BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Modern Christian beliefs are mostly false

First off, plenty of the original books of the bible no longer exists in the modern protestant bible. Actually the catholic bible has an extra 6 chapters in the book of Esther, and 3 extra in the book of Daniel. At the Council of Trent in 1548, the two books of Estras were removed from the "sacred scripture" . The Prayer of Manasses was also removed from it. The Catholic bible actually contains 7 extra books. Most protestants will refer to these as the "apocrypha", but Catholics know them as the "deuterocanonical books". The books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or, Sirach), and Baruch The proof of the deuterocanonical books are: 1. They were found in the "Septuagint" the original which was the original Greek translation of the old testament, in the 3rd century B.C 2. the the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, like the Codex Sinaiticus , and Codex Alexandrinus, contain all of the deuterocanonical books, mixed in with the others books and were not separated. 3. After Martin Luther, protestants removed all of the deuterocanonical books from their bible. They removed them because of doctrines that they did not believe, or did not WANT to believe. 4. originally the New Testament was written by hand. HUMANS writing things by hand is like a game of telephone, it will significantly change. Many of the original copies were lost. The New Testament was actually reconstructed from more than 5600 Greek manuscript copies of the New Testament, and TWENTY THOUSAND copies from other languages (we know that translations arent very good) when the 20000 manuscripts were compared to each other, 400,000 variations were found For all we know, most of what we know about Christianity could be false.
Santa is real.

Hi. Okay your thing in which you said just because something is not proven does not mean it does not exist, i think that is true. But it does not mean i think santa is real. I have a few reasons why, but if i say them all right now I will nothing left to say in the other arguments. My first reason is: Santa Claus has existed. But he died. And there are some stories of nick doing good stuff. (they might be real, I did not do much research for it. sorry) But if santa died how could he be delivering presets?
Santa is real.

Like I said before, I believe that he can interact with the world. Meaning if he wishes to carry some presents under a tree that's what he's gonna' do. Unexpected is the point. Maybe he can interact maybe he can't. You said something before about God so I a assume you believe in God so if you do then you know he is capable of unbelievable things. Even raising the dead P.S. Don't worry about me it's all in good fun. If you win congrats but I'll still believe
Vigilante Justice

ous is a suffix forming adjectives that have the general sense "possessing, full of" a given quality ( covetous; glorious; nervous; wondrous); -ous, and its variant -ious, have often been used to Anglicize Latin adjectives with terminations that cannot be directly adapted into English. The latin Usurpare does not have this possessing trait and thus I have given it one. To criminalize the use of a firearm to defend one's own property would be an act that would leave the victim of a crime in an impossible situation. If someone breaks into my home with my sleeping daughter upstairs, I can't be made to assume that the criminal has no violent malicious intent until he attempts to harm my daughter. This is why a large number of states have established castle doctrine.(1) Your next argument shows deep historical ignorance. innumerable times throughout history a weaker force has withstood the onslaught of a great power through nothing more than the weapons they had on hand. Typically through guerilla warfare. take the banana wars for example or Russian campaigns in Afghanistan The police force are a wonderful function of government. However, when seconds count, the police arrive in minutes. While I have every ounce of respect for our boys in blue, They can't always be there. The stand your ground law only allows for the use force if there is an impending or immediate threat in which case unless there is a police officer nearby you may be required to use force to defend yourself.(2) (1)https://www.southuniversity.edu... (2)http://criminal.findlaw.com...
Vigilante Justice

First, in your right wing fantasy world, is usurptuous a word? Now, onto the real debate. I think that we need to clarify the difference between self defense, and using a firearm to decide what punishment is given to a criminal. Of course life threatening situation call for split second decisions and fire arms can be used to protect you and your family. But I am talking more about the situations in which no one's life is at stake, yet gun owners feel the right to shoot at a criminal who maybe only stole something from a store or their home. This idea is ridiculous and shouldn't be an argument in any debate on gun control. There have been multiple cases in which a criminal is shot and killed by a legal gun owner after only stealing or another crime in which death is not a just punishment. Onto the idea that you need guns to defend against the government turning on its citizens. This makes no sense, sorry to tell you but all the AR's and shotguns you own aren't going to do anything against a tank or fighter jet. So this is again another point that cannot be used to debate the need to defend yourself with guns. The situations in which a gun will be a just and necessary retaliation to a crime are few and far between. If you want to help the world by stopping criminals, become a police officer. We can't have every citizen thinking that they have the right to shot first and ask questions later as in the stand your ground law.
Vigilante Justice

