BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States should conquer Africa

He loses the debate because he continually defines buying out as conquering, when it isnt. The definition in round one said so. Although, technically, no one wins since it's a troll debate and ends in a tie. I'm providing for more sex since I'm not killing people. Even if you count buying out as conquest, I still provide for more sex because that money could be used to cure diseases (Contention 3--dropped, extend all the way across)I dont really feel like writing more, but vote con for more sex.
The United States should conquer Africa

He says that my criterion requires military conflict, but that's not true. As per his definition, conquest is winning a war. But it never says what KIND OF WAR. All America has to do is win a MONEY WAR (i.e. buy out Africa before other nations buy them out), and we won the money war, and 'conquered' Africa. So I'm not killing anyone, if only providing more money to africa so that more people LIVE. So I'm going to be having mroe people, and thus more sex. So you can vote for the pro here.His argument against my contention one is dependent on me actually attackign with violence Africa. But I already clarified that that's not what I'm doing. Contention one can clearly be extended out. If we buy out africa, we have more people than if we didn't buy out africa. More people = more sex. I'm best fulfilling the value. So his turn here doesn't apply.He then says buying isn't conquest, but it clearly is. It's winning a money war, thus is a conquest. I still meet my burden.He tries to argue against my Argument From Lust, but I've already clearly shown (and he conceded to) that if he attempts to refute it, he concedes he is not sexy. If he is not sexy, Royalpaladin will prefer me over him. Thus, I'll be getting more sex than my opponent, and thus will be better fulfilling the value of sex than him. Also, I invite people to sleep with me. It'll prove that I am, indeed, more skilled than my opponent ;)Also, his song lyrics are only a means to try and distract you from the actual issues at hand. He has a hard time getting a hard-on, and thus cannot fulfill the value of sex. Since he cannot fulfill his own value, you prima facie affirm here, since I'm best going to be able to fulfill it.
The United States should conquer Africa

I affirm the resolution: The United States should Conquer Africa (by means of buying out everyone who lives there)Value: Sex. Sex, as my opponent and I agree on, is the ultimate moral action that a human being can possibly commit. So the debate must come down to whoever is maximizing the most amount of sex, or by creating the biggest orgy possible. Criterion: Aquiring more womenz and men. More people = more people that can be having sex. Simple enough. I contend that by aquiring africa using monetary means, we can maximize people having sex.Contention One: Mo' people, mo' sex!The math is pretty simple. If you take a 1 (which represents the man's willy), and add it with a 0 (which represents the women's pleasuring hole), the result is sex! The more 1's and 0's we have, the more sex we have. By buying out Africa, we have more people, i.e. more 1's and 0's. This means that by affirming, we get more sex!Contention Two: We can buy out Africa.I mean, for real. Africa is practically all dirt and mud. The monetary value of Africa is so low, we'd be gaining money by buying it out(1). There would be no harm from doing so, only more sex, and sex is good.Contention Three: Argument from Lust.1. Sex is good.2. People can have sex.3. Thus, having sex is good.4. If something is good, you want more of it.5. Having more of something good gives you more good.6. Having more sex brings more good.7. To have sex, you need people.8. To have more sex, you need more people.9. More sex is good.10. We should get more people to have sex.11. If we want more of something good, it's right to get it from somewhere else.12. In order to have sex, we need to get more people.13. Africa has more people.14. We can take the people from Africa to have sex with.15. Thus, we can buy out africa for sex.The logic is irrefutable due to the insane sexiness of my opponent. If my opponent tries to refute this argument, he concedes that he is not sexy, which would make me more preferable in the eyes of o' RoyalPaladin. If I have RoyalPaladin, I will be getting more sex than him, and thus will be best fulfilling the value of sex.Contention Four: I'm far more skilled than my opponent.In more than one area ;) thus, I'll be best able to meet the value of sex, so this is why you should vote for me.So, in summary of all my points:If A, then BIf B, then CIf C, then not DIf Not D, then maybe FIf E, then GIf G and A, then DSince D is real, then so is HH is real, therefore F is actually real despite D existing at the same time C does.Thusly, we should buy out Africa.
The United States should conquer Africa

Zaradi and I are about to have an amazing debate. Conquer- to acquire by force of arms; win in war: to conquer a foreign land Africa- a continent South of Europe and between the Atlantic and Indianoceans. 551,000,000; about 11,700,000 sq. mi. (30,303,000sq. km). No semantics on "should" please! There is an extra round in case a forfeit happens, if it doesn't the 5th will be a blank round. Cases in round 2, no refutations until round 3.
Baptism in Jesus Name

I would like to ask my opponent to cite the contradiction(s) that he is referring to, excluding the four passages from the Acts of the Apostles and the Great Commission in Matthew. I feel that I have offered a logical explanation for the vernacular at that time, it appears that my opponent is unwilling to accept any historical evidence outside of scriptural evidence. I ask for a stronger reason to disregard any non-scriptural history. I would also like to point out that there are many styles in which the Bible was written, a few of them being, narrative, instruction, dialogue, and action. If we do not read the Bible in the proper context, then we may fall into error. For example: Some bibles contain what Jesus had said in red lettering. This indicates his dialogue and teaching. The Acts of the Apostles have no such markings, but that is why we are provided with titles to describe what is happening in a particular section of scripture. I will not dispute that Jesus name has power and that many miracles have been, are being, and will be worked in His name. I would like to mention, however, that on two specific occasions, Jesus gave precise instruction on the manner in which the Apostles were to carry out an action, namely, the Last Supper, and the Great Commission. Lastly I would pose one question: If the Apostles did in fact baptize in the name of Jesus, and only in His name, does my opponent choose to follow the example and actions of men rather than follow the the commands of God? As a Catