BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Naruto Uzumaki Stronger than Sasuke Uchiha, as of Naruto Shippuden, Episode 362.

R1: "In the points that i stated earlier, Naruto possess the power of the tailed beast bomb, of which maybe able to be stop by sasuke or even Mardara. This doesn't mean that the tail beast bomb can't be used on almost any oponent. Also when naruto is in bijuu mode he has the ablity to create a small tailed beast bomb in his hand as if it is a rasengan." I have shown that Bijuu mode is no big deal for Sasuke, also Sasuke can use the Black flames to burn the Nine tails, as it worked on the Eight-Tails from the video(I linked it to start at 8 mins, because that is when the Eight-tails burns).http://youtu.be...Also in that fight, Sasuke survives the tailed beast bomb.I extend my previous arguments and wish Pro would answer them.
WE should stop this lgbt agenda nonsense

Well ethics is very subjective, what may be ethically correct to one culture might not be ethically correct to others, remember that gender and sex are two different things, sex is the biological make up, while gender is the preference. Every gender has their own conformity when it comes to their gender preference, maybe canada should revise the c-116 but that doesn't mean that the country would be put into ruin, it's part of the state to adapt to the current culture of society.
WE should stop this lgbt agenda nonsense

your right I need to clarify of what I was saying I menta that the lbgt community is pointless now there protesting for nothing especially with this there is no gender thing or bathroom rights which makes no sense there going to destroy ethics and downright principle dignity. Canada has already fallen with c-116 bill that states if you call someone mr or ms instead of made up words like zir or ze you can be be fined 250,000 dollars. the fact is there's only two genders you can't your biology and grow men and grown woman won't go into the opposite bathrooms
WE should stop this lgbt agenda nonsense

the LGBTQ+ community will destroy our country and many others" what is your basis in your argument? How can you be so sure that, the LGBTQ+ community will destroy countries? there are many factors such as economics and politics than when in compare to the LGBTQ+ has so much more societal effects that can cause a lot of problems on countries. I would agree with you if you are implying "it has become too liberal, but the fact that, these people are fighting for their rights shows the manifestation of the current status quo of society-which is a capitalistic patriarchal society.
Fallout 76 alone is a good game

You said how fallout new Vegas has actually challenging game play implying that 76 does not. But it does. There are so many more bosses like scorch beast, Mega sloth, Scorch beast queen, Etc. (https://screenrant. Com/fallout-76-mutated-creatures-high-level/). There are also really cool, Unique enemies. You asked what are you supposed to do in 76. Well there are MANY quests, Events, People to play with, Boss fights, And more. In 76 you can also join factions like the different kind of responders. There is actually kind of a main quest. The quest involves following the overseer and launching a nuke. At the end of New Vegas the game just ends. But in 76 it basically never ends. There are so many thing to do. Also the graphics (I know it was made a long time ago) in New Vegas are unbearable for many people. Fallout 76 has just been released and many changes will come that could make it better. New Vegas has been out for a very long time letting developers improve it. And 76 will have free expansions.
Fallout 76 alone is a good game

You can play with other people- How is this a reason that this is a good game? If the game is bad you can still play with friends and laugh at it for example Fallout 76. The game has just been released and so any minor bugs are ok- It has a handful of bugs. Here is a list of all them according to Windows Central (Never heard of this site until today) https://www. Windowscentral. Com/fallout-76-list-bugs-glitches-issues I can't see a difference. Source: Fallout New Vegas is the best game in the series. 76 does not even have NPC's not even a main quest. What are you supposed to do? Build, Kill and loot is that it? Fallout new Vegas you can join factions, Talk to NPC's, Kill, Loot, Use actual VATS, Have actually challenging game play (Deathclaws Quarry Junction), Replayable with different classes that offer there own unique way of playing the game, Choices matter, DLC when it was an expansion instead of content that can be finished in a couple of hours and mods that change how the game is instead of adding different textures. Play Fallout New Vegas for yourself and see how the Betheda cannot make a Fallout game. New Vegas 1 and 2 are the only ones that are true to the source material. Fallout 3 does not make sense (How are people surving near a still active nuclear bomb and who thought it was a good idea to create a town near it? ). Fallout 4 reduces information to yes, No, Maybe/questions and sarcasm. It could've been more instead of what it was kill, Loot and build. 76 is the worst almost rivalling Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. Compared to Fallout 4 it looks so much better- https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=e1oTBG7ylrM
Sola Scriptura is not a theologically tenable position

