://wikileaks.info... http://www.youtube.com...
Wikileaks is a threat to United States national security.

I apologize I forgot about the deadline, so I'm fine with the 3 round idea 1st-Wikileaks promotes good behavior. My opponent stated this is irrelevant to our national security so I will connect the two. Practically everyone is more inclined to have better behavior if they feel they may be videotaped. They are less likely to evoke in verbally abusive language when referring to others. Therefore, we (in the long run) will have better rations with other countries and other political leaders, showing how this helps our national security. 2nd-it ensures improvement. Wikileaks recently leaked a video of united states soldiers loosing fire on innocent bystanders. In scenarios such as this, people (the soldiers in this case) are ridiculed when resorting to these extremes, and therefore are less likely to partake in things such as this. This shows how it helps our national security, because it will result in improvement and also less ridiculed as a people in general. 3rd-I would like to change my third point. This is of no immediate threat to our security. As you look at the resolution, it clearly states:...wikileaks is a threat..." Based on the fact that wikileaks currently is shut down, there is no possible way they could be a threat to our national security now. As I have yet to see any pro points, I will rebut in the next round. For these reasons, I urge a con vote.
Wikileaks is a threat to United States national security.

Alright then so this is also my first debate here so this seems fair. definitions definitions for national security- the requirement to maintain the survival of the nation-state through the use of economic, military and political power and the exercise of diplomacy. National Security- is a 2003 comedy film, directed by Dennis Dugan, starring Martin Lawrence and Steve Zahn. In addition to Lawrence and Zahn, National Security boasts an additional cast of Bill Duke, Eric Roberts, Colm Feore, Matt McCoy, and others. So as long as we are using the first definition for national security wiki leaks poses a clear threat to national security. Lets take the one of the most recent leaks where members of the US state department were recorded criticizing other foreign leaders. This clearly posed a danger for our nation states ability to effectively exercise diplomacy. To your points about good behavior, and the like I do not see how these relate to national security. Whether or not wiki leaks does those things you mentioned above is an entirely separate debate than if it is a threat to our national security. I assumed you are using the first definition for national security then these are my points. If you are using the second then I am gonna have to see if they have it on netflix.
Should being a member of a group diqualify a person for a position

You are correct; no one knows what evil humans possess in their hearts but the opposite applies. No one can know what goodness men have either. Since it's impossible to truly know who is good, who is evil, who will become good, and who will become evil, it is the right of any given individual who is qualified for any given age to be granted equal consideration as any person. It's immoral and crewd to assume that because of a person's past, or current involvement, that they cannot remain unbias and proffesional at all times. Any professional person who understands their duties in a position that requires unbias judgement will remain unbias. Have faith in the good inside humans.
Should being a member of a group diqualify a person for a position

Lookingatissues comment to The question asked ,"Should being a member of a group disqualify a person for a position." I remember an old -time radio show which started out asking the question, " who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men....." While we can't possibly know what evils lurk in the hearts of men we can rest assured that if some person had been a member of a group with certain exclusive objectives that if that person were later on, granted a position weighting the correctness of that groups objectives after leaving that group that they could be unbias in their opinions. The statue in front of the Supreme Court building is of a statue of a lady wearing a blind fold... Holding a scale .."The scales that she holds and the ....blindfold represent .....the impartiality with which justice is served" The statue representing justice to all that stands before the Supreme Court building may represent the concept that the unbiased renderings of justice to all will be given by the Supreme Court justices but to allow Justices to decide cases who's motivations are suspect doesn't offer assurance to anyone that the justice's decisions would be impartial to all. Justice delivered by such Supreme Court justices who have belonged to or represented certain groups, doesn't do much for the concept that the justice decisions will be Impartial.
Should being a member of a group diqualify a person for a position

It's the right of every person to be judged or considered for a position regardless of their political beliefs. This is a fundamental belief that is commonly interpreted and upheld by Supreme Court Justices often. My first and only argument for this round is that no person should be discriminated by based on their personal beliefs; this also just happened to be the very first amendment in our Constitution. Regardless of any possible outcomes of future events or decisions, each person, who is qualified for a position, should be awarded just as much consideration as the next person.
Should being a member of a group diqualify a person for a position

