BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion Is Progressive and Necessary

1. Eating broccoli and having been forced to be labelled 'religious' - these are completely different things. RELIGION gives a malign influence which brocoli cannot give. I am not saying that teacjing religion is abuse. I am completely in favour of teaching that. But what I call abuse is 'labelling'. Won't you consider it an abuse if the media starts to label a man as 'Marxist' while he is ignorant about Marxism? We should teach religion to kids, if we are religious. But we should always tell them to choose what benefits them, when they grow older.I am not against learning, I am not even against forced learning. What I am against is 'labelling'.2. I cannot stand a LIAR in a debate. You said that I have talked about FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION.This is A LIE. YOU LIED. SHAME!I have not uttered a single word about 'female genital mutilation'. I have mentioned the practice of forced genital mutilation (circumcision). That is prevalent in Islam. I have to carry on debating. But it is painful to debate with you. What is the outcome of a debate, if you start to lie! PLEASE DEBATE HONESTLY. PLEASE. THIS IS A REQUEST.3. If person A is a criminal, his crimes are not justified just because person B too is a criminal who has not yet been prosecuted. 4. So, you think, the quotes I have given from 'The Qur'an' are not provoking INTOLERANCE? Really! You say something like 'non-believers will go to hell' (or 'the apostates'), induce fear, that is not intolerance? Please judge the thing from a human perspective, not a religious one.5. "emotional and wrong." - REALLY? Like 'lying' and misconstruing the opponent's argument in a debate? That is interesting.Moreover, the Bible is not 'history'. It is an account of a certain time, and it contains fragments of real history. But there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to prove that the Bible is completely based on true history.6. Einstein also said,"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion."You have cherry-picked one certain quote, but you forgot to mention this one, as it might destroy your argument.Einstein was a pantheist, he was deeply influenced by Spinoza. Pantheists use the word 'God' as a non-supernatural synonym for nature. 'Non-supernatural'. Einstein's religion is not ehat you are arguing in favour of. Want to know the definition of the Einsteinian 'Religion'?"To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious." And you did not cherry-pick? Clear example of quote-mining.NOW , A REQUEST. Please DON'T LIE in the next round. It is horrible to debate with a liar.
The Allies would not have won World War 2 without the US participating.

Basis: The Allies would not have won World War 2 without any participation by the US. TermsYou may begin your argument in round 1. As a courtesy please do not place any argument in the last round, instead saying "round ended as previously agreed" in the interest of giving each of us equal chances to argue. Please type "I agree to these terms" at the top of your round 1 argument to confirm that you agree to the terms.
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, becaus they equation dosnt happen

My opponent has made no claim to show how the mathematical equation is invalid: 6 multiplied by 0. I have clearly represented how multiplication works. My opponent has not understood my examples, and still claims they are wrong, or that I corrected them after typing them. Which I have not. I copied at pasted my example using OR from the previous rounds. I have used sources to show multiplication, and the multiplication table showing how multiplying by Zero works, and is a valid math equation. My opponent is constantly bringing up the destruction of matter, however that has nothing to with math, nor this debate. He does not understand basic mathematics. I have even given a word problem to prove why writing an equation out, using the multiplication of zero is valid. Multiplying by zero is not the destruction of matter. You CANNOT just say that, You have 6 sodas, and if you multiply them by zero, you are destroying matter. That is NOT a word problem. There is no set up for an equation in that problem. There is no rhyme or reason to HOW the multiplication of Zero makes any effect on the sodas, because you aren't doing anything to the sodas physically. You are just stating you are multiplying by zero, Unfortunately, my opponent has shown a lack of knowledge for basic math. This is the word problem on more time to show the validity of multiplying by zero: Now, my opponent adds a interesting take on this problem: " because you can not destroy the 6 sodas so you still have them" Pro is trying to create a world problem to create a case for himself. However, he doesn't complete the word problem as there is no way to use that word problem to make any equation. He just states he has 6 sodas, that cannot be destroyed. I will create a short word problem to also achieve my answer. If my opponent comes up with a better suited word problem, that can be equated and solved mathematically, I will solve that problem as well (or point out the flaws on how it doesn't apply to the equation 6 multiplied by 0 Word Problem: A local store is having a one day special! Every child that enters the store on this one day is given 6 pieces of candy. However, on this day, NO children enter the store. How many children have candy? Answer: SIX (pieces of candy per child entering the store) MULTIPLIED BY ZERO (children entering the store) EQUALS ..... ZERO (The number of children who received candy from the store) I thank my opponent for a quick debate, we were able to finish this in a few hours. However, I see no way in which my opponent has made any valid points disproving the multiplication of zero in mathematics. Thank you for reading.
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, becaus they equation dosnt happen