I would like to begin by first defining the important terms in our debate to make sure that we are on the same page. Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently,sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However,sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. As we can see, "Sola scriptura" is the view that the self authenticating, inspired Word of God is: 1. The source and basis for ALL necessary knowledge regarding the Christian life. 2. The ultimate authority regarding all necessary knowledge regarding the Christian life. 3. Any teaching or doctrine is to be tested by the already verified canonical inscripturated Word of God. I would like you to fist tell me what your view is of the Bible, what is it to you. And also what you speak of when you are referring to "traditions", surely you're not speaking of man made traditions, but please specify what you're referring to, and also provide a couple of examples. We need to have standards that we can agree on to make this debate possible. Im looking forward to this debate brother.
Sola Scriptura is not a theologically tenable position

Almost all Protestants adhere to sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone). I would like to show why and how this position is lacking both theologically and historically. 1. Sola Scriptura is contradictory in itself, as it is taught nowhere in Scripture. The oft-quoted verse 2 Timothy 3:16 which states "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" was a reference to the Septuagint (the Greek OT), as the New Testament did not yet exist - it also does not say that anything about Scripture being the sole source of doctrine, only that it is profitable for doctrine. Infact, Scripture explicitly gives a place for oral tradition: 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth (LOGOS) or by letter (EPISTLE). 2. Christianity existed without an official canon for longer than the United States has been a country. It was not even possible to adhere to sola Scriptura if you were a 3rd century Christian because there was no Christian canon[1], and there were many Christian writings circulating, many of which never made it into the NT. This is not to even mention the vast illiteracy of people at this time. 3. The Bible is a compendium of writings by early Church leaders who did not know that what they were writing would end up being canonized hundreds of years later. 4. The Word of God is a reference to Christ Jesus, not to the words on a page. This is easily proved through context of the usage and a closer look at the original Greek word logos, which is defined as not only spoken word, but also reason, ratio and many other things[2]. To a person who spoke Greek in the 1st century, there would be no confusion over what association of a person with the word logos implied (ie God), as it was often associated with Hermes[3]. 5. Before the invention of the printing press, sola Scriptura was purely impractical, as there simply were not enough complete Bibles in existence for everyone to have a personal copy to study from. So, this really isn't just an issue of Scripture being canonized, but of it being widely available. Scripture is useful for understanding our history and seeing some of the basis for our theology, and of course for presenting us with the words spoken by Christ Jesus, but it is by no means the final word in all matters pertaining to God, or to how we should act as Christians in the modern world, where we find ourselves in a completely different atmosphere than that of Biblical times. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://artflx.uchicago.edu... [3]http://www.google.com...
End Tax Breaks for Religious Organizations

First of all,terrorism is NOT an idea but rather an action ,according to the dictionary it is a systematic use of violence to intimidate or coerce to achieve some goal,especially for political purposes. And religion are different from cults,where cults can simply be just any ideas devoted by rituals and ceremonies, but religion is rather a set of deeply rooted beliefs where many shares it's values followed by tradition from centuries ago. And religion is the general umbrella term for different beliefs such as Christianity,Catholics,Hinduism,Buddhism, Islam. So with that being said, there are different beliefs and within those different beliefs there are individuals with different levels of standing in their belief where one simple can't just label.After 9/11 Muslims were labeled as a whole for causing terrorism and was persecuted which was very unjust.. Just because of individuals who by the way belonged to different,extreme sect of Islam caused the violence ,the whole entire belief and people who believed was labeled to be a part of the extreme sect , which is wrong for not all the individuals (Muslims) believe and practice the belief. The act of terrorism is mainly for political purposes and one cannot simply say that It is directly from religious beliefs. And if religious organizations are not allowed to come together to peaceably assemble I.e. When individuals cannot come together to practice their faith, or any shared belief ,interests what you are saying is that no one is allowed to socialize for their common interests and that creates repression which is not democratic. Individuals should and is allowed to socialize today in the US , religious organizations are allowed to peaceable assemble today therefore they should continue to receive tax breaks for they are just practicing their rights. Tax breaks should not end for religious organizations.
End Tax Breaks for Religious Organizations

