BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
One Direction is a better British boy band than The wanted

Both One Direction and the Wanted Suck.... But You definitely must have bandwagon fever if you think One Direction is better than the Wanted. The Wanted are slightly better when it comes to quality of songs. It doesn't matter if One Direction has more fans than the Wanted, Nikki Minaj has more fans than any of these boy-bands, and she sucks... In fact She ruins the Techno industry with her evil lyrics and snarky personality. Justin Bieber, another crappy famous fad artist who sang songs about being desperate for a girl was picked up by Usher. But even Usher's tutelage didn't help Bieber grow from his desperate for a girl lyrics. Not even his ex Selena Gomez a pretty and great singer/actor change Bieber's lyric stories. So in the end its not about the amount of fans its the quality of the song. In today's society a hit single means that the song doesn't have to be good, it just has to be catchy enough so the advertisers can sell it to the naive tweens and consumers. Talent is somtimes heard in the mainstream pop radio stations like 106.7, but usually it is used to advertise catchy horrible tunes of Nikki Minaj, One Direction, and the sometimes talented but mainly vengeful Taylor Swift. (she's a sweet singer and person, but one would do well not to get on her bad side just look at all the exes she humiliated with her songs...)Now it might seem as though I'm not using The Wanted in my case that One Direction sucks, but One Direction sucks so bad that I don't even need to use them at all for support. Listening to The Wanted music makes me gag, but One Directions makes me want to barf last night's Dinner. (Yes you had to know so that I can emphasize) So instead I'm going to kick back relax and listen to a great song like http://www.youtube.com... look outrageous which provides for me comic relief, but the quality of the song is undiminished by their looks. On the Other hand One Direction sells their image more than The Wanted hence why their music stocks would take a hit if they tried to pull a stunt like this.
Is Christianity a good religion based off of logic or is it a false religion that should die

Oh no man. You got me all wrong my point wasn't that God made the Big Bang but instead it was proving the fact that the Bible could have possibly been correct about the creation of earth. Now second if God is real (which I believe) then you have to remember that in the bible it says that God is omnipotent therefore if he holds all power meaning if he wants to make a donkey talk then by all means he probably could. Third, i'm interested in what you said about how the story of Adam and Eve leaves no room for evolution. Please explain, and also explain what your proof for the theory of evolution is.
Is Christianity a good religion based off of logic or is it a false religion that should die

The Bible is not much of a credible source because its credibility is compromised by talking animals. Yes I agree, that verse may fall to be correct, but the verses following completely ruin your evidence. The story of Adam and Eve cannot exist because it leaves no room for evolution, a PROVEN FACT. The Bible says the universe is 10000 years old, so this completely discredits your claim that God caused the Big Bang.
Is Christianity a good religion based off of logic or is it a false religion that should die

Christianity is a correct religion and though many try to disprove I believe that I can prove it. First of all you need to understand that it is your job to hear me out. Now first of all in order to prove that Christianity is a good religion we have to first get to the credibility of the bible. I believe that the bible does give answers and there are somethings in the bible that cannot be denied. So for my first piece of evidence I'll be taking a quote from the bible and proving how it is correct. Genesis 1:3 and god said let there be light and there was light. Now this was the first thing that God had created and if you link it with science even science can prove that this is true. So now scientists have been able to trace back microwave radiation back to the beginning of time. So now what is light? light is a form of electromagnetic radiation and microwave radiation falls under this. So this proves that the bible was right about how the first thing created was actually light, and everything comes from something, everything that has ever happened has to have something that caused it and what i'm trying to say is that it is completely possible that God, a greater being is the one who created this light and this world.
Is Christianity a good religion based off of logic or is it a false religion that should die

In this argument I intend to prove that Christianity really is a good religion and that there really is evidence behind the religion of Christianity. Now though I have a specific job for my opponent your job is to completely disprove Christianity and do anything to make your side which is against Christianity sound better than mine. Therefore you can do whatever like for example ask me question that could possibly stump me (though the part about asking questions is just a suggestion, it would probably work good against me). Now LETS BEGIN!!
gay marriage is not bad

Disclaimer : I do not believe any of this, but sniping the restitution. As I said all i must do is shown one scenario in which gay marriage is bad and I win Negative effects on children. Recent studies show that homosexual couples deny the right of a father or mother to a child, and that this can lead to the child suffering negative effects and showing symptoms such as violence. Studies also show they have a higher chance of ending up in prison[1] Conclusion The resolution is not upheld [1] http://www.frc.org...
Answer correctly to win! :)