you did do that.. you even corrected your mistake.. stop acting, go back and look at what you wrote as you write it now you corrected it.. good job LOL destruction=from something to nothing creation=from nothing to something matter can only transform and your claim is that the sodas are destroyed, which is to say 6*0=0, where as transformation only allows this 6*0(6)
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, becaus they equation dosnt happen

I am not saying 5+5 = 10 which equals 15+5.I am adding 5 6 separate times to come to thirty as an example of how multiplication works. You are reading it as one different problem when it is 6 different ones. Look at everything I wrote to figure it out:5*6=30OR5+5+5+5+5+5 = 30 OR5+5 = 10 ... 10+5 = 15 ... 15+5 = 20 ... 20+5 = 25 ... 25+5 = 30But anyways, my opponent has still completely ignore my word problem. Pro keeps stating about destroying or creating (sodas) in this instance. Or any material object. His Word problem of having 6 sodas, and multiplying them makes no sense. How are we multiplying the sodas? What other entity is being used as the multiplier.MY word problems shows the legitimacy of multiplying by zero.Until my opponent can create his own word problem that suggest multiplying by zero, or the inability to do so, my word problem stands, and multiplying by zero is a valid mathematical equation.
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, becaus they equation dosnt happen

5+5 = 10 +5 = 15 +5 = 20 +5 = 25 +5 = 30! is what you wrote.. 5+5=10 is true, but does not equal 15+5 you can not add nothing to something, therefore it doesn't happen, but we can share 2 sodas, 2/2=1, happens in reality you can not multiply by 0 in reality, therefore the true answer is what y"u try to multiply with 0, as nothing happens and 3 real sodas for eksample can not be destroyed, can never become 0
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, becaus they equation dosnt happen

My opponent has again misread my equation. 5 (stones) + 5 (stones) = 10 stones. This was merely an example of multiplication that has misconstrued by my opponent.My opponent is thinking literally, in the physical life, that a math equation, written out, is not valid.This is wrong. My word problem, as I mentioned last round (which has gone without a rebuttal, therefore still stands), is a prime example of why the equation for multiplying by zero is valid.My opponent has failed to show why multiplying by zero is invalid, and he has not disproved my word problem. My word problem is a valid reason to write out the equation, and has a valid and legitimate answer. Here is the word problem again:A local store is having a one day special! Every child that enters the store on this one day is given 6 pieces of candy. However, on this day, NO children enter the store. How many children have candy?6(six) pieces of candy MULTIPLIED BY 0(Zero) Children EQAULS Zero. (No child has any candy, because no child entered the store this day)
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, becaus they equation dosnt happen

no its false, 5 stones are not 10 stones, the fore they do not equal each other ah you get it now thou :) it is impossible to add 0 to 1, therefore you just have 1, the equation dosnt go through, it just dosnt happen 1+0=1 is multiplication failure 1+0(1) it is the equivalent of saying, don't add nothing, no stickers, no times, to my 1 soda. ai? 1*0=0, the answer is valid, but the equation is invalid, so its 1*0(1) what happens if I don't punch you in the face but I just think it? nothing what happens if I don't stop breathing? im proving math has an absolute definition 0=nothing 1=something you can never show me 0 bananas, I know this is true
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, becaus they equation dosnt happen