If my last debate was considered strawman then consider yours strawman as well. Your first premise supports a conclusion to whether there is a separate of church and state in certain countries. The United States has been at war for this "idea" of terrorism. Terrorism is an "idea" as religion is also an "idea", therefore religion does have influence on the cause of these wars and for their involvement they should be taxed in order to pay for their involvement. When these religious organizations use their right to "peaceably assemble" they create cults. Cults like politics that soon spread ideas of terrorism and other nonsense that do not give people of this county or any country a say otherwise. Politics too have religious beliefs.. PLENTY of politics quote from the bible... especially southern ones. Most political campaigns are based off persuading one religion to vote for them on grounds that the whole group will vote for them and this tactic is seen the most among hasidic communities because if you have one vote you have them all. My previous debate makes every bit of sense to the issue of whether or not the government should end tax breaks for religious organizations. My point being that because the government is the one taxing the people and NOT religious establishments for wars caused by the religions themselves; the ones causing the wars should be the ones taxed to pay for the wars and not the ones who did not create war in the first place. We have no say in who declares war and who doesn't, that is left up to the government and these wars are the primary derivation of religious beliefs and defects. The government is using tax breaks for religion to hide the fact that religion really does play a role in the governments decisions for war and the government is trying to make it look like religion does not partake in war efforts by providing them tax breaks. This country is backwards and has been that way for a long time. The Government Should Tax Religious Organizations.
End Tax Breaks for Religious Organizations

P1) what are the religious warfare that is trying to conquer one another today? For there are few but that does not mean every religion is at war with one another. And the religious warfare that goes on is not due to religion itself but rather it is a political warfare. Nations like Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries where Islam religion is a huge factor to the people is due to the government not having a clear separation of church and state,therefore, religious belief and the values are executed throughout the nation for they are part of the laws,unlike the U.S.A or other nations that have a very clear separation of church and state incorporated in the laws. So the real conquering these religious nations are trying to have is not a warfare between religion but rather it is politics. P2) Since USA has a clear separation of church and state, USA can not have any religious warfare and does not even allow it. The real problem with taxes is not because of religious organizations but with the congress for the conservatives who favors the upper class against the liberals for the middle and lower classes. Religious organizations are separated from this political affair. For religious organizations are really just Individuals having the rights to assemble,so they don't have to get taxed as long as they are not affiliated with any political affair directly. C) Tax breaks should not end for religious organizations. Fallacy: Strawman P1)religion may give people peace of mind knowing they can peaceably assemble P2)every religion is at war with another religion....causing armies...and the ones who are creating this mess are the ones NOT being taxed? P3)All religion does is brainwash people into believing their way is the right way and those who don't follow are against them. C) religion has everything to do with government, Issue) whether religion organizations should end their tax breaks or not.
End Tax Breaks for Religious Organizations

P1) Religion may give people peace of mind knowing then can "peaceably" assemble, but what peace has religion ever brought into the world? Religion has everything to do with government. Every religion is at war with another religion trying to conquer each other causing armies to spend more money than they have on weapons of mass destruction and the ones who are creating this mess are the ones NOT being taxed? All religion does is brainwash people into believing their way is the right way and those who don't follow are against them. P2) If the government is distributing rights fairly to all individuals then why are the middle class workers paying the most taxes? Since religious organizations don't pay taxes someone has to and its coming right out of the working mans pocket. Do you really want to cover the costs these organizations are exempt from paying? If religion is a practice that does so by teaching, then teaching in a school is considered practice as well and if schools are being taxed for their practice of teaching, then religious organizations should be taxed for their practice to teach. C) Religious organizations should not receive tax breaks.
End Tax Breaks for Religious Organizations

