BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible Teaches People Can Stop Sinning

Put your refutation & proofs of your side in Round 1.Rules - Use KJV 1 Corinthians 10:13 says - "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."Christians can endure temptation. They don't have to fall into it.John 8:34-36 - "Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."The Son (Jesus Christ) can set people free from bondage to sin.
Atheism is Stubborn Agnosticism

I believe that individual who subscribe themselves to the principles of Atheism are in actuality, Unwitting Agnostics. Everyone believes in a power greater than themselves, Even if it's not a deity or some anthropomorphic entity. I, Like many atheists, Enjoy the logical debates centered around whether or not a god exists - but using logic, It's very easy and comfortable to dissuade the argument for a deity because these are based off observations of our world. Agnosticism, In my opinion, Purports the belief in a greater power but does not specify as to what this power is. Atheism believes there is no power at all. I respect Atheists quite a bit, In that their community as a whole relies on honest and open discussion and debate. However, Respectfully, I believe people who are a part of that community are mostly contrarians - simply those who like being in the "out" crowd, Not part of the majority. I look forward to any comments regarding this, Thank you.
Atheism is Stubborn Agnosticism

"I believe that individual who subscribe themselves to the principles of Atheism are in actuality, Unwitting Agnostics. "The problem is that it is more rational position to disbelieve than to believe that something is true before it is. Take the theist example. Most assumed their God to be true instead of asking for proof. This has allowed people to believe things without or bad evidence since they do not realise what good evidence is and give bad evidence. "Everyone believes in a power greater than themselves, Even if it's not a deity or some anthropomorphic entity. "I don't. Sure depends on what power is but if you are talking about humans in general who is higher on the food chain? Last I heard humans are still at the top. "I, Like many atheists, Enjoy the logical debates centered around whether or not a god exists - but using logic, It's very easy and comfortable to dissuade the argument for a deity because these are based off observations of our world. "What other way of finding information do you have in mind in proving or explaining God? Another problem is that all humans can do is observe the natural world. We can't do otherwise yet people make truth claims as God's existence. We have no way of verifying or proving its existence but people still believe it. "Agnosticism, In my opinion, Purports the belief in a greater power but does not specify as to what this power is. Atheism believes there is no power at all. "It is also a lack of belief which you missed out in the definition or maybe you made them up. Would like to know where you got those definitions from whether it be added in the comment section or in the next Round. Atheism: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods (Merriam Webster)"I respect Atheists quite a bit, In that their community as a whole relies on honest and open discussion and debate. However, Respectfully, I believe people who are a part of that community are mostly contrarians - simply those who like being in the "out" crowd, Not part of the majority. "If atheists wanted to be contrarians wouldn't they subscribe to a less relevant view like agnosticism or Jainism? "But they still cling firmly to the contention that there is definitely no higher power"Should I be considered crazy if I believe in unicorns outside of our observations? If not then do you have a problem with it? The more rational position is to disbelieve then to believe. Reason is if you already believe in something why do you want to prove your belief in the same thing? For satisfaction? "I believe the position they project to others [atheistic] is not that which they actually feel [agnostic])"Can you anyway verify what people feel? I feel like an atheist and you would be saying no I am not right? I find your point not that well thought through.
Atheism is Stubborn Agnosticism

Atheism: a disbelief in a god, Or entities that exhibit god-like qualities Agnosticism: view that the existence of a higher power is unknown/unknowable. Neither embracing or discounting this belief Stubborn: an individual who is determined not to change their position in spite of reasons or logic that may compel them to do so (my belief being that Atheists have probably encountered enough good reasons not to rule out the existence of a higher power, But they still cling firmly to the contention that there is definitely no higher power - I believe the position they project to others [atheistic] is not that which they actually feel [agnostic]). Deity: a god, Or an entity with some god-like attributes or powers Anthropomorphic entity: the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god (like viewing god in humanoid form, For example).
what is better playstation 3 or xbox 360

I might as well start off as there isn't much to define or make rules on, and with a 500 character limit, I can't really say much. But here's a link that explains the differences in hardware between the two systemshttp://ca.ign.com...You can see that the PlayStation3 easily beats the xBox when it comes to everything relating directly to the system. The xBox has better online connectivity,but the PS3 has better everything else.
MW3 is one of the best COD games out there

Well you have a point with the sharp graphics. But heres a good point, that Black Ops 2 and MW3 have a one year difference and in which that one year, so many things could have been developed to be changed. Plus, who wants to sit through a lengthy COD Campaign and most people do not pay attention to the campaign. The multiplayer aspect of BO2 is filled with more nooby aspects than MW3.
Morality has little meaning without force of will and power to enforce it.