My opponent has made numerous point against my math.I will start with my 5 * 6 = 30. And how I broke it down."what you are doing is false, 5+5 is not 10+5. is(=, equal), my shoe is blue"What I was doing was completely accurate, however misread by my opponent.I will re-do the same breakdown, however, I will space it out to hopefully make more sense.5*6=30OR5+5+5+5+5+5 = 30 OR5+5 = 10 ... 10+5 = 15 ... 15+5 = 20 ... 20+5 = 25 ... 25+5 = 30You are allowed to add, or subract, or multiply by Zero. It is a very valid equation, especially to help solve word problems like my own.While it may not necessary to right out the full equation, the equation is still valid.1+0=1 IS VALID.1 * 0 = 0 IS VALID.My initial word problem shows how multiplying by zero is a legitmate mathematical problem. The equation exists and is valid.Proven by the multiplication table given in round one, it also proves mulitplying by zero has an answer in the mathematical equation.Unless my opponent can disprove math, I have won this debate.
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, becaus they equation dosnt happen

I don't claim 6*0=6, the claim is 6*0(6), the equation dosnt equal so it just dosnt happen 0=nothing=information=false and truth 1=something=matter=true 1+0=1, is a false equation, the equation dosnt happen, so its just 1, so 1+0(1) 1+0+4+0=1+4=5 = 1+4=5 what you are doing is false, 5+5 is not 10+5. is(=, equal), my shoe is blue 5*6=30 this would be true, 21+9=10+20=5+25=30 0*6(6), as the equation dosnt happen, you cant not multiply nothing by something 0=creation and destruction=nothing 1=transformation=something matter can never be created and destroyed
6*0(6), so 6 sodas multiplied by 0 is 6, becaus they equation dosnt happen

My opponent claims: 6 x 0 = [6]. Or 6 multiplied by 0 equals 6 To solve this equation we must first understand what multiplication is:**The multiplication of two whole numbers is equivalent to the addition of one of them with itself as many times as the value of the other one; for example, 3 multiplied by 4 (often said as "3 times 4") can be calculated by adding 3 copies of 4 together: 3+3+3+3 = 12 or 4+4+4 = 12** . http://en.wikipedia.org...This works in several cases. I will give one more example, and break it down, before diving into my opponents equations.5 x 6 = ? Well, 5+5 = 10 +5 = 15 +5 = 20 +5 = 25 +5 = 30! This will work oppositely if you were to add 6 together five times. Therefore, 5 x 6 = 30 Now let's look at my opponents equation6 x 0 = ? My opponent claims 6x0= 6. I will show you why this is mathematically wrong. Let's break this down the same way I broke down the previous equation. We want to add 6 together 0 times for find an answer:You're equation is blank at this point, because if you adding 6 to itself ZERO times. you are left with nothing. Zero = nothing. Now if you flip the equation, you want add 0 to itself 6 times for find an answer, you can right that out. Here is how it would look:0+0+0+0+0+0 = 0. Therefore, in both instances 6 x 0 (6 multiplied by 0) = 0. There is not mathematical way to prove it would equal 6. I urge my opponent to try, but he will be unsuccessful. This is a link to a multiplication table showing Zero's, to also prove my answer. . http://www.eduplace.com...Now, my opponent adds a interesting take on this problem: " because you can not destroy the 6 sodas so you still have them"Pro is trying to create a world problem to create a case for himself. However, he doesn't complete the word problem as there is no way to use that word problem to make any equation. He just states he has 6 sodas, that cannot be destroyed. I will create a short word problem to also achieve my answer. If my opponent comes up with a better suited word problem, that can be equated and solved mathematically, I will solve that problem as well (or point out the flaws on how it doesn't apply to the equation 6 multiplied by 0Word Problem:A local store is having a one day special! Every child that enters the store on this one day is given 6 pieces of candy. However, on this day, NO children enter the store. How many children have candy?6(six) pieces of candy MULTIPLIED BY 0(Zero) Children EQAULS Zero. (No child has any candy, because no child entered the store this day)6 x 0 = 0
Atheist vs Theist Rap Battle