P1: According to the the first amendment of the United States Constitution, the congress further states the protection of right to peaceably assemble, that is an individual right to come together and collectively express,promote,pursue, and defend common interests,including the freedom of expression. In which Churches are a group of people that assembles through the given rights to gather for their common belief(interest) and is also given the rights to share their expression of belief as well.For this reason,by law,churches are considered as non-profit organizations that have no direct interference with the government,therefore has the rights of tax-exemptions. P2: The congress is not discriminating by giving tax breaks to churches but rather because of tax-exemptions on religious organizations,the congress is executing the established constitution of rights to individuals fairly, allowing the freedom of assembly. C: Tax breaks should not end for religious organizations. Source: http://aclj.org...
End Tax Breaks for Religious Organizations

P1: It is made clear in the American Bill of Rights Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words, churches and other religious establishments should not have benefit over its people nor should Congress discriminate when it comes to tax breaks. P2: By allowing churches and other religious establishments to not pay their taxes, the burden is then shifted to us as regular citizens to have to pay those taxes for them. That means an extra percentage taken out of our hard earned paychecks to cover the loss of taxes not paid by these religious establishments. The money has to come from somewhere and if its not equally being attributed then someone else has to pay for. C: Tax breaks should end for religious organizations. 1) taxthechurches.org 2)taxthechurches,org
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should end its public funding for Planned Parenthood.

RulesFirst Round is Terms and defintions by Pro, Acceptance by Con. Second Round is Constructive Arguments, NO REBUTTALSThird Round is Rebuttals. Forth Round is Rebuttals and conclusion. No Semantics, the definitions provided are what is to be used in this debate. No Trolling. BOP is shared. No K's. If any of the above rules are violated, all 7 points go to the opposition. Zarroette is banned from voting on this debate. If she votes it shall be concidered a votebomb and shall be removed as such. United States Federal Government- The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the local government. (. http://definitions.uslegal.com...)Planned Parenthood- an organization that provides reproductive health care services, including the promotion of accessible means of voluntary fertility control, operation of clinics, conduction of educational programs, conduction of research, and dissemination of information. (. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...)Defund (in the case of this debate)- prevent from continuing to receive funds from the Federal Government.
Homosexuals should be banned from giving blood

==Rebuttal==Your numbers changed from the previous claims. " homosexuals with HIV around 670,000. "from"2800 undetected HIV-positive individuals"Thus, those claims are faulty and invalid. " will probably do more harm than good. "Keyword PROBABLY. If it doesn't? "How does that relate to the argument? "They have the right to donate blood. That's how it relates.
Homosexuals should be banned from giving blood

I'm going to go over my maths and cite my sources, to avoid any confusion: There are ~9 million homosexuals in the USA (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 440,408 homosexuals are diagnosed with HIV, yet the real figure is 44% more because only 66% of homosexuals who have HIV are aware of it (http://www.cdc.gov...). This makes the figure of homosexuals with HIV around 670,000. If HIV tests are 99.8% accurate (http://en.wikipedia.org...) then that leaves ~1340 people with undetected HIV blood who could add their blood to the pool undetected. If we don't allow gay people to give blood, that number is reduced to a negligible amount (taking into account those who lie about their sexuality). "Incorrect. Actually, recorded cases of HIV between hetero and homosexual contact are just about EQUAL." See table would suggest otherwise (http://www.cdc.gov...). Nonetheless, a much higher proportion of homosexuals have HIV compared to heterosexuals. "Blood donations are needed. Every second you breath, is another second someone needs blood. "More than 41,000 blood donations are needed every day" Of course they are, but this demand is met by straight people. Anyhow, as only 5% of people are homosexual the amount of blood that would be added to the pool would be minuscule. "A common reason why people donate blood is simply "they want to help". So why don't you let them?" Because, as I am arguing, legalising gay blood donations will probably do more harm than good. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" How does that relate to the argument? ----------------- On a side point, after recalculating my statistics I have found that some of my statements in round 1 are actually incorrect. This is completely my fault and I apologise. I have now recalculated them in this post with relevant sources.