Thank you for your response Ingsoc, I will get straight to rebuttals "Without having an objective view of morality our own principles will decay and we will be left with a meaningless piece of life, where morality is constantly changing and is in constant turmoil. " What is wrong with a changing morality? Since morality is meaningless anyway their is no point in having it change with the times and seeing whether or not the ideas it represents will "survive" if you will through time. "Pro must have a very sick mind to believe that morality is a force determined by "nature". " Not nature necessarily, rather a survival of the fittest system found in nature applied to societal terms. "I will cite Aquinas for the existence of God, because without God something like the big bang would not be able to occur in the first place" Then who created God? What created that? This is circular logic, as you must keep on going forever. "Only with an all powerful being can something as beautiful like earth that can sustain life be created." Are parasites, viruses, and hideous alien looking abberant bacteria that beautiful to you? In a strange way they are beautiful to me, but not in the way of human terms of beauty. Besides, if we lived in a universe created for us to survive and thrive, but we had a different need, and our universe fulfilled this need, we would be using the same argument as you are. "an omniscient omnipotent, and constantly present being already exists to have a spring board for what is right and wrong." You still have to actually prove this beings existence. Thsnk you for this debate once more.
Morality has little meaning without force of will and power to enforce it.

Morality is an ultimate authority determined by a greater being, or "god". Without having an objective view of morality our own principles will decay and we will be left with a meaningless piece of life, where morality is constantly changing and is in constant turmoil. Pro must have a very sick mind to believe that morality is a force determined by "nature". Because nature was created by God the ultimate moral authority is God. I will cite Aquinas for the existence of God, because without God something like the big bang would not be able to occur in the first place. Only with an all powerful being can something as beautiful like earth that can sustain life be created. Because of the existence of God there is no need for having a force of will and ambition and power to prove that your morality is correct, an omniscient omnipotent, and constantly present being already exists to have a spring board for what is right and wrong. without this all humans would de generate into savages like you who have no morality and believe they may do whatever they please. God influences us all and our morality, and I will close on that note.
Morality has little meaning without force of will and power to enforce it.

Morality does mean next to nothing without enforcing it. We know this because of the fact that those who do not enforce and protect what they believe to be morals are crushed by natural selection and their inability to defend themselves. While, if one protects and defends what they hold to be morality then one many survive, and what they regard to be morality will survive and be passed on. How can someone decide what morality is without giving a reason to why it has any meaning in the first place. If one uses power to enforce it, then this power used will prove to the world and nature the force and power of those morals. Morals have no guarantee of actually meaning anything, it is is my opinion that in fact the only way we can grant them to smallest shred of meaning is by learning to defend them and fight for them. Now I will outline the reasons morals have little meaning in the first place. 1. Morals are fabricated- Morals are created by people, and are given value by people. The only way morals can have any meaning beside that given by people is by the fires of conflict. 2. Morals can be trivial- Morals often prevent people from inflicting wound upon their fellow man and preventing a species to prosper, but by the same reasoning morals also can inhibit progress and put chains on people to weak to think for themselves. 3. Morals prevent greater people from taking charge- Morals cause people with a grander idea and greater capacity for understanding to take charge. Morals often put shackles on those regarded as lower on the societal scale and make people and their progress stagnant. Because of the inability of the human mind to know for a fact that their morals are absolute and pure, they must go through a process very similar to the process of nature when species with certain qualities prosper and survive. Without this process morals cannot be known to be true, and if they were assumed to be true and this process was not allowed to occur then morals themselves would have lost all value and once more join the sea of endless, meaningless abstract ideals.
Evolution is true

Sure, I'm seriously considering taking History at GCSE, but I won't include the lies of evolution in my work. There aren't many theories of evolution left for me to disprove.Another one is the sperm into human theory. But seriously, were Victorians or Tudors just sperm cells? My historian brain tells me no, and that's because we had hats back then. Hats would not fit on a sperm. It wild be shelter rather than clothing.There you go, your silly theory of evolution disproved by a hat. Just goes to show how dumb it is.In Summary:- The theory of evolution via age is FALSE.- Charlie Darwin's theory of evolution is FALSE.- The theory that we evolved from sperm is FALSE.Thank you.
Evolution is true