I told him God is non existent now he aint got a pot to piss inHe said the god "damn" "holy" book, well that's a contradictionIt's also clear that I don't really care what this dummy sayHim beating me is never going to happen, like Judgement DayHe claims that we are all born in original sinBut that was only based on a subliminal whimTo beat him I don't even need to start hittin his chinI'll just throw him in a pond and he'll drown because he's too chicken to swim Your so much of a loser you can't hang with winnersYou said Jesus was an "OG", but aren't gangsters sinners?The voters already know who's smashin' thisCon says I use Ad Hominems, but that's what a rap battle isI started this debate to battle ChristianityOr any religion to cause multiple casualtiesI'm so crazy on the mic I feel like I lost my sanityYou say "Goddamn", but what does The Bible say about vanity?It's not hard to tell that Con is just a punk with no heartBecause it's easy to see I had this won from the start....Ball Game.
Atheist vs Theist Rap Battle

(Note: for the purpose of this rap, you can treat me as the fundie Christian I am role-playing)Have you even read the read our goddamn Holy Book?I bet you haven't, and suggest you take a lookWe're calculating Judgment DayWhile you just spout your liesThe truth is before you, but with the pre-requisiteThat you open your goddamn eyesWe were all born in original sin; We try to be good but don't know howI find it quite ironic how you'reActing so holier-than-thouYou warn of a scourge called Islam sweeping our nationThank you, captain obvious, for the valuable informationYou think I needed you to tell me that?We already knew Islam is whackSure Muhammad was a pedophile, but Jesus was the original OGA beacon of morality and savior of humanity, still known internationallyYou may call me close-minded, but you just can't open up and believeInstead, you spread your atheist propaganda meant to deceiveI see you're resorting to ad hominemCan't you tell when God gets to them?Gets inside their head, shakes it aroundLooks for a brain: nothing to be foundI'm not alone, I'm backed up by the others2.2 billion sisters and brothersReady to affirm your lies are their concernReady to represent the God you spurnAlas, of course you cannot hope to understandThe intricate workings of His master planIt's not been forged by human handRather by an enigmatic mind in a far-off landTo denounce our almighty Creator in the world he crafted for you is practically treasonHave you ever considered a deity whose omnipotence transcends human logic and reason?
Atheist vs Theist Rap Battle

The Bible ends up being a worthless plague as you turn the pagesBelief in the supernatural is delusional and just hurts the nationChristians try to be good like Jesus but fail at their impersonationsAttempting to squirm their way our of contradictions by appealing to different interpretationsThe Quran is no better, debates for them are a bad fightThey actually believe it predicts The Big Bang, ya right!Even in light of reason and logic they still believe what they've been toldBlowing themselves up and praising a Prophet who married a 9 year oldCritical faculties? Those are what they can't take from me they stay funnyOh and the Jews? Nah I got nothing bad to say they know how to make moneyCon doesn't take the time to vote at elections he's the laziest kindOh well he's agnostic, so we know he wouldn't even make up his mindHe would be in the voting booth and freeze up on the spotlooking at the name of a politician not knowing whether he believed in him or notWhen it comes to the rock Con seems to have his a lonely bottomI'll believe in God when the stars go into perfect rows and columns I'll believe in God when his properties aren't impossibleAnd people stop starving and innocent children stop dying in hospitalsGod is clearly just an anthropomorphic and narcissistic delusionEspecially considering that the reasons to negate God's existence outweigh the other conclusionAfter this my opponent will be shaking like he had a gram a crack and started sparkin' itSo hopefully he doesn't present the typical weak theistic philosophical argumentI don't believe in miracles but I'm miraculous when spittin'Either way it's clear, Atheism is the most rational position.....Ball Game.
Andrew Jackson should be removed from the 20 Dollar Bill