I gave some thought throughout the day to a couple of the challenges, while the others I was already familiar with. .. Challenge 1 This is a pretty dramatic and scary scenario to start this debate with and the answer can be found in the phone call. The overly dramatic call about science papers fits in well with the situation but key words stick out for a call about science papers. .. If one removes everything but a few of these words, Emily's plead for help becomes apparent. .. "I really need them back. It would be a great -help- to -me-. It's an -emergency-, so if you could give me them tomorrow it would be great. Please -hurry- in finding the notes. I need to get back to my books now. -Bye-. " If Emily moved the phone a bit, covered the phone slightly, or used the flash button other than when she said these words the person on the other end would only hear: "Help me. .. Emergency. .. Hurry. .. bye. ". Anna naturally calls the police and the intruder is arrested. Challenge 2 This one was actually explained in the message itself, by rearranging the message in rows of 21 to decipher the actual message. I actually tried a bunch of other methods before realizing what should have been obvious. So if you take the whole message and make it one block of text in rows of 21, the second vertical row spells out "He is here". Challenge 3 Nothing. Challenge 4 The boys mother. Challenge 5 A watermelon.
Answer correctly to win! :)

Sometimes debates on here get a little too serious, and as a president, it must be rather difficult and frustrating at times. I would like to lighten up your mood with a fun challenge ;) I am personally challenging the president of DDO. I will present some questions (Riddles, puzzles, brain teasers, mathematical equations, challenges etc.) and he must attempt, to the best of his abilities to accomplish those tasks. Since this is a 5 rounded, I will present 5 challenges per round (apart from this one), (meaning 20 in total). My opponent must give a response to all five challenges within the same "argument", without the help of others or the internet search engines. I will reword riddles and/or brain teasers to minimise his ability to cheat if so >___>Voting: Airmax must succeed in at least 17/20 challenges to win this "debate". 15-16/20 will result in a tie. 14 or less successes will result in a win on my side. I will give a response, as to whether or not Airmax has answered my challenges correctly, after each round (and in the comments section for the fifth round). The questions that I present (like riddles or teasers etc.) will have at least one valid answer. Airmax must present at least one valid answer. If he chooses to present more than one answer for the fun of the debate, all answers must be correct. If any response to one question can be proven wrong, that entire question will be counted as wrong (do you get my point? Lol. Hope you get what I mean :/) PLEASE ACCEPT!!!!!!!!! THIS WOULD BE VERY FUN (: First round acceptance only. Any queries, please put in comments section :) Good Luck Airmax! :D
We should completely and utterly annihilate black communities.

To clear up any confusion my opponent is having, I only wish the annihilation of the communities, not the people within. I wish to destroy black communities, because I would like whites, and blacks to live side by side peacefully. If black people are separate, it will create an "us and them" mentality. The way I propose we annihilate black communities, would be by both integrating whites into black communities, and integrating blacks into white communities. This will create mixed communities, thus annihilating the black communities. In order to achieve my selfless goal, we would have to, learn to tolerate black people. Look, I know tolerating them will be hard, but in the end we must. They might look like chimps, but they are not. I really find it disturbing that my opponent would want to segregate black people. This is what Hitler did with the Jews, it’s very concerning. Black people and white people should live together peacefully; therefore we must put an end to these segregated black communities.I only have to argue why we should end these black communities, my reasoning is because it's racist.A vote for con is a vote for racism. I hope my opponent learns to one day tolerate black people.
Moses Was a Composite Character

Underlying Assumptions"Moses was not a historical person (for if he was he could not be composite)."Not necessarily, one of the characters that the Moses in the bible was based on may well have been called Moses and performed some of the actions in Exodus. He may have been a historical person in a sense. I am claiming that the Moses in the bible has been either blended with multiple other characters or created from scratch from many different ones."The story of Moses from Exodus is not completely original and all or parts of the narrative were essentially copied from previous stories (I find calling him a "composite character" to be a sort of euphemism if that is the case)."Correct, some may (I would claim is) original but yes I am claiming that the entire account from Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy is not original.Star Wars Harry Potter Film ArgumentWhile this made up little of your argument I felt it was worth mentioning in my rebuttal. You claim that you saying that: "Harry Potter was copied from Luke Skywalker because they are both orphans and have magical powers. This is just between two movies that were released 24 years apart".In reality of course things are not that clear cut. When a film becomes popular it seeps into the culture a little and the memes used in that film become more used in others so in a sense you could say that some aspects of the character of Harry Potter may have been inspired by the character of Luke Skywalker. While this is probably not the case I'm sure you understand that a writer can be inspired or influenced by previous work.But this whole film parallel doesn't work so well for oral tradition. Remember that the Tanakh (and thereby the Christian old testament was) based off of a once oral tradition which was passed down through many generations [1] and in this sate myths will blend and mix and what comes out will not be what when it. Think of it as a thousand year long game of Chinese whispers (that's what we call it in the UK). And so when you see to different but similar legends from around the same place with a few hundred years between them you should start thinking.Code of HammurabiThe reason that con dismisses my argument here is that law comes from morality which apparently doesn't change over nearly two millenia. Ask yourself this question: "Has morality changed since the second century B.C. when it was considered fine to own slaves, when genocide wasn't a dirty word, when women weren't considered equal?" No morality changes and so for the same laws to be repeated in two different places at two different times you should start to search for a connection. Sargon of AkkadI should point out that the account that you deride is accepted as accurate (or at least dating to the time of Sargon of Akkad) by modern scholars [2].[1] http://www.hebrew4christians.com...[2] Roux, Georges (1982) "Ancient Iraq" (Penguin, Harmondsworth)
Moses Was a Composite Character

