BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does The Universe Have A Beggining

The supporting evidence for there being a start to the universe is staggering. In the scientific department, The widely supported theory Cosmological theory "The Big Bang" in which "Our universe began with a hot big bang 13.7 billion years ago and has expanded and cooled ever since. It has evolved from a formless soup of elementary particles into the richly structured cosmos of today." The only strong Cosmological opposition within the last 50 years was "Steady State Theory" however "The steady-state theory began to wither in the 1960s. First, astronomers discovered quasars, the highly luminous cores of very distant galaxies. Because the vast majority of quasars lie exceedingly far away, their existence proves that the perfect cosmological principle cannot be true—the distant and therefore ancient universe is not the same as the younger universe nearby. The death knell for the theory sounded when radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background, the leftover radiation from the Big Bang. The steady-staters had no reasonable way to explain this radiation." Stephen Hawking went on to say that that discovery was "the final nail in the coffin of the steady-state theory." On the theological front the two most widely believed religions on the planet, Islam and Christianity both widely support that there was a beginning of the universe Genesis 1:1, American Standard Version."in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." "Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days" Quran 7:54. Sources: http://www.pbs.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://bible.cc... http://islam.about.com...
The Bible is an accurate source of scientific knowledge and information.

John, This is my first debate on this forum, I am not sure how this works to be entirely honest with you, so, if you would humour any mistake that I make concerning the format of this discussion. I would like to primarily take issue with your technique of argumentation. Not only was the layout of your argument painfully mundane, but you also provided yourself with a premise that is ridiculously easy to disprove. Ofcourse, the Bible isn't an 'accurate source of scientific knowledge and information', but it doesn't claim to be that, I doubt the intention was to prove absolutely that 'the world is 6000 years old'. Is it really fair to deem this a debate when you have created such a ridiculous premise? If I were to start a debate, with the premise 'all rabbits are white' and argue against it...It would be unfairly easy to do so. As a matter of format, please take this Syllabus-esque debating technique elsewhere, it's about as creative as a straight line...'My second argument is..', are you incapable of gliding through your argument without signposting your next point like a falling rocks sign. Anyone can pick out contradictions in the Bible John, anyone. The worrying thing about people who do this is that it is those who take the Bible literally in the first place. The Bible is, unless you pertain to the 6% of Christians who are fundamentalist, an allegory for virtuous living. Do you think Jesus really fed the five thousand with such little food? OR, do you think it is an allegory for sharing and compassion? It seems you have read the Bible quite superficially with little to no broader view. You stated you read the Bible 'critically' which would suggest this is the case...yet it seems, alas, it isn't. There are 'truths' in the Bible just as there are 'truths' in a Chemistry textbook, but they are very different. The 'moral' truths in the Bible are far more nuanced. Why else would there be a story like that if Abraham and Isaac? To show what, that 'scientifically' a father has the capacity to murder his son? OR that faith can be tested to the very limit? As for your contradictions, if we are to concede that God did indeed create the universe, why should he measured by your human, physical standards? God is not bound by time, nor is he a physical being. You have anthropomorphised God (measure him in human standard and treated him as a human ) which is wrong. Can you verify empirically that God can not do any of these things? If you are referencing the God of classical theism then surely it is within his power to make adjustments at his any whim, as of course he is omnipotent. I simply cannot wade through your mundane list of contradictions. SO, with nothing more really to say apart from perhaps, if and when you reply, you could weave these examples into your argument rather than giving a shopping list of numbered contradictions. Thanks
Metal song battle

Each round post a metal song of your choice from Youtube.Be sure to also include the subgenre, e.g. thrash metal, deathcore, alternative metal, rap metal, etc.The people voting will judge the debate by who they thought posted the better songs.For the purpose of this debate metal music shall be defined as "music involving a thick, massive sound, characterized by highly amplified distortion, extended guitar solos, emphatic beats, and overall loudness." [http://en.wikipedia.org...]Fusion genres of metal music such as crossover thrash, metalcore, deathcore, nu metal, funk metal, etc. are permitted.http://www.youtube.com...Genre: Melodic death metal
The Sweden Democrats are xenophobic, racist, and anti-immigration