There are certain organizations which people may have belonged to that automatically inform people about their political philosophies and prejudices such as belonging to and representing the NAACP,ACLU, or the KKK. Yet in the past members of these organizations have held positions in which unbiased opinions from those holding such positions were expected to be unbiased in rendering their decisions effecting the public. Isn't it, when allowing persons who have belonged, to and in some cases represented certain organizations, to hold certain positions in government who's decisions effects the lives of all citizens similar to handing a box of matches to a known arsonist and expecting that he wouldn't use them to set fires.
Smoking should become at least heavily restricted if not banned

I am a smoker. It's supposed to be a choice. But it isn't one. Because if I had a real choice I would have never started smoking. The truth is my mother smoked while I was a fetus and when I began to experiment in my early teens I was hooked. The longest I have gone without a cigarette was 5 months when I was in jail. I believe that the jail environment actually *allowed* me to quit. The day I got out I saw my mom smoking a cigarette and was right back on them. Listen, I'm all for a smoke-free world. I hate cigarettes with a passion. The problem is that there are no laws short of banning smoking to really curb the production and sales of tobacco. We not only need to stop producing cigarettes, selling cigarettes, and smoking cigarettes, we need to do so with the implementation of new smoking cessation products. Right now products and drugs used to curb the addiction cycle of the smoker are too expensive or have severe side effects. Products like the green cigarette allow smokers to get the nicotine without the smoke. But, that product is still far more expensive than a pack of cigarettes. So, my position on banning smoking is this: We should ban smoking....EVENTUALLY! But for now, we should focus on smokers trying to quit on their own and begin producing smoking cessation products for them at such a low cost they can afford it. Perhaps make these products available out of the enormous profits the manufacturers made while still letting the manufacturers market those products. We should not restrict smoking in a free-air society because we have not been responsible toward the poor smoker who has accidentally perhaps at a young age picked up a habit that is considered to be the most addictive substance to man. Until we help out the smokers get off the tobacco we should all suffer -- that way it may actually get done.
Smoking should become at least heavily restricted if not banned

Smoking is huge issue in society today and I am of the position that it should be at least heavily restricted. My opponent must argue that it should stay legal. The first round is for acceptance.By heavily restricted I mean restrictions to outdoor public places such as building entrances, parks, playgrounds etc. So if I can show that smoking should be heavily restricted to these areas then I win, the banning is of smoking is extra.
Smoking should become at least heavily restricted if not banned

Clarifications and ConcessionChamp1976, if you read what I wrote so far I never suggested we should put pressure on the smokers at all. I was being ambigious. I agree with you that we should actually put more pressure on the tobacco companies (there should also be time so smokers can quit more easily) but those are details with regards to my position in the general debate topic which is: Smoking should become at least heavily restricted if not banned. You and I are both in agreement with this topic with regards to my position which means that you have conceded the debate. You can make a seperate debate on the best option to stop smoking. You were suppose to be arguing that smoking should not be banned and not heavily restricted. You specifically agreed that we should eventually ban smoking!"So, please stop lobbying to stop smokers and start lobbying to take down Tobacco. If we hit supply, demand will surely topple. I believe we should have laws that impose restrictions and sanctions for producers, not consumers, of the product tobacco." “Listen, I'm all for a smoke-free world. I hate cigarettes with a passion.” “We should ban smoking....EVENTUALLY! But for now, we should focus on smokers trying to quit on their own and begin producing smoking cessation products for them at such a low cost they can afford it.” All these show my opponent agrees with my debate position. Even though we may differ on how to stop smoking, he agrees that smoking should be stopped whether in the near future or far future. I will clarify the debate positions as my opponent is trying to change it:Pro is arguing: Smoking should become at least heavily restricted if not bannedCon is arguing: Smoking should not become banned or heavily restricted My opponent agrees with my position, therefore he has conceded
Smoking should become at least heavily restricted if not banned