Moses appears to have been compiled from a number of different characters all of which were written about hundreds or thousands of years before Moses was ever conceived of. The character Moses was probably first conceived by the Yahwist's (J source) sometime between 750 BCE and 500 BCE [1]. I will now proceed to list the mythical figures (there are many mythical figure which I will touch on later in this debate but I will not mention them now) and once living people (often somewhat embellished) who probably are the sources that inspired the Moses character.Hammurabi King of BabylonHammurabi (king of Babylon from 1792 " 1750 BC ) is said to have received the divine law known as the code of Hammurabi from a Babylonian deity called Shamash. It has many similarities to Mosaic law for instance:Code of Hammurabi: "If an ox be a goring ox, and it shown that he is a gorer, and he do not bind his horns, or fasten the ox up, and the ox gore a free-born man and kill him, the owner shall pay one-half a mina in money." [2].Mosaic Law: "If a man's bull injures the bull of another and it dies, they are to sell the live one and divide both the money and the dead animal equally. However, if it was known that the bull had the habit of goring, yet the owner did not keep it penned up, the owner must pay, animal for animal, and the dead animal will be his." [3].Code of Hammurabi: "If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out." [4] "If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken." [5]Mosaic Law: "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" [6]Pharo SneferuPharo Sneferu is recorded in one (fairly obviously mythical) account as flipping over a lake to reveal its underside in order to rescue an amulet for a slave girl. To me this seems similar to the story of separating the red sea [7].Sargon of AkkadSargon of Akkad was an Akkadian ruler in the 24th century BC in an account of his childhood he records:"My mother, a high priestess, conceived me, in secret she bore me. She placed me in a reed basket, with bitumen she caulked my hatch. She abandoned me to the river from which I could not escape. The river carried me along: to Aqqi, the water drawer, it brought me. Aqqi, the water drawer, when immersing his bucket lifted me up." [8]This appears eerily similar to the account in Exodus of the early life of MosesNow a man of the tribe of Levi married a Levite woman, and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. When she saw that he was a fine child, she hid him for three months. But when she could hide him no longer, she got a papyrus basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch. Then she placed the child in it and put it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile." [9]To me this seems like too many similarities to ignore a link between Moses and these ancient kings.[1] http://www.britannica.com...[2] Law 251 code of Hammurabi [3] Exodus 21:28-36[4] Law 196 code of Hammurabi [5] Law 197 code of Hammurabi [6] Exodus 21:24[7] Westcar Papyrus[8] The Sargon Legend (American Schools of Oriental Research, 1978)[9] Exodus 2:3
The Strongest Force in the Universe is Gravity

"Your" analogy (which you most likely got from http://tinyurl.com...) about an ant and the fattest man in the world is false. A proper analogy would require the ant to represent Strong Nuclear, and the fattest man to be Gravity. Gravity exists on a much larger scale than Strong Nuclear. However, proportionally, Strong Nuclear is much stronger.The weakness of gravity is why it's so difficult to find the smallest denomination, a graviton. Here's another real life example that easily demonstrates the weakness of gravity: Rub a dry comb on a dry shirt. This will give it static electricity - when you hold it over a tissue, the tissue will lift. It takes the entire planet Earth to hold the tissue down (gravity), but it takes the mass of a hairbrush to lift it using electromagnetic energy. Another way to prove it is mathematically - it's complex, but it's apparent in the ratio of the magnitude of the gravitational and electromagnetic forces. Good luck!
The Strongest Force in the Universe is Gravity