First, what you're talking about is not vigilante justice. Using firearms to defend your family is not vigilante justice. A vigilante would hunt down gang members to "clean up the streets" someone who simply wants to defend themselves does not meet the definition of a vigilante. Next, the idea that people are killing because they feel they can. You are morally justified in using force to defend your home and family. In your leftist fantasy world where the police have teleporters, you don't need guns to defend against teleporters, and in your fantasy world, a democratic government can never turn usurptuous. However, in real life the police don't always show up on time. Governments turn on their citizens. This is why we need firearms in the hands of responsible civilians.
Vigilante Justice

On the note of gun control, we need to get rid of the idea of vigilante justice. This idea that you need a personal arsenal to defend you and your family is absolutely ridiculous. In a modern society we can't have people running around with guns trying to be the judge, jury, and executioner whenever they feel like it. This is a message to disprove the points given to why we should not have gun control. You don't get to decide whats right when you feel like it because you have a gun.
M.C. Hammer cannot touch this.

You're quite mistaken in your belief that Hammer can't touch you. One must understand that as Pro you have a responsibility to prove that Hammer can't touch you, and to do so in an objective manner. This means that showing MCH is unlikely to touch you is not enough. You must show that he can't touch you. If his song was called "You Are Unlikely to Touch This" it would be a rhythmic disaster and a marketing flop. MCH, being a living being, has the capability of finding anything that does indeed exist, including you.Now to address Hammer Pants. While Hammer Pants are a notable cause of concern when talking about movement in general, we have to remember that the woman in the video is not on a skateboard, but intead a Rip Stik. (Fiendishly more difficult to ride, and thus irrelevant). MCH himself moves just fine in his video. Also, he has the possibility of catching you, which is all that matters. Same logic applies to the bike (which broke apart.)http://www.youtube.com...
M.C. Hammer cannot touch this.

Thank you, I look forward to this debate.There are a few reasons MCH can't touch this.For MCH to touch this, it would require him to find me first. I have already made efforts to conceal myself from him, so much, that I am a man that he can't touch. Regardless of how he tours the world, from London to the bay, he shall not find me along his way.Secondly, I shall escape him. No man nor woman can make chase in Hammer Pants [1]. For if one cannot mount a skateboard wearing hammer pants, how shall he catch me on A Bicycle [2]? I told you man, he can't touch this?Third, M.C. Hammer is mortal. This means that though his pants may protect him for now, if he attempts to touch this, it shall not be Hammertime. Worse, it will be his doom. If MCH is neutralized, he most certainly can't touch this.You'll know I told you, he can't touch this.[1] http://www.youtube.com... See the video[2] http://www.youtube.com... Marvel at his speed.
M.C. Hammer cannot touch this.

I will be arguing as the pro that M. C. Hammer cannot, and will not, touch this. M. C. Hammer- The singer of the song in this video. . http://www.youtube.com.... He may also be referred to as Hammer, MCH, and M. C. in this debate. This- Me. I offer these for clarification, this is not a semantic debate. I define this narrowly so that the debate may have a more simple focus on what MCH can and cannot touch.
Which champion is the strongest jungler in League of Legends

I would like to clarify the rules of this debate. 1. First round is acceptance plus choosing which champion you believe is the strongest jungler. 2. Second round is stating your argument. In other words you cannot mention my argument in this round. 3. Third round will be a cross examination from each side. 4. The final round will be your wrap up / rebuttal. 5. Please provide a lank with all of your champions stats, moves, etc. in the second round. 6. This may seem obvious but I will say it none the less. You may NOT chose the same champion I do. 7. In this debate we will assume each champion is played to his/her maximum potential. Alright that's about it for rules, this debate is just for fun, no need to get too angry. :) i chose the champion Lee Sin.
Which champion is the strongest jungler in League of Legends