My opponent wishes to take a closer look at this debate. He says that my only rebuttal for his trail of tears point was that we can't judge a 18th century man by twenty first century standards, but this is completely false. I also listed a long rebuttal on the political war between the native americans and Jackson and how that justifies westward expansion. I do also stand by the fact that Jackson should not be judged for owning slaves when his political greatness is so prominent. My opponent also says that I am appying 21st century standards to Jackson in positive ways and refuting his negative ways, thus I am a hypocrite, which is completely false. He said that I am looking at "favorable qualities" that are "twenty-first century" qualities, however he failed to a name a single contention of mine that is a "twenty first century standard". Being a war hero, rising from poor to rich, solving the national debt, deomcratic values, how are any of my points things that are only deemed favorable in our day and age?Now he views his own contentions, which I will refute.I have already refuted the Indian Removal Act point. As to "Andrew Jackson's actions led to the suffering of thousands of enslaved Africans," There is absolutely no source for this. Just because he didn't act on slavery like Abraham Lincoln doesn't mean he is responsible for all the slavery in America. He says that Jackson crashed the economy, however, Jackson actually solved the national debt.To conclude my argument, we should let this man be on our currency because he redefined America and stood up for what's right with the common people. Also, if you take Jackson off the bill then there is a blank spot! My opponent has not mentioned one person who should replace him, and if he does, I will refute their choice.Thank you.
Andrew Jackson should be removed from the 20 Dollar Bill

Let's take a close look at the debate so far. Let us look at the arguments presented so far. The negation's arguments center around Jackson's being a pioneer, Jacksonian democracy, support of the common man, solution of the national debt, empowering the executive branch and being a war hero. The affirmation's arguments center around Jackson's support and emphasis of Indian removal and slavery. My opponent's rebuttal to my contention is simply this; that one cannot apply twenty-first century standards onto a nineteenth-century man. I find this curious, as my opponent is doing the exact same thing. My opponent is placing twenty-first century standards on Andrew Jackson, with the only difference between the two of us being that he is looking at "favorable" qualities, and I am looking at "unfavorable" qualities. Considering that both of us are doing this, you cannot look to this "rebuttal". So with this in account, let's take a closer look to these contentions. I am raising the hard facts that Andrew Jackson's actions led to the deaths of thousands of Native Americans and the suffering of thousands of enslaved Africans, as well as the crashing of the United States economy. My opponent is trying to say that several of these events occurred after Jackson's presidency, but this is irrelevant. Conclusive evidence, which I have provided, points to Jackson playing a major part in these events. Van Buren was in office for only a few months when the Trail of Tears and Crash of 1837 occurred; is it really likely that he caused these events only a few months into his tenure, or is more likely that the man before had actions that led to these events? You cannot look to any of what my opponent is saying. So what if he was a "pioneer", so what if he fought against the British, so what if he helped the common man (even when his supporters were rich, upper-class men)? His actions led to the deaths and suffering of thousands, as well as economic turmoil for years. Why should we let this man be on our currency?
Andrew Jackson should be removed from the 20 Dollar Bill

Andrew Jackson was a product of his times. Any other president from his era on bills were also racists. It is unfair to judge a 19th century man with 21st century standards.Refutations:1. Indian Removal ActFirst of all, it should be noted that Jackson was not wholely responsible for the trail of tears. Martin Van Buren, his sucessor, who was not a democrat, enacted Indian Removal. At the time, it was a popular belief that America should expand westward and push Indians as we go. Whilst now we can look back and see this is racist, it was a normal thing to think at the time.2. Massive slave owner.It should be noted that Thomas Jefferson had 650 slaves, George Washington had 250, etc etc. It was normal to have slaves back then. It does not make him a bad man.If you get rid of Jackson from the bill, you might as well do away with everyone else in favor of someone "perfect" (aka nobody). JFK was a famous adulterer. Abraham Lincoln believed the black people should never vote, and so did all of his predecessors. All of the presidents had flaws and did bad things. This does not detract from their greatness.