Perhaps my opponent would have enjoyed debating with a smoker who believes his right to smoke supercedes the rights of others to clean air. The truth is, smokers are not trying to take the rights away from other people. .. they are simply trying to protect their own right to smoke. My argument is this: I do not support any anti-smoking campaigns until their is one built for the ones who suffer the most -- the smokers. Ultimately the smokers are the ones who are going to have all of the health problems brought on by nicotine. So, instead of simply making it illegal to smoke in certain places it would serve both my opponent and myself to prohibit the production and sales of tobacco. I believe that unless we beat Big Tobacco we will only be creating criminals. I 'm tired of the laws hurting the little guy but not helping stop the big bully. So, I ask my opponent to stop campaigning for a smoke-free world by punishing the smokers and take up a position against the Tobacco Industry. The fight there is even bigger because the government makes so much money on tobacco sales tax. How can we see that the government continues to make its money if we do not have products that sell and that are taxable? So, please stop lobbying to stop smokers and start lobbying to take down Tobacco. If we hit supply, demand will surely topple. I believe we should have laws that impose restrictions and sanctions for producers, not consumers, of the product tobacco.
Smoking should become at least heavily restricted if not banned

Introduction and Concession from my opponent My opponent gave an interesting response in his R1 response. He gave a personal story and his opinion on why smoking should be banned which was very interesting and I encourage him to continue to try to stop smoking cigarettes until it greatly damages his well being. The topic of this debate was supposed to be two sides arguing against each other but my opponent is in agreement with me with regards to my position which I outlined in the beginning. He agrees we should ban smoking whether it be eventually or in the near future. He said: “Listen, I'm all for a smoke-free world. I hate cigarettes with a passion.” “We should ban smoking....EVENTUALLY! But for now, we should focus on smokers trying to quit on their own and begin producing smoking cessation products for them at such a low cost they can afford it.” My opponent agrees with me which means this debate is over, however I will briefly list some of my arguments so that I have a case. Thanks for sharing your personal story by the way.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Contention # 1 People have a right not be exposed to damaging intoxicants from tobacco smoke Second hand smoke is very well known and is said to be very damaging to health. The smoke is carcinogenic and is very toxic. Many precautions are taken to limit this in indoor places which is why it is usually banned to smoke indoors. Many people with chronic conditions such as Asthma and Bronchitis should not be exposed to these sorts of toxins Contention # 2 Cigarettes cause a number of unnecessary issues that would be resolved if banned Cigarette butts are a major cause of litter on beaches. Cigarettes cause burns to young children and their faces when adults are holding cigarettes to their sides and children come to close. The litter on the beaches are damaging to wildlife who choose to eat it etc and it causes problems for kids who play on the beach. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Conclusions I wanted to give a very brief and weak summary of my arguments so that I at least have a case. This debate is concluded because my opponent is in complete agreement with my position. Thank you Con.
Stay mad kid

Madman I amI dare you to step in front of me you wannabe Imma let the madman loose, A Hyde to my Jekyl, Yes my chosen weapon is a noose, You'd better not forget this when you're beggin' for a truce, You'll wish you had a noose or a belt or cloth, You're prey; what a lost little moose, Come into a prison, Come alone son, Drum your chest with alpha-pride and tell all things you've done, They gon' grab you by your hair, They cgone' rip it at the root, And while your scalp is ripped and drippin' blood they gon' make yo ulick a boot, Sorry did I say boot? Na these men ain't got a 'sole'(soul)What mean is you'll be kicked from every angle 'til you're battered and your mangled and take it up the booty-hole. You think rapin' kids is funny? You'll find justice at the hand, Of the people who've been thrusted in a prison for the safety of the land, You'll understand that every child you done-dared kissed, Is gonna result in a beaeting where every tooth falls out to an iron first, You wanna f**k a child? To put it mild that alone won't be forgiven, You admit to having done it mercilessly without love? Get shanked filthy vermin, Good riddance. http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=SnF9TSQ1OQc