BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why catholic is the wrong religion!!

Gays are gay. Lol. The bible is against them and "some" catholic priests are for it. Sexually abusing children from a priest!!!! A priest is supposed an ordained minister of the Catholic , Orthodox, or Anglican Church having authority to perform certain rights and administer certain sacraments. How could people put trust in a piece of trash?? The priest is supposed to be the strongest member of the Catholic Church but they sexually abuse little kids. A religion of god is NOT supposed to do things like this, not even a few of them. Also, the Catholic Church believes in Heaven and hell. Heaven is already established as the place where Jesus and God live and the anointed ones, but hell as They, believe that it's where people burn in eternity. Deuteronomy 32:4 says " The Rock, perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of One of faithfulness who is never unjust; Righteous and upright is he." 1 John 4:8 says " whoever does not love has come to know God, because God is love." How could a God of love and justice put people to burn in eternal torment? Tell me? Huh? Also, the Catholics believe that Mary is the mother of God! are you serious ! You gotta kidding me . A human is the mother of God. Ok. Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ. Lastly, Catholics believe that Jesus died on a cross. Matthew 27:40 says " and saying:" you who would throw down the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are a son of God, come down off the torture stake!" Matthew clearly said stake not cross. John 19:17 says " bearing the torture stake for himself, he went out to the so called skull place, which is called Gol'gotha in Hebrew." Did you see cross anywhere? Nope not in a million years. Acts 5:30 says" the God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, hanging him on a stake." God commanded the Isrealites not to use "the form of any symbol" in their worship, and Christians are likewise told to " flee from idolatry" The Catholics as well as other religions use the cross as a form of idolatry when clearly as life this is something God is against.
Why catholic is the wrong religion!!

I think you are confused with other denominations, as the Catholic Church oppresses gays. Even then, being gay is not illegal (unless in marriage) or even immoral. Gays have every right to express themselves, unlike how many people treat them for being gay. Also, only a select few Catholic priests ever molested children. Even considering this, they were shamed by the actual Catholic Church (not the ones you made up in your head). Your argument, therefore, is a series of ignorant stereotypes. That is not how you structure an argument. On a side note, Catholicism is not a religion by itself. It is a denomination of Christianity.
Why catholic is the wrong religion!!

Catholics are disgusting. This religion is obviously the wrong religion. The Catholic Church promoted Gays which is against the bible. The bible clearly says at Leviticus 18:22 " You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the gayness. Genesis 19:4-5 says " 4. Byt before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of sodom, compasses the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter. 5. And they called unto lot, and said unto him, where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may " know them". ( know them refers to have intercourse with them). This city was gay just like the Catholics are now. They accept gays just like the cities. The cities were later destroyed. The catholic religion will also get destroyed in time. BUT, the Catholics malest children which is very disturbing. They claim to be worshipers of God but they do things that God detests. They should also allow marriage for the gay priests and nuns so they can stop touching little boys and girls.
cheating

Contention 1: Cheating for grades in cases of last resort. We"ve pretty much all been here. You realize there"s something you haven"t studied for, or you realize you haven"t done an assignment and you need the grade because it"s CRUCIAL. People aren"t perfect. Contention 2: Cheating on jerks I"m sorry but we should be honest here, there are some people who are such jerks that they deserve many things. When someone does something horrible, sometimes they deserve what comes to them.
Texting does more harm than good

I've already said that texting is great for communication, but some people abuse it. Just because you receive a text doesn't mean you should answer it. We should encourage people to have the discipline not to answer while operating a vehicle. There are also devices and apps that prevent people from receiving texts while driving, so this doesn't have to be a problem. Extend all of my other arguments. http://www.verizonwireless.com...
Texting does more harm than good