Rebuttal 1Jarvan has trouble ganking warded lanes because he only has one tool to get over walls.I disagree with this. He may have one tool to get over them which is his flag then Q combo to pull him to it, but the cooldown is literally 5 seconds. He can simply bipass the wards, and wait for the gank or go straight into cataclysm. On bottom lane, if you start top side, he can come around from blue. Set up into that tri, throw his flag into the bush at river and pull himself to it. That allows him to miss any wards at dragon. On top he can go around to tri and go over the wall the same way. He is very flexible and mobile. As far as ultimates, lee sins ult is not better. It may have more base dmg and knock them backwards but it does not offer the CC that J4 brings. if you do land the full knock up combo, into cataclysm. It is deadly and is almost a death sentence. If you have someone like miss fortune behind him, his ult just keeps them locked into place for her ult to spray them down. It also works well with twitch and many other CC champs. I pulled off a 2 second quadra because of this yesterday as well. Just with mf and J4 vs 4 people. It offers so much utility and CC that it far surpasses lee sins ult. Rebuttal 2Lee sin can be in a virtually any team compWhile this is true in a way, but not the point I was making. Any champ can be in any team comp. That is obvious, but the question is can he excel in certain team comps. When comparing a CC comp, J4 brings way more utility and CC thanLee Sin while possessing the same ganking potential and map accessibility. Contention 3The reason Jarvan is picked more often in pro games is because he is much easier to pick up and be effective with than Lee SinNotice my adversary says he is more effective than lee sin in pro games most of the time. This just supports my case even more. It goes to show that no one champ is better, but relevant to the person playing and the team comp they are in. In ClosingI have enjoyed this but I feel I have gone above and beyond. While Lee Sin is a great champion to play, he is most certainly not the best. He may be one of the most picked jungles, but as far as who is best, it is completely dependent on the person playing the champion and what team comp he excels in. I have demonstrated this thoroughly and precisely. His resolution can not be upheld.
Which champion is the strongest jungler in League of Legends

First I would like to apologize for not posting an argument last round. I would also like to add that I enjoy playing J4 as well. My win/loss rate is 22-8 with him in ranked( i cannot post a picture of this at the moment because I am on a school computer which unfortunately, does not have League of Legends. )You may check my facts by going to www. lolking. net and searching LeagueofJosiah. :) Contention one Jarvan has trouble ganking warded lanes because he only has one tool to get over walls. He must make a choice between positioning well for a gank and losing his knock up, or having his knock up but being seen early on. Lee sin does not have this problem because he has two abilities that let him get over a wall, q and w. If Jarvan does choose to get over a wall with his combo his gank is practically useless unless he has his ultimate. When comparing ultimates we can see that Lee Sins is far superior. Lee sins ultimate does more damage and can do damage to more than one target also knock up any enemies hit by the kicked target. Jarvans ultiamte only does single target damage and can easily be avoided by an escape, even vaynes tumble can escape Jarvans ultimate. Lee sin is also one of the strongest early game 1v1 champions and can easily pick off the enemy jungler by waiting at a buff or camp. This is due to his sustain, attack speed/movespeed debuff, passive which grants him attack speed and huge Q damage. Contention twoLee sin can be in a vertually any team comp. This is because he can jump in, slow the enemy teams movement and attack speed, then jump right back out. If someone like Jarvan tries to initiate on a squshy ad carry Lee can shield the carry and kick Jarvan back into place. While on the other hand if Lee kicks the ad carry into his team there is almost no chance of escape. if Lee sin engages and realzes he is in danger he can escape with his w. If Jarvan make the same mistake, he will die unless he has flash. This makes Jarvan a much riskier engager due to the fact that he is easy to melt before his team has a chance to back him up. Lee sin can also be played as a mobile assasin in team fight waiting for the right moment to one shot the ad carry or ap carry then safely join his team. Contention three The reason Jarvan is picked more often in pro games is because he is much easier to pick up and be effective with than Lee Sin. There are players such as insec who make the other team ban Lee Sin every game because of how effective he is with the champion. It would not make since for a pro to try and pick up a new champion who will take time to master when they are always competing to be the best.
Which champion is the strongest jungler in League of Legends

leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/Lee_Sin <--- base stats, abilities etc. FIrst off let's take a look at each of their ganking ability, pre and post level six. Both J4 and Lee Sin can usually pick up first blood right after getting double buffs. J4 simply does his e q combo on top of the enemy for a strong early gank. Some problems that occur when Jarvan ganks are, the opponent flashing his combo. If the enemy spots Jarvan before he can combo on top of them they can usually get away before any damage is dealt using the ability flash. He also has no way to detect someone such as akali or twitch who can turn invisible. Lee Sin's e and q both reveal invisible targets, making him very hard to hide from. Lee sins q is one of the best skills in the game due to the fact that it works even if an enemy flashes or jumps away. Lee Sin has more effective gank paths than any other jungler in the game. It is very difficult to ward against a Lee Sin do to the fact that he can gank from almost anywhere. Post six both champions have great banks, the difference is jarvans ultimate is not very effective against champions with a built in escape. Lee sin however can q to a target trying to escape, ward jump in front of them and kick them into his allies. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Jarvan does clear small camps such as wraiths or wolves faster than lee sin due to his high aoe damage with q and e, but lee clears red and blue buff faster due to his passive and q damage. Lee has much more built in sustain than jarvan and scales better with lifesteal items because of this. Lee sin is also much better at invading that J4, this is because lee sin has a gap closer with q but J4 cannot yet use his gap closer because he only has one ability. In team fights these champions play very differently, J4 will jump using his great engage while lee waits for the chance to sneak in, slow everyone down and kick the adc into a bad spot. Because of this J4 usually ends up building more defensively while Lee goes for more damage.
Christmas should be cancelled