Power, has everything to do with it. Gravity is by far the most powerful force. I do not say this because gravity is the most common and well known force in the universe. I say this because it is the truth. In this analogy, gravity is a fire ant, and the strong force is the fattest man in the world. The fire ant can lift almost five times its weight, however it is very small, therefor five times the ants weight still does not come close to how much the fattest man in the world can lift. Now pretend the fire ant grew to the size of the man. Now the ant(gravity)can easily overpower the fat man(strong force). This relates to how gravity initially, or here on earth may not be stronger than the strong force, but at its most extreme point, nothing come close to beating gravity. Also what you said about Black Holes and a magnet is not true. A magnet the size of a black hole could not overcome it. Nothing can escape it, not even a single photon in a ray of light.
The Strongest Force in the Universe is Gravity

"Powerful - Having or capable of exerting power" "Power - Strength or force exerted or capable of being exerted; might." (Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Power, raw power, has nothing to do with the way it affects us. I agree, gravity is a crucial force in the universe, but the strongest? The reasons you're stating for gravity being the strongest largely arise from the fact that our perception of gravity is so powerful. Gravity exists in our lives in a way that we can feel on a second to second basis. However, gravity is governed by distance. It's clearly not the strongest - simple proof: use a magnet to pick something up, even though the mass of the earth is fighting it. Gravity is strongest in a black hole, but if there was a magnet the size of a black hole, it would be able to resist. Look at the chart on http://www.physlink.com... With facts, Strong Nuclear is 1 tredecillion times stronger. I'm backed up by facts, not perception.
The Strongest Force in the Universe is Gravity

In your statement you opened things off by stating that in my first statement I contradicted myself. You stated that I said that the strong force was the strongest force in the universe, even though earlier in my statement I had said I was supporting gravity. I would like to clear things up, and say that I was not stating that I believed the strong force to be the most powerful force in the universe, but I merely said that it seams as though others believe it to be so. -Now, for my argument As you said in you response, the strong force(holds atoms together) is extremely powerful. I am fully aware of that. However, my argument is that while this force is very strong, it only has the power to affects things at an atomic level. Gravity on the other hand, can effect anything(except photons)from the smallest particles in the universe(atoms)to an entire galaxy of billions of stars and planets. The strong force can not even come close to that kind of power.
The Strongest Force in the Universe is Gravity

First of all, you're basically contradicting yourself in your own statement. You say that the "Strong Force", which is Strong Nuclear, is the "strongest force", but then say that you believe gravity is the strongest force in the universe. I'll assume that you want to argue that gravity is stronger than Strong Nuclear. First of all, since the range of where Strong Nuclear occurs is so small (one fento-meter), we have little known interaction with it in everyday life - as opposed to gravity, which is why you might think that gravity is the strongest force in the universe. The amount of force and power required to keep a proton adhering to dozens of other protons is enormous, incomprehensible. It gives us nuclear bombs, and even stars. Gravity seems so powerful because we witness it everywhere. But really, don't we overcome it just by standing up, by jumping? A small magnet can overcome the gravity of the entire planet! If gravity was proportional to nuclear, it would be much weaker.
A serious debate: Skittles (Pro) Vs Starburst (Con)

First off. If it takes 5 min to open a Starburst wrapper, it takes 10 minutes to open those skittle wrappers when there are no folds to tear. Also, it doesn't take that long to open when fresh. When they are dried out and sticky is why they get hard to open. Starburst has many other colours and varieties too. There are 6 with varying flavours -Original -FaveRED -Tropical -Sweets n Sours -Superfruit Flavors -Fruity Slushies The Skittles Sour and Tropical Flavors kinda suck. I would rather have 4 good quality tasting candies than 8 crap ones. If we are looking at Original's only. Skittles come 6 flavours which are all dull. But Starburst has a pink flavour! That's original. The two best flavours are Red n Purple for skittles which adds to 40%. The two best flavours of Starburst are Red and Pink. That is a 50% likeability. Also, Skittles lose their flavour if you leave them out too long. Starburst don't. Also, they don't make stick to your finger when your done eating. The wrapping is beneficial for Starburst as well. When you open the main package if they spill on the ground, you don't need to worry because it is wrapped. However all those Skittles fall on the ground if opened the wrong way and you wasted your money.
A serious debate: Skittles (Pro) Vs Starburst (Con)

Right lets go! Why would man spend 5 minutes tryna open a wrapper, every time, when man could just tear open a sachet. and dig right in. PLus, every skittles is unique, way more variety, whereas with Starburst, you usually get 10-11 each of 4 flavours. Ease of Access variety defo go to Skittles, I mean they even have a separate sour version, and whatnot. whereas starburst will always be remembered by 4 colours, one of which is horrible (purple). Man the debate is already over for you b, don't know how you can comeback from this!