This debate is a re-match from a previously unfinished debateThis will be a debate on whether the Sweden Democrats are a xenophobic, racist, and anti-immigration group as claimed by the mainstream Swedish media.RulesNo semanticsNo trollingNo kritiksetc. Debate StructureRound 1: Pro's argumentsRound 2: Con's arguments and Pro's rebuttalsRound 3: More arguments and rebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and briefely describing why you did better than the opponent, and deserve the vote. Definitions Sweden Democrats: A right-wing political party in Sweden lead by Jimmie ÅkessonRacism: "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." Anti-immigration: Opposition to immigration as believing immigration is inheretly badXenophobia: Fear of people from other countriesDebate StructureRound 1: Pro's argumentsRound 2: Con's arguments and Pro's rebuttalsRound 3: More arguments and rebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and briefely describing why you did better than the opponent, and deserve the vote.
Commune-ism: Within the Church it will always be crushed

Karl Marx was not the founder of Communism. Communism is an ancient idea. What Karl Marx did was to communicate the ancient idea to modern man. Karl Marx could do this because he had access to the information and knowledge of the ancient idea of Communism. The early Church in Jerusalem had a flirtation with Herod's Temple and a flirtation with commune living. Both Herod's Temple and commune living were discredited by the Roman Legion. The Temple of the living God is the Body of Believers. The form of Government is Christ as King over the Kingdom of Believers. No Roman Legion has any power over these. "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." (Revelation 1:6)
Commune-ism: Within the Church it will always be crushed

First Century Early Church in Jerusalem: There is a festering boil within Christianity that started in the Early First Century Church in Jerusalem. In the first century this festering boil was filled with the idea that the Church could enter the Temple becoming an extension of that Temple and all that it represented. Prior to His death Jesus of Nazareth taught publicly in the Jerusalem Temple until He was rejected by the rulers of the Temple. After the Ascension of Christ the Early Jerusalem Church began to enter the same Temple that had Crucified Christ. 1 Why would the Jerusalem Church seek to be a part of the very Temple that Crucified our Lord? 2 What did the Jerusalem Church offer Judaism in exchange for access to the Temple? 3 What does Christ have to offer Christianity? a) A Commune b) A Kingdom 4 What does Judaism have to offer Christianity? a) A Commune b) A Kingdom Nature of the Jerusalem Church Commune and The Mark of the Beast: Ananias and Sapphira The death of Ananias and Sapphira was an extension of the Old Testament economy. That was exactly the goal of the Early First Century Jerusalem Church. The Jerusalem Church wanted to wear the mantle of the Old Testament. The Jerusalem Church made a deal with Judaism so that it, (the Jerusalem Church) could have access to the Temple. Judaism was willing to allow the Jerusalem Church into the Temple if the Jerusalem Church would accept Judaism's brand, the brand of the Commune. The Church in Jerusalem became a Commune and this Commune was allowed access to the Temple.
Commune-ism: Within the Church it will always be crushed

The Pro position, (mine) is that Commune-ism and Communism are the very same thing, and that these are anti-Christian life styles. You can't remain in the Church and be a Commune-ist or a Communist. As always my main source is the Bible but Con is welcome to use any source and good luck Con. 4 rounds 1 Acceptance/introduction 2 The beginning Church in first century Jerusalem 3 American Commune style christian, (with a little 'c') organizations past/present 4 Summation From the first century onward the Gospel has always sent the Commune-ists packing. There is no place for Commune-ism where the Church is.
Sex Could Not Have "Evolved"

I will not bother trying to teach you any logic at this point. You have lost, you are just trying to hold on because you are too stubborn to accept defeat. You both refuse to accept my logic and refuse to state your own. I will not answer this not because I can't, but because you will not change your ignorant (and quite hermitic to too your own God lol) beliefs. You need to accept that you cannot say that's a lie without logic or some sort of bases for it. As well as understanding that one, I am agnostic, look up the definition if you want. And two, you have no evidence, you cherry pick what I say to make it sound like you have an actual argument, and then waste my time trying to say I am not arguing what you asked. Get off this site if you want to waste peoples times. Go somewhere where people will agree with you rather then argue because you don't want an argument, you just want to assure yourself that you are right. Get over yourself. Your God may or may not exist. You are not smart for thinking you can say you win. You only win if other people vote that you win. It is not your decision. And I seriously hope you learn to understand just how ignorant and idiotic you sound. You created a horrible argument. I would have to guess I have won, good day sir/mam, and I hope to never have to bother arguing with you again.
Sex Could Not Have "Evolved"

First and foremost, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" has an extremely simple answer to it. The egg. Chicken as we see them today slowly became as other beings passed down their traits through many many years. The egg for what became what we call a chicken came first as the chicken finally evolved to the form it is now. So the entire start of your argument has no meaning. Your second claim that evolution could not have created gender is just as misguided. There are many reasons that gender could have popped up. First example, it takes quite a bit of energy to create new life, so we may have evolved to distribute the energy required. Second, we are social creatures so it is possible we evolved to require mates for reproduction. And third, it is fully possible this was just dumb luck. We could have 2000 genders (I am taking it you define gender as sex) but we just did not. Not everything has to be carefully planned. It is fully possible that a fair amount about us is not planned but rather chosen from what benefited us most at the time. Just because there are some holes in a theory does not mean it should be discarded (or many religions would no longer exist). You have said that a omnipotent omnipresent being exists solely through circumstantial evidence that is actually not even real evidence for god (if you agree with my argument that is). God may exist, I am agnostic, I don't pretend to know if he is or isn't, but I do believe that evolution is a process that occurs within nature. You are making many assumptions within your theory. First, there definitely could be genders as I have shown in my argument. Evolution is a powerful process that changes entire beings. Second, not everything requires an intelligent designer, quite a bit of where we are is just from dumb luck, not planning. If everything were planned by an intelligent designer, I would hope he would plan better then he did (but that is just my opinion). I believe I have made my point here. So if you can poke some holes in my logic that is not just speculation we can continue.
Sex Could Not Have "Evolved"

SEX COULD NOT HAVE EVOLVED: People ask: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Neither could possibly have come first, because chickens always come from chicken eggs, and chicken eggs always come from chickens. This is an insurmountable conundrum for the believer in atheist Dogma, but not for us Theists: The conclusive answer is that the complete system of chickens laying eggs and chickens hatching from chicken eggs must have manifested together, simultaneously. There is no other rational option. This also means that the complete system had to have been designed and initiated by a conscious, intelligent person or persons. Same goes for gender differentiation. Here's a related short video that provides more detailed explanation of these facts: One of the many problems with the so-called "common ancestor" fantasy is that gender-differentiation could not possibly have evolved or developed gradually, from a creature that was not gender-differentiated, as the darwinist claims. This is because reproduction of gender-differentiated offspring is an "all-or-none" scenario. Gender differentiation must necessarily have manifested 100% complete, with both genders and all of their respective organs and behaviors fully represented, or it could have never manifested at all. Such simultaneous and complete manifestation of two different genders -- along with their matching yet differentiated sexual organs as well as their matching yet differentiated sexual behaviors -- would necessarily require an immense amount of planning and organization, from an extremely powerful and extremely intelligent conscious designer.
zero is greater than infinity

Inifinity, in fact any infinity is larger than zero as I will begin to explain: First off, there are many types of "infinity" and "zero". Let's define these numbers. INFINITIES: 1. General Infinity - Any sufficiently large number. Also called "Engineer's Infinity". This is the infinity used in computer programming. 2. Limit inifinity - A number approaching infinity. This is the infinity used in calculus' limits. Also known as a "countable" set infinity. 3. Real infinity - The size of the entire real number system. Also known as an "uncountable" set infinity. and finally... 4. Absolute Infinity - "True" Infinity. No number is larger. ZEROS: 1. General Zero - Any sufficiently small number. Also called "Engineer's Zero". This is the zero used in computer programming. 2. Limit Zero - A number approaching zero. This is the zero used in calculus' limits. 3. Real Zero - One unit of the real number system. Absolute Zero - "True" Zero. No number is smaller. (By the absolute value, for example -1 has a larger absolute value) This is the zero used when only 0 is stated. So for the sake of this debate let's define "Infinity" as ABSOLUTE INFINITY and "Zero" as ABSOLUTE ZERO. Here's where the debate ends: Numerically and scientifically zero is the smallest number or amount known to man (negative numbers are larger) and infinity is a number that is so large that we will never fully understand the concept. Just as 2 is larger than one, infinity is larger than zero. They are polar opposites and have an *infinite* number of units of separation. fin.
Rap Battle with Vocals

This kid has changed his beats like 3 timesYou'd think it'd help, but I've heard better rhymes from street mimes Silence is clearly the best option for youIf I'm a lion in the jungle, you're an oxen in the zooI come thru and leave marks all over your bodyYou're like a beat up oldsmobile trying to out-race an audiI'll blast past in 6th gear and fly to the moonYou're that Harry Potter nerd who tried to fly on a broomMaybe you should get a job cleaning boats or hanging coatsbecause the only thing you're good at is begging for votes"Vote Plzzz" is all I see when you comment my page If you ever held a concert - tomatoes would be bombing the stageClearly my head isn't decapitated you delusional duckbut I've got empirical evidence I used to deduce that you suckRhyming fast isn't the only way to deliver refined attacksbut sure I'll listen to the guy who rhymes over R&B tracksThe audience wouldn't know because you changed it after you postednow how the fvck you gonna try and cheat in a battle you hosted?!http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Rap Battle with Vocals

My opponent so bad he needed a helperHe's still as bad as he was ever He can't defeat me with his mistakesIt's time to eat your loser cakesHe still sayin' stuff way too slowIt is a true tragedy of such woeHe stood no chance from the beginnin'I'm knowingly maliciously grinnin'He's already much incapacitatedHe's trying to speak but his head's decapitatedI cut down his mighty Raps TreeAnd now he's down to nothingSo voters, the winner is clearAt Bladey's poor tries I sneerBetter luck next time little boyMaybe then you won't be played about like a toy . http://www.youtube.com...
Rap Battle with Vocals

This kids disses are strait weak, No wonder when he talks we can barely hear him speak I heard something about a Godzilla smash Then I saw your face and said, hey we have a match! I know it's an asian trait for a face as flat as a plate If you wanna talk black ash get your own pollution problems strait We all know that asian cultures are chocking on smog No wonder when you rap it's like I'm hearing the croak of a frog Did anyone else here his flow It was like some sh!t you would hear long ago Anyone can rap along like this It really reflects his skill? You wish! Saying you're the best is the funniest thing ever 70 wins to 60 losses, yup he's definitely clever I wonder if he even realizes that I'm being sarcastic You vs. me is like saggy tits verse a pair that are plastic Interscholastic beat-down as I throw you the defeat gown Make you put it on as you do your act as a street clown I"ll slap you so silly it'll knock your glasses to the floor In the 2nd video you showed your face, but I preferred the one before. Opponent: "But I didn't show my face before?!" That's exactly my point Sucks to live life with a dick that is about the size of a joint http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Rap Battle with Vocals

My opponent can't even read his own rapGot no rhythm, his stuff is trashI'm gonna throw him into the pile--Or is it even worth my while?He stinks so bad like bags of trash Ima burn him into black ash He's not even a worthy matchIt's like me havin' Godzilla's smash He goes along, crashes and burnsHe has no chance of any returnsGonna be crushed like all the restGet his first lost 'cuz I'm the best He thinks he's cool with his long linesBut slow and boring, they just can't allignCompared to my amazing designsThey're so bad the police want a fine $Yo look bro this battle's already endedGive up already your rep's* descendedYour bad skills exploited an' apprehendedGo cry to your mom--tell her I recommendedSo don't come back, your case can't be defended I'll mash you up in my fruit juice, all nicely blended >:)*reputationhttp://www.youtube.com...BTW, I'm not sure why my face wasn't in the last round...oh well.
Rap Battle with Vocals

This wack cat trying to diss me by calling me moss?!I slap back and throw like Randy coming clean with the tossIt's a football reference for the lesser intelligenceno-body gonna body me, I'm clean with the resonanceTalking about sniping but I'm the one with the rifleHe's probably just mad because beating him is nothing more than a trifle hold the diaper, this baby started acting real hyperleave him crying before we even finished the rest of this cypher If I'm void of information then on occasion I must pursuade themlooked like it worked the first time caucasians took on the asainsnations erased an, open wounds on bodies lying adjecentI'll slice out your tongue for fun and feed you rats from my basementIt won't be a free win but it's a discount purchaseobservance as he looks from the room that is saved for the servantsdance with serpents, I sail the currents with merchantsI prevail with town, you just a hermit insurgentYou couldn't use a chain saw if I leave your brain rawscalp you like an indian and then introduce you to the grain clawI'm not your mate, pal, friend, or buddyI could pretend but in reality this is master vs. understudyhttp://www.youtube.com...
Rap Battle with Vocals

LYRICS Well look at who we have right here Ready for me to be the commandeer He thinks he's the boss But he as lame as moss Only snipes the worst of [the] worst When it comes to the real deal he's unrehearsed His brain is completely void of information Can't stop me from givin' him a castration He thinks he's gettin' a second free victory? Ha! I'll just show who really got the valedictory My opponent stands absolutely no chance Crumbles to the ground just from my Death Glance He tries to call for help at his death bed Suddenly he's filled with so much dread-- I'm comin' in with a massive bloody chainsaw, Listen to him scream girly "It's against the law!" He desperately scratches at my face Knows for sure there's no escape Just come out and accept your fate You're gonna die my "good mate" http://www.youtube.com...;P. S. Yeah I know, my voice is creepy XD
Novice Tournament Finals: NSA Spying is Beneficial to the US.

Hello. This will be the third and final round of TUF's Novice Tournament, long awaited.Full Resolve: NSA Spying is, on a balance, a benefit to the United States.I will be arguing in favor of this resolution, while my opponent, MyDinosaurHands, will attempt to negate it. The burden of proof will be shared in this debate. The following definitons will be used:NSA - The United States National Security AgencySpying - The NSA's metadata collection effort, consisting of domestic surveillence of phone and internet records. Any other terms that my opponent would like to define may be defined in his Round 1.The format will carry out as follows:Round 1 - Acceptance/Definitions/ClarificationsRound 2 - Opening ConstructivesRound 3 - Rebuttals/ConstructivesRound 4 - Closing StatementsThank you, and I look forward to a fun and educational debate.
Creativity

I personally have always believed that schools are against students creativity once they hit high school. Recently in my college prep class (it is an elective) we were presented a video to take notes one the video did agree with me and made some very excellent points such as the following from my notes; "students are being taught the unpredictable" meaning students are required to take math English science and history because that's what "schools" think they need to know for the future, none of the adults in my life require any of that knowledge for their career and get paid fairly well. "Schools prepare students for college to get a degree to get a career" which is BS because since when does a degree grantee a job? it doesn't. my argument is that yes students should be taught basic math and have average English and science skills and a few key points from history but I don't believe those should be a requirement for thirteen years.