Texting only causes sleeping problems if you do not have the discipline to stop texting. Just because some people do not have discipline doesn't mean the overall benefits are not good. Eating food is nutritious, healthy and vital to living but some people abuse it and overeat. Similarly texting is great for communication, but some people abuse it to a harmful degree. Just because you receive a text does not mean you should answer it. We should encourage people have the discipline not to answer. Text messaging has many benefits. 1. It allows you to communicate messages very fast. It allows you to communicate with multiple people at once (separately or together in a group text). Group texts allow multiple people to communicate quickly and easily. 2. Over 98% of texts are read within 15 minutes of receipt, so if you send a text, you know people will read it. https://blog.textmarks.com... 3. Texting doesn't require any downloads or internet connection, so it's easy to access. 4. Texting allows you to communicate when you cannot speak by voice. This is great for privacy and security. 5. Texting can be good for your mental health and thus all around health. Loneliness can lead to high blood pressure and death. University of California Berkeley researchers learned that people who felt depressed, isolated or alone felt more connected and cared for when they received text messages. http://www.completelyyou.com... 6. Texting can be an educational tool. "Texting and 'text speak' can be used to help build foundational reading skills, (link is external)such as word recognition and phonological awareness. It can also be used to generate discussions around formal and informal language (link is external) and writing for different tasks, audiences, and purposes (link is external), all of which are necessary skills for meeting College and Career Readiness Standards in reading (link is external), writing (link is external), language (link is external), and speaking and listening (link is external)." http://powerupwhatworks.org... 7. Texting is short and to the point; it is very quick and easy to read, instead of a long message. 8. Texting is very mobile and does not require a computer, but you can still communicate clear messages. 9. Texting helps people learn faster and more fluently. It especially helps with grammar and vocabulary. https://globaldigitalcitizen.org... 10. Texting is a great way for people to stay in contact with their family and friends.
Original DBZ vs Kai

1. These "Major Missing Plots" were rather filler, or where in there, in Kai, the Sayin history is briefly explained by King Kai and Vegeta. This also applies to the manga, of course the story of bardock was directed by Toriyama, making it cannon, but for the purpose of keeping it true, Kai did its purpose. 2. Also it was just announced recently that Kai will be doing the Buu saga, and Funimation will also be dubbing it. [1] As for the theme song, I guess really its a prefrence on what theme songs you like, I personally thought the english dub opening was terrible, really just plain and boring. Also you don't state if it makes it better or not. 3. Marron was a terrible gag character, like I said, the excessive amount of filler in DBZ was terrible, and episodes to appeal to fan service is just sad. You could actually cut the 291 to around 100 removing the filler, thats almost 191 episodes of filler. 4. No blood? No, no, no my friend you watched the censored version of the show, both the online and DVD versions are completley uncensored, this is the same case as when the original dub appeared on Toonami over 10 years ago, there was no blood, language, or really any violence, unless you owned the DVD it was the same case. 5. Did you really just make that joke?‎‎
Original DBZ vs Kai

My opponent states that had many episodes, though he never states why this makes the original is better than Kai, in fact, the shorter amount of episodes in Kai is a GOOD THING, the idea was to make the dialouge and episodes follow the original japanese anime and the manga as close as possible. The biggest issue with Z was that the episodes were so drawn out, that is destroyed the quality of the show. First of, most of the episodes time was taken up with yelling, staring, or long stills of powering up. The Dragon Ball Z anime dragged out fight scenes, talking, and much more for such long periods of time in order to make way for new manga chapters. That being said, this made the anime cheesy, watching nothing but screaming for minutes on end is an ebressament really, Kai fixed this up, by remaining true to the manga, over 20 minutes of fighting through the course of 3 episodes were accuretly cut down to a few minutes. Making it a more professional and drawn out product.To add to that, the filler in Dragon Ball was terrible, "Hey guys, an alien is about to destroy us all in a few months, how about we drive some freaking cars while we wait." that actually happened, while cell prepared to destroy the world, the guys decided to drive cars in the filler. Thats pretty bad.So why Kai is better, first of, like I said, there are less episodes, the fight scenes that boringly drew on for episodes on end were reduced to minutes, just like the manga, where major fights could be a few pages to a chapter. There was also no filler in kai, which was a major drag on the series, again, no one wanted to watch a robot cook mushrooms or picolo drive a car. Another, I found the voice acting in Kai to be pretty stellar, surprisingly they had most of the original cast present, Sonny, Sabat, Sean were all present for their roles, and more appropriate voices were given to most characters, Kid Gohan no longer sounded like a girl, Freiza didn't sound like an old man posing as a women, and so on. Also, that theme song, sure, the guitar solo in DBZ was good, but Kai's theme, DAMN. Thats all I have now really, I will await for opponent.
Capital Punishment is not Immoral and Should be Used

