BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Christianity is a unique religion

Dude, the bible absolutely doesn’t say that the earth is spherical. You and all the other Christians who say otherwise are subjectively interpreting the bible to fit science because it scares the your rational side that the bible is completely out of line with logic and reality. For that reason you accept these purely vague passages which could be interpreted multifariously. Why are they vague? Because they never explicitly state the things you claim! Don’t believe me Then Why Didn’t Anyone In Ancient Rome Or Dark Age Europe Read Them And Come To The Same Conclusion?? Because they are NOT specifically worded, they are vague and subjective, I am a rational person who bases his beliefs in rationality, therefore I cannot and will not accept these scriptures as true; even if they were, Islam makes the same claims in the Quran so that doesn’t prove Christian god’s existence…..Lastly, Why in the hell would the bible be talking about the expansion of space? It’s irrelevant in a religious text. They sure as hell don’t talk about dinosaurs, evolution or even cavemen! Pretty out of place don’t you think??…Last….Let me ask you this. Have you ever heard of history?? The #1 most similar god to Jesus ‘Horus’ was his name, was a freaking Greek god. Are you honestly telling me that you simply won’t believe that Greek gods existed before the bible? I wouldn’t put it past you but dear god, get some common sense.Instead of actually talking about the similarities you simply said “I DON’T BELIEVE YOUUU! THOSE ARE ALL LIES, THOSE ARENT REAL GODS AND YOU CANT PROVE THEY EXISTED BEFORE JESUS!”…let’s use some common sense. No-one made these gods up just to spite Christianity….and no they didn’t carbon date something to find the origin of these gods, it has been well documented and kept in books for the past 2 millennia. Even if they did carbon date something that would be 100% perfect proof. Carbon dating is like finger printing a piece of glass or examining semen samples from a rape victim, there is almost no room for failure.
The Christianity is a unique religion

I believe that the Bible and Christianity are a unique religion for these reasons. I will go through a number of reasons so keep in mind that some have a more substantial impact than others. 1. Unique and ConsistentThe Bible is remarkably consistent, despite having been written by more than 40 people with over 60 different events over a period of nearly 2,000 years. 2. Archeological EvidenceArcheological discoveries have confirmed many events in the Bible. For example, excavation of Jericho have confirmed that the walls did in fact fall down. Unfractured folded rock layers which can only happen when sedimentary rock has been laid down rapidly then folded - which in all cases can only happen in a flood. So that confirms a flood.3. Devine Insight and Predictive ProphecyThe spherical nature of the earth and the fact that the earth hangs in space are suggested in Scriptures such as Job 26:10 and Job 26:7 respectively. The book of Job is thought to have been written around 2000 BC—long before the nature of our planet was generally known. In Isaiah 40:22 we read about the spreading out (expansion) of the heavens (the universe). Yet secular scientists did not discover such expansion until the 1920sAnd there are over 460 fullfilled prophecies about Jesus.- Thats why. When something matches with logic and science, its true.Obviously I could go on and on, but you get the idea.Dr. Jason Lisle Ph.D AstrophysicsSaid "The truth of the Bible is obvious to anyone willing to fairly investigate it"
justin bieber is ugly

justin bieber is ugly idk wat ppl c n him he is just ugly the only reason he is famous becuz they made these lies about him saying him n dis girl name maria went out n she is a princcess so thats y he ugly i have more info but imma let yall argue he is a wanna be zack but zack is cuteir he is just lame he dont even no how 2 sing he thinks he is coo but he is not but he is a complete loser
Blue is better than red

Yes, I agree that blue is for crazy people, and lazy people; those with their heads in the clouds and not a care in the world. Red is the color of the fire of industry. Red is the color of protection from danger (fire trucks) and help in times of need (ambulances). And while blue painter's tape is a fine innovation, there IS no red to compare it with, and it falls short of the bar set by the green [1] and yellow [2] varieties (not the pale brownish yellow, but the bright vibrant Frog Tape brand yellow). So the painter's tape analogy is a non-sequitir (non-sequitor? idk, spell check fails me on that one). And while I am sorry for your bad experiences with red, that is to be expected on occasion with a vibrant, active, lively color like red. It's a sad truth that the most painful buttholes are red. But one red butthole doesn't compare to a giant conglomeration of blue buttholes! In conclusion, blue is evil and must be stopped at all costs. Thank you, sir, for a most interesting debate. [1] http://media.onsugar.com... [2] http://www.goodhousekeeping.com...
Blue is better than red

You are a formidable opponent, deadly. I see where you get your name. While your arguments are sound and reasonable, and have established that red is a fine color, you have yet to prove that blue is not better. Your argument about blue being Walmart's color (and therefore bad) is a strong one, I admit. But it is also the color of my very good friend's house and my very favorite jeans. Red, on the other hand, is the color of an old boyfriend's truck, and he was a bastard. Blue is calming and soothing. They use it to paint the wards in mental health facilities for this reason. Blue is the color of the sky on a sunny day, and I'd rather have blue eyes than red eyes. Finally, blue painters' tape is excellent for painting trim. Clearly - as clear as a clear blue sky - blue is better.
Blue is better than red

Elvis is awesome, of that there is no doubt. However, it doesn't follow that blue is better because Elvis is awesome. Hypothetical: you're driving down the street. Flashing lights appear behind you. Do you experience more stress if those lights are red, or blue? /Me Quote " Haha j/k! Red is the color of blood, which is life in a sense. Blue is the color of Wal*Mart, which sucks the life out of me as I toil away for practically nonexistent pay. Blue is the indicator color for cold water. Try taking a shower without red (hot water).
spending on education

"We are worrying too much about the teachers than what the teachers teach." My English teacher is very smart. She teaches AP (advanced placement) which is a college course. This shows that what she is teaching isn't that great even though there aren't many teachers better than her. English- In class, pre-AP, we have written one essay in 3 quarters of the school year. We are also reading a book called "The dead fathers club". Look it up... it has the grammar of a 7 year old. Yes every subject is useful. I never said they weren't. I'm saying much of the stuff they teach isn't. You are saying that chemistry has done a great job which doesn't prove both our points. Chemistry doing a "good" job also shows we don't need to spend more money on it. My teacher didn't teach me how to speak, and if they did, it just shows how there is not much to change and most definitely does not need more spending on it. Spending more money on water and electricity isn't really a point. It doesn't improve education either. Most of my classes, mainly history, we don't even use the books that they give us. The teachers do all the teaching. By the way,I have not exaggerated the time. We read for some of the class, and then spend the rest of it on Shakespeare's history. (My teacher is crazy about him). Some may be writers and some may be lawyers, but teaching them how to write is better then reading Hamlet. Also, like I said before, check out the book (The dead fathers club). Please tell me how that teaches us good grammar.
spending on education

My opponent still hasn't stated which country this debate is based on. "We are worrying to much about the teachers then what the teachers actually teach." Here my opponent has made a spelling mistake. This is why we need to spend money on teachers who may be strict but help students produce writings of higher quality. "We are learning way to many things in the most important classes that will have no help in the future." I do not understand. every subject has its own use. Let's take English as an example. A lot of people speak it, so it is used commonly for communication in the present and probably the future. Lawyers and writers will also need to use language skills well, so grammar classes are useful. Let's talk about chemistry. Doctors need to study that so they will know how each medicine works in order not to harm the patient. Every subject is useful. "Overall, we are not paying attention to the important things, as in we should have teachers teaching more meaningful stuff the crap we will never use." We use the things teachers teach. For example, we are now debating in English. Your English teachers equipped you with the skills you needed in order to do this. When you go to a place you've never been to, you use a GPS or a map. That's what your Geography teacher taught you. How do we not use the skills we learnt in daily life? "What is it we are spending the money on?" It is spent on a lot of things other than a teacher's salary. Those include computers. We teach the next generation how to use computers because we use it in daily life. Without a real computer, it would be almost impossible to teach someone how to use one. It is also spent on things such as books so students can read more background information about a certain subject and equip themselves with better knowledge of that topic. A part of that money is also spent on daily expenses such as electricity and water, the school campus itself. "I don't care how good of an English teacher is, spending 2 months talking about how Shakespeare was such a good play writer isn't helping anyone's education." Firstly, I am inclined to think that you have exaggerated the time. Secondly, teaching how Shakespeare is a good play writer does help students' education---some of them would be writers, lawyers, etc in the future---and these jobs require a good knowledge and usage ability of the language! I look forward to hearing my opponent's rebuttals.
spending on education

What is it we are spending the money on? We are worrying to much about the teachers then what the teachers actually teach. I don't care how good of an English teacher is, spending 2 months talking about how Shakespeare was such a good play writer isn't helping anyone's education. We are learning way to many things in the most important classes that will have no help in the future. Overall, we are not paying attention to the important things, as in we should have teachers teaching more meaningful stuff the crap we will never use. I'll explain more in the next round.
spending on education

As Con, I will be debating that we are not spending too much on education. I am naturally assuming that the country this is based on is America, but please correct me if otherwise. Pro has not mentioned any rules, so let me propose mine. 1. No swearing/calling names 2. No new arguments allowed in the last round 3. Arguments and rebuttals allowed at all times except for the last round. So, I will let Pro start.
THW impose higher tax on married couples who choose not to have children.

For whatever reason PRO has forfeited the second round, the round CON expected PRO would make a major argument substantiating an argument. However, this did not occur. PRO did not meet her BOP, and I encourage VOTERS to vote for CON for the following reasons: PRO did not counter the arguments made by CON in the second round. CON invalidated the major premise made by PRO. PRO"s entire argument rests on conjecture and unfounded speculation"at least given the nonexistent evidence used by PRO to assist the major contentions made in the first round. In addition, CON was the only side to cite legitimate sources to support an argument. Please vote CON. I thank PRO for the debate, sorry that we did not get to have a substantive argument. In the future, I would be willing to engage in a rematch on a similar argument. Again, please vote CON. I could use my first win, and there is good reason to provide that win based on this debate.
THW impose higher tax on married couples who choose not to have children.

Under the motion THW impose higher tax on married couples who choose not to have children, I would first like to define the problem and move on to my argument. I believe that the problem of the society is low productivity. As people have low birth rate, the productivity also gets lower. I believe having babies actually contribute to the society, and how tax contributes to the society must be equal with how having babies actually contribute to the society. As I have fully defined the problem, now I would like to explain the first argument of the government. The first argument is about effectiveness. The government believes that this motion is the best way to solve the problem stated above. Imposing higher tax, we can give the same effect, the good effects to the society as having babies do. Additionally, tax is the most direct financial insentive, and I believe having higher tax will actually help solve the problem. So what I have told you is that there's a problem in the society and how our motion is effective, and I'm proud to propose.
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid.

Hello, after days of boredom I decided to start this debate. Basically, my opponent will present 2 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD that he/she deems as valid and effective, while it will be up to me to try to disprove them accordingly. By "God", I will define it as the Judeo-Christian God, found in the three Abrahamic religions. This is to allow debates involving archaeological/historical means. My opponent will simply list down the title of the arguments, with perhaps a brief explanation of each, in their 1st Round. From Round 2 - 4, I will refute each argument and my opponent will defend them accordingly. Hopefully both of us will get something out of this ;D
Televison Affects Children

Since my opponent did not contest my interpretation of the resolution I will assume that I was correct and will continue to argue in this fashion. Definition: Child: an unborn or recently born person or a young person especially between infancy and youth. http://www.merriam-webster.com... ~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ "Yes, there are educational shows and videos out there for children to watch, but is a 15 year old really going to watch Dora the Explorer?! I don't think so." [I agree that not many 15 year old individuals watch Dora the Explorer, but I wouldn't call a 15 year old a child either. In your arguments I will assume that when you say child what you mean when you say that is minor whereas when I said it I was using the above definition. To respond to your point though a lot of minors that I know enjoy watching the Discovery Channel [7]. This station is a very informative one that would enhance anyone's knowledge about the world.] "Television viewing slows down the metabolism rate on most children. With slower metabolisms, the child will be less willing to be active or have the desire to do their everyday activities. One website states, 'Slow metabolism - watching TV may slow the metabolism more than simply doing nothing.' " [Your source (1) is comparing watching more television vs doing nothing, not vs a healthy lifestyle, and I would like to point out that the referenced study is ongoing, without conclusive evidence that shows that watching television alone decreases one's metabolic rate the source is invalid. It is also worth noting that one can increase their metabolic rate with physical activity [8].] " 'It was linked to significantly higher blood pressure in children — the more TV kids watched, the higher their blood pressure — and the effect held true regardless of whether a child was heavy or at a healthy weight.' " [This article again only focuses on those who ave sedentary lifestyles coupled with watching too much television. Also in the article it states that the children used in the study were sedentary for five hours, which is more than the average. Until you show that even without a sedentary lifestyle that television in and of itself harms children I have successfully upholded my burden of clash.] [7] http://i47.tinypic.com... , http://i46.tinypic.com... [8] http://sportsmedicine.about.com...
Televison Affects Children