That's not a picture of evolution, that is just a group of monkey friends on a night out!Even age is not a type of evolution. Consider this:Babies:Don't know anythingNot very usefulVery annoyingOld people:Don't know anythingNot very usefulVery annoyingHere is how humans age:Babies > Teenagers > Adults > Old peopleTeenagers don't count as not dumb, they are just dumb people who get very emotional.Adults don't count as not dumb, they are just what happens when you cross a dumb thing with having a job.So, throughout age, humans never evolve! The same is true for other species.So, age is proof that evolution is actually false.Thank you.
Evolution is true

Evolution is true? I say NO WAY!Revolutionists like Charlie Dapwin believe that we evolved from fossils. Don't worry, I'm not saying they think we evolved from rocks - I'm not an idiot!Evolutionists believe we evolved from the things inside the fossils - the bones. However, this proves evolution to be wrong for the following reasons.i) Bones carry no genetic code to pass on to their offspring. I.e. the bones could not have children so no forms of life can be descended from them.ii) The bones in the fossils are in the shape of a living thing, which would have to be a complete coincidence. If there were ever animals like that made out of bones with nothing to hold them together, they would just fall down and be scattered all over the place. This makes evolution very unlikely.iii) Fossil bones have no eyes but we have eyes so we can't have evolved from them because the eyes would have nowhere to evolve from.Thank you.
Intelligence is overrated

The intelligence is not overrated, is necessary in this highly competitive world. The world is amazingly overcrowded; theres a huge number of people studying,working and specializing in their work fields now jobs that people used to do with a Bachelors Degree or even with no degrees at all are done by Phd and Masters. Hiring the most capable ones is the only option of the best companies. The intelligence is not only how well you score on an IQ test; it is much more than that: Intelligence is a term describing one or more capacities of the mind. In different contexts this can be defined in different ways, including the capacities for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, planning, emotional intelligence and problem solving-Wikipedia. And even more; Music,math and Literature creation are also types of intelligence. People who develop well in their jobs and socials lives, most likely have develop their intelligence on some level, but is sure that the people who had wrote the history and made big contributions to their fields were gifted with great intelligence, work hard and will to improve will make you great for sure, but only those who work hard and improve their natural intelligence are able to write their names in history, the history itself is the clear prove of that, Beethoven,Mozart,Davinci, all born talented. The intelligence is an exepcional value of a person, now in a crowd world, any value offers execption and differentiation from the rest.
The Sky is Blue.

is = to be. Not, "was at one point in time". Rather, "exists in this state", i.e. at the current time. But if the motion is defined in this way then this debate is ridiculous. Therefore this debate can only make sense if it is: "The sky is blue most of the time". Therefore this is what I'll be arguing. 1. nights last 12 hours at least, plus fog and sunsets WHICH ARE RED MOST OF THE TIME makes the sky not blue more than 50% of the time 2. SKIES ON OTHER PLANETS - sky and telescope: most common stars are small stars, meaning the matter that went into that solar system's creation was less; therefore the planets are smaller and less likely to hold an atmosphere and the sky is black. This is what occurs on most extrasolar planets. Source: Scientific American.
The Sky is Blue.

Thanks for accepting. Refutation(s): In his VERY LONG SPEECH, which, by-the-way, took me 3 LONG HOURS to read, and 2 MORE to correctly interpret, my opponent stated: "Sunsets. Night. I rest my case." Well, nights and sunsets can be blue, too [1] [2]! Also, please allow me to further define the motion. [pause (this is when you say 'yes, please do so')] Thank you. Now, the motion is "The Sky is Blue.", correct? Yes; I believe so. That doesn't mean that the sky must be blue all the time, simply that the sky must be blue at one time or another. Point(s): 1) The science of it The truth is, the sky is all colours of the rainbow [3]. Blue is the colour that is scattered the most, therefore that is what our eyes see [3]. More importantly, that is how our minds interpret it, thus proving my case. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls; mesdames et messieurs; senors y senoras o senoritas; 'tis true: please vote for the Proposition. Sources: 1. http://mdb7.ibibo.com... 2. http://fineartamerica.com... 3. http://spaceplace.nasa.gov...
The Sky is Blue.

By initiating this debate, I expect that he will bind himself by the normal rules of conduct and that he have a good sense of humor and is not in any way offended by my words, unless they directly insult him (which would, by the way, also be a violation of the rules of conduct on my part). On my honor, I swear I will uphold these rules for this debate or else be dishonored. My side defines this topic as how the human mind interprets the colour of the sky. I'd also like to take a moment to thank the following people: My mother, my father, my grandmother on my dad's side, my grandmother on my mother's side, pretty much all of my ancestors, my cousins B. & T. , my uncles and aunts, my great-granduncle, my mother, my father - oh wait, already mentioned those -_-. Well, anyway, my brother, my sister, friends AZW, NF, MYH, CKH, AYF, OHF, SMB, TS, SM, CK, ID, MW, MY, UG, and everyone else I haven't mentioned, and their parents, too, for making this possible. Plus I'd like to thank my currently nonexistent descendants-to-be, and my friends' too. Oh, and yes, I'd like to thank my audience, for it is truly the audience that makes a pointless, selfish argument into a (usually) beneficial, productive debate. My name is Chie Hasu, 1st daughter of. .. .well, I shouldn't go into that. I'll wait for my opponent to post his argument(s) before I begin mine. I'd like the audience to know this topic was suggested by the contender, aguma, and he has chosen his side, although I initiated the debate. So yeah - let's have some fun!
The Sky is Blue.

...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
The Sky is Blue.

"the sky is blue" is a generalization just like "george washington was a hero" or "books are made of paper". George Washington wasn't a hero all the time. But he did enough heroic acts to make us remember him as a hero. Books aren't always made out of paper. But they are traditionally. Similarly, when NASA says the sky is mainly blue, they mean that that is what we normally think of when we think of the sky. That does not mean that just because NASA made a generalization, that we should interpret it literally. In fact, it just so happens that google weather says the sun will set at 5:18 PM today (where I live at least), and rise at 7:20 AM. That's around 14 hours of nighttime, i.e. the sky is not blue because the sun is not there to scatter any light, i.e. the sky is black. 14 hours of night, 10 hours of day. In other words, more than half of the day, the sky is not blue.
The Sky is Blue.

Source? Without a proper source, your arguments are naught. Some information to contradict my opponent's currently sourceless points: NASA says the sky is all colours, but mainly blue [1]. The Martian sky is BLUE, NASA's pictures are exaggerated: having been colour-corrected they are indeed BLUE [2]. Sources: 1. http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov... 2. http://mars-news.de... Audience, please vote for the Proposition.
The Sky is Blue.

Refutation(s): Con is the one who supplied the motion. If you (the audience) demands, I will supply an unaltered screenshot of aguma's chat in which he wanted to debate the motion "The Sky is Blue" and chose Opposition, or Con. See, audience, Con's rendering this motion "ridiculous" is an object of ridicule itself. I appreciate the refutations and the way in which my opponent states them. Clearly, he is very accomplished. However, my opponent mentions a source but does not provide it. I must request that he provide a link to the exact source from which he got his information from. I'd also like a source for his first point. I will accept my opponent's interpretation of this debate as "The sky is blue most of the time". I would also like to expand on my interpretation of the motion "The Sky is Blue (most of the time).". Earlier in this debate, I stated, "My side defines this topic as how the human mind interprets the colour of the sky." According to dictonary.com, "sky" means "the region of the clouds or the upper air; the upper atmosphere of the earth" [1]. This is the definition I will use, thus rendering my opponent's second point irrelevant. Also, if my opponent is going to talk about the creation of the solar system as such, we might as well take into account all of the planets in existence, which we can't. Therefore any statistics only applying to our solar system are not necessarily accurate and applicable to all of the atmospheres in the universe. Until my opponent expands his argument I have naught left to refute. Point(s): My previous point, which has not yet been properly refuted: "1) The science of it The truth is, the sky is all colours of the rainbow [2]. Blue is the colour that is scattered the most, therefore that is what our eyes see [2]. More importantly, that is how our minds interpret it, thus proving my case." Sources: 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://spaceplace.nasa.gov...
Gay descrimination is illegal but is still happening and should be stoped.

My last argument will be short. I am aware that these traits are stereotypical. I was trying to say that a religious person might use anything to discriminate a person if he/she presumes him or her to be gay. You, on multiple occasions, quoted the constitution. One of the constitutions main goals was to form a more perfect union without such discrimination, but you insist that gays should not be protected by the document. To truly follow the constitution, we will protect all of our citizens no mater of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Thank you for participating and I complement you on your arguments.