1) "Who's fault is it that the murderer was under the influence? They are still to blame for the murder whether or not they did it while high or drunk. Should we blame the alcohol instead?" No, they did put themselves under the influence of drugs or alcohol, so you can put them in court for that. But that was done when they were thinking clearly. They do not have control over themselves when high or drunk. 2) "So we should not punish the accomplice just because of the fact that the one who "pulled the trigger" has not been caught yet? Ok, so we should just not punish the helping hands of a murderer because it's not "fair" because the real murderer hasn't been caught even though they are at the same fault? The accomplices did cause the murder. They deserve the same punishment." You will find that in the article I provided previously [1], the one who committed the murder was given a life sentence and later parole. Therefore, the real murderer was caught and given a less severe punishment while the one who didn't do it was killed. 3) "What is the point of self inflicted torture on the criminal? Do we get anything beneficial from a criminal feeling guilt? No. Why do we need to feed them and provide shelter just so they can feel guilt? Nothing good for us will come out of a criminal feeling guilt. Does guilt for them make up for the permanent damage they did to their victims?" Nothing will ever make up for what occurred to the victims, so making them suffer for their actions, is the only way to make them feel pain over what occurred. Closing/ Summarization: In the end the death penalty does not accomplish anything. It does not give closure [2], nor does it rid the world of evil. It is similar to a hydra, when you cut one head off, two grow back.. Innocent people are killed for a crime that they didn't commit, and those who could not control what they are doing are killed as well. The ones who feel remorse and regret are not given a second chance either, even if they would change. They are just sent to be killed. [1] http://articles.latimes.com... [2] http://abcnews.go.com...
Capital Punishment is not Immoral and Should be Used

1) "Many murders are also committed by someone who is high or drunk. They do not know the extent of what they are doing until later on." Who's fault is it that the murderer was under the influence? They are still to blame for the murder whether or not they did it while high or drunk. Should we blame the alcohol instead? 2) "If they are at the same level of fault, then why does one get killed and the other does not. And in the case of the article I presented previously [3], why does the other get parole?" So we should not punish the accomplice just because of the fact that the one who "pulled the trigger" has not been caught yet? Ok, so we should just not punish the helping hands of a murderer because it's not "fair" because the real murderer hasn't been caught even though they are at the same fault? The accomplices did cause the murder. They deserve the same punishment. 3) "Guilt can be one of the most powerful emotions. It can cause change or self-inflicted torture, but it only occurs and grows with time." What is the point of self inflicted torture on the criminal? Do we get anything beneficial from a criminal feeling guilt? No. Why do we need to feed them and provide shelter just so they can feel guilt? Nothing good for us will come out of a criminal feeling guilt. Does guilt for them make up for the permanent damage they did to their victims?
Capital Punishment is not Immoral and Should be Used

Rebuttal: 1) "There have been cases in the past where an innocent person has been executed when assumed guilty. These people never committed those crimes and should not have been killed on an incorrect judgement." It is true that innocent people are sometimes sentenced to death, but it is also true that innocent people are sentenced to 30 years in prison or more. What is worse? Dying then and there or spending 30 years of your life in prison and being unable to start over when released in your 50's? [1] We will never get to a point when 100% of the convicted people are guilty. There will always be some innocent people convicted for crimes they did not do. 2) "If we are punishing them for killing someone, how are we better when we kill them?" If the criminal murdered someone, why should not they deserve the same degree of punishment as the damage they inflicted on their victims? Why should we give them another chance to rethink their lives in prison? 3) "If you truly believe that the death penalty is the best answer, then why isn't it being used on the ones who did the actual killing?" Even though the accomplice did not "pull the trigger", he or she is still at the same level of fault as the ones who did the actual killing. Without the accomplice's help, the murderer would not be successful. 4) "For those who have been cruel and malicious to others and resulted to murder, why should they get off easy? By killing them, you are giving them the easy way out by not having to deal with the guilt or jail." Ask yourself this. Which is more important? The criminal feeling "guilt" (a criminal that kills people on a regular basis cannot possibly be moral enough to feel guilt) in a prison for some time, or the safety of the people after the murderer is once again released? The answer to this question is obvious. Sources: [1] http://www.deseretnews.com...
Capital Punishment is not Immoral and Should be Used

I'm new at this as well. I also have to represent this side next week for my school's debate team. Good luck on the debate! Capital punishment should not be able to be used due to these reasons: 1) There have been cases in the past where an innocent person has been executed when assumed guilty. These people never committed those crimes and should not have been killed on an incorrect judgement. [1] 2) If we are punishing them for killing someone, how are we better when we kill them? 3) There have been multiple cases where a death penalty has been given to an accomplice and not given to the man or woman who actually "pulled the trigger". [2] If you truly believe that the death penalty is the best answer, then why isn't it being used on the ones who did the actual killing? 4) For those who have been cruel and malicious to others and resulted to murder, why should they get off easy? By killing them, you are giving them the easy way out by not having to deal with the guilt or jail. As for your points, I believe that you have valid ideas in there, but that there are definitely some problems. For your first argument: "It will strike fear in criminals, therefore they will be hesitant about committing the crimes they would have committed before being informed about capital punishment." While in some cases it can prove to be an effective buffer, there are many more where it occurs anyway. If you go to http://www.cor.state.pa.us... and click on Execution list, you will be shown a list of all the people sentenced to execution as of September 1, 2012. You will find that 53 people on there have been given more than one death sentence, one of which has 12. In response to your second argument: "The only person at fault for the cause of capital punishment is the criminal. The criminal knew before, during, and after committing the crime, so it was his or her decision to risk being sentenced to capital punishment." If you look at points one and three, you will see my response to that reasoning. [1] http://www.nytimes.com... (While they were not killed in this instance, this story just shows how easy it is to make a mistake that will unfairly end someone's life.) [2] http://articles.latimes.com... [2] http://www.deseretnews.com...
Capital Punishment is not Immoral and Should be Used

Hi, good luck in this debate. It will last three rounds and the time to argue is 72 hours. The voting period is three days. This is my first debate, so my argument might be a little weak. Capital Punishment is not immoral should be used because: 1. It will strike fear in criminals, therefore they will be hesitant about committing the crimes they would have committed before being informed about capital punishment. 2. The only person at fault for the cause of capital punishment is the criminal. The criminal knew before, during, and after committing the crime, so it was his or her decision to risk being sentenced to capital punishment.
Pick your own debate... Regarding history!

Good luck, have fun and keep the topic and debate clean. : ) To be specific, I am willing to debate upon any historical topic, issue, controversial battle etc, so long as it occurred before 1950 and after 100 AD (I am well versed in this era, but I haven't any wish to debate a Biblical/Ancient/Greek controversy, at this time). I ask that the topic be debatable, and not entirely one-sided. And, as I've stated before, a clean topic. I don't want to discuss some sort of war crime specifically involving rape or some equally as disturbing topic (though, perhaps, exceptions could be made if it were to be regarding something as 'worst leader in history'). I also ask that in the case of an English controversy, I be placed on the side of the English. ; ) Naw, I'm joking - that is your option. :D Good, luck, have fun!
Call of duty is a more casual game than battlefield

Alright... sorry to kinda change the subject but I kinda wanna take a moment to talk about matchmaking and the games platform. With battlefield on PC you have to go through Origin and then once you launch it opens a web page and then you have to find servers manually. As for cod you just launch the game and click a few buttons and your in a game and match made which is so much easier. Also another little point is that Cod has a hardcore mode and many different gamemodes to play that offer allot of variety. ...I dunno i'm running out of Ideas xD
Call of duty is a more casual game than battlefield

Forget to mention but Round 4 is only for answering if your opinion of either game has changed in any way no debating. Yeah a pain when you are solo. I play solo to 3 man squads either way it is still more coordinated attacks solo or not considering you can still hop into a bf4 squad and talk or type to them. it takes more team work. you cant have 4 snipers you need a mix of 2-4 of them so you can revive your team in a heated battle and hand out ammo to soldiers low while defending a point Gettysburg style. Vehicles are a nuisance when your team does not know how to play the game. When you have knowledgeable players they will know two people firing missiles at it will kill it after 4 or so rockets. or you could get your own tank and have an eng repair you from the back so you can sustain longer. there are ALOT more variables in battlefield to determine who will live, die, lose , win. The guns have horizontal, vertical recoil. harder spray pasterns and the guns have their own play-style. CoD you just try and survive long enough to get kill streaks and destroy the enemy team, be that by killing everyone like a skilled player or hiding and caping points
Call of duty is a more casual game than battlefield

What I mean to say is that when you're playing the game you encounter people rarely and I don't find the gun play very engaging. Another thing is that when you're playing it is a game that is nearly impossible to play without a group of friends because then you can all get in a car and over power everyone else that's just playing solo. Maybe you would see that as somehow more competitive but I find it just to be a pain. Don't get me wrong team coordination is an important competitive skill but in battlefield it's a lost cause unless you know people on the team.
Call of duty is a more casual game than battlefield

I myself am a cs:go player as well as LoL. While it is true that battlefield maps are much bigger I believe that to be the more competitive part. When I play CoD I run around the map 15 times shoot people kill people die and repeat. When I play Battlefield I never run around the edge full circle or even close as that would take a few minutes. You cant simply sit in a corner and get easy pickings on battlefield as there is a chance that as little as 1-5 people will cross your path on most maps (unless you are sniping) like Gulf of Oman or Pearl market. on battlefield you have to be actively moving around objective to objective or you forfeit helping your team in anyway. Another skill aspect is classes, you have to choose if you want to supply your team with ammo, heal and revive them, take out vehicles, or snipe. When you said you find yourself wondering around shooting things, that is simply you not PTFO which I don't mean as a put down its just an acronym I felt suitable to your situation. not playing the objective in battlefield is usually the only way you end up just wondering around shooting things which could hurt your team.