I did not state that it only affects children. I know for a fact it doesn't, but these bad habits and ways of living start when they are young and get worse as they get older. So if we try to limit this issue at a young age we are likely to have less problems when they are older. Yes, there are educational shows and videos out there for children to watch, but is a 15 year old really going to watch Dora the Explorer?! I don't think so. Oh, but maybe they should watch the history channel. How many kids do you know want to watch that? I'm not really sure if I would want to. Yes, there are plenty more hours in a day to be active. Television viewing slows down the metabolism rate on most children. With slower metabolisms, the child will be less willing to be active or have the desire to do their everyday activities. One website states, "Slow metabolism - watching TV may slow the metabolism more than simply doing nothing."(1) Also there is another health effect that is becoming more common caused by television viewing. "It was linked to significantly higher blood pressure in children — the more TV kids watched, the higher their blood pressure — and the effect held true regardless of whether a child was heavy or at a healthy weight."(2) Those are again, only a few of the health effects from watching television. Yes, there are some good things that can be gained by watching television, but overall it is not smart to get into bad habits and live bad lifestyles. (1)http://www.eufic.org... (2)http://www.time.com...
Televison Affects Children

Have you ever wondered, what is happening to children as they watch television? Watching too much television harms children and should be limited. There are behavioral and physical effects caused by watching too much television. One problem caused by watching television is obesity. Television allows a child to be inactive for long periods of time. "Children in the United states watch an average of three hours of television a day."(1) Also the commercials on television encourage unhealthy eating habits. For example, Oreos are advertised in a very fun and creative way. When children see that they begin to want them. How many times do you see dancing pieces of lettuce or carrots or something on television? Television makes unhealthy food look attractive. Obesity is just one of the physical issues caused by watching television, but there are others as well. Some behavioral issues are caused by television too. One issue is violence. Many children watch violence on television every day. They begin to think it is normal for that kind of behavior and start acting in that way as well. "The hero of TV shows never gets in trouble for his/her violent actions."(2) Many shows show the violent character as the "good guy". They also show the character not being harmed as they would in real life. Children need to know and understand that violence is bad and needs to be avoided. By watching television they are only encouraged to do violent acts. Another behavioral issue is a child being antisocial. Children will begin to focus only on what is in front of them instead of the world around them. By this statement I mean they will block out whoever is talking to them in order to pay attention to the television show that is on at that time. These problems are only some of the effects of television. This is becoming an issue for children of all ages and there needs to be a stop to this problem. People can stop this issue by limiting their own viewing of television and control their children's habit of it as well. (1)http://weightloss.about.com... (2)http://www.turnoffyourtv.com...
Funnier Jokes Wins.

A bear is chasing a rabbit when a genie stops them and grants them three wishes each. "I'll go first" said the bear. "I wish all the bears in the world, besides me, were female." The rabbit said, "I wish I had a motorcycle." "I wish all the female bears in the world were in love with me." "I wish I had a motorcycle helmet." For the bear's third wish, he said, "I wish all the female bears were here in this forest." The rabbit said, "I wish that bear was gay."
Funnier Jokes Wins.

A local United Way office realized that the organization had never received a donation from the town's most successful lawyer. The person in charge of contributions called him to persuade him to contribute. "Our research shows that out of a yearly income of at least $500,000, you give not a penny to charity. Wouldn't you like to give back to the community in some way?" The lawyer mulled this over for a moment and replied, "First, did your research also show that my mother is dying after a long illness, and has medical bills that are several times her annual income?" Embarrassed, the United Way rep mumbled, "Um ... no." The lawyer interrupts, "or that my brother, a disabled veteran, is blind and confined to a wheelchair?" The stricken United Way rep began to stammer out an apology, but was interrupted again. "or that my sister's husband died in a traffic accident," the lawyer's voice rising in indignation, "leaving her penniless with three children?!" The humiliated United Way rep, completely beaten, said simply, "I had no idea..." On a roll, the lawyer cut him off once again, "So if I don't give any money to them, why should I give any to you?"
Funnier Jokes Wins.

Rob walks into a bar, walks up to the bartender and puts $10 on the counter. He says, "I bet you ten bucks I can bite my left eye". The bartender agrees, thinking that it's impossible. Rob pulls out his fake teeth and bites his eye. "Hah, ok you got me, here's your $10" the bartender says. The next day Rob walks into the bar and puts $20 on the counter. He says, "I bet you $20 I can bite my other eye". The bartender agrees. Rob pulls out his glass eye and bites it. The day after, Rob walks into the bar and puts $100 on the counter. The bartender goes "What now? " Rob says, "I bet you $100 that we can stand at opposite ends of the bar, and you can throw me a shot glass, and I can pee in it without spilling or missing". The bartender agrees. The bartender throws him the glass. Rob misses completely, peeing all over the bar and on the walls, while the bartender laughs. Rob asks him why he's laughing. The bartender says, "I beat you in a bet! You just lost $100! Hahaha! " Rob says, "I didn't lose $100. See that guy sitting on the stool over there? I bet him $200 that I could pee all over your bar and you'd laugh about it. "