Well, I have to admit I really enjoyed your comments in the last round, and on behalf of us Christmas celebrators, please accept my deepest regrets that the holiday is a source of such misery for you. Your plan to spend next year's Christmas with the suggestively named Polynesian girls sounds like a good one. I hope you get the day off to extend your enjoyment of the experience. Also, thanks for the clarification that the primary argument is the removal of December 25th as a public holiday. Since you have conceded the central points of my arguments (post hangover New Years not withstanding) I'll simply leave you with this. I'm not sure if they close the pub's on Christmas in the UK, but if they do, please cross the pond and join me at the local bar (many are open) for a pint. It gets you away from family, and you receive a free beer as a result. I promise not to toast to anything but your good health and prosperity.
Christmas should be cancelled

Public holidays relating to the Christian faith such as Christmas Day should be scrapped for the following reasons: 1 – The vast majority of people in the West do not practice Christianity: the United States has the highest number of churchgoers for a developed nation at 25%, whereas in Northern European countries church attendance ranges between 3-12 %. Why then is a celebration associated with a religious minority foisted upon the entire nation? [1] 2 – As businesses shut down for Christmas Day the lost productivity costs industry trillions of dollars: the GDP of the European Union and the United States alone is USD30,533,747 million which means that Christmas costs US and EU firms $83.65 trillion dollars every year. [2] 3 – Shopping for Christmas presents is not only enormously stressful but parents are encouraged by advertisers and through peer pressure to spend more than they can afford on gifts for their children: 52% of families with low and middle incomes turn to high interest debt to cover the cost of Christmas; money that would be better spent on their children's health and education. [3] So come on, it's not too late to cancel Christmas this year: tell all your friends and family that you are not buying into the whole Christmas malarky; lobby your political representative to have the Christmas public holiday withdrawn and, of course, vote Pro! Thank you. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal) [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Consciousness is always awareness-after-the-fact

Pro has left unaddressed my arguments from round 3 regarding awareness of the earth’s rotation. Pro is apparently suffering from a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word “thought.” Pro considers a “thought” to include those unconscious events which cause that thought. This is not correct. In common parlance, a “thought” is a strictly conscious event which occurs in the mind and does not encompass the unconscious happenings which cause the thought in question. There is, in fact, a very long chain of causation leading up to any particular thought. This line of causation stretches back to the origin of the universe. The line is drawn at consciousness. It is the green line in my illustration from the prior round. Pro states that it isn’t fair expect Pro to “be arguing that consciousness happens strictly after consciousness.” I wouldn’t expect Pro to defend such a position, except that Pro adopted that position in round 1, perhaps through inadvertence related to Pro’s misunderstanding of the meaning of the word “thought”, when he stated the following: “we become conscious of things (even our own thoughts and decisions) after the event”. Pro’s claim is that “consciousness is always awareness after the fact.” Pro desires “the fact” to be a cause of the conscious event in question because an effect is always after a cause. This makes perfect sense. However, when there is no causal relationship between a conscious event and “the fact”, the two can occur simultaneously. This is the case with thoughts, which are conscious events themselves, and with an awareness of the earth’s rotation. Consciousness is not always awareness after the fact because there are exceptions to this absolute claim. Kudos to anyone who votes on this after seriously considering our arguments. I know this is a long one.
Consciousness is always awareness-after-the-fact

I wonder if Con has, over the course of the debate, come to agree with me that consciousness of a thought always comes after the inception of that thought. If I have persuaded anybody (especially my opponent) of this idea, I think I have done well in achieving my goal. Whether the gentle voters will agree with the resolution (even accepting that idea) may come down to semantics. Con seems to have grasped the thrust of my argument; I think that there is less than a hair's breadth between us now. I don't see consciousness as being one particular wave, as Con's lovely image shows, but for my summing up I can work with it. Con says:"We are consciously aware of this portion of a thought as it occurs even though we may not have been consciously aware of the events leading up to its occurrence. "And now I must ask what "a portion of a thought" is. .. for, it seems to me, I have pushed Pro's defensive line backwards to the point where all that is left is this: the only thing that consciousness could be said to not be stricly after is, in fact, itself. And I don't really think that it's fair to expect me to be arguing that consciousness happens strictly after consciousness. My point is that any idea, any sensory input, any decision, any thought, any impulse - all of these things start before we are consciously aware of them! In any meaningful sense, I conclude, consciousness is always awareness-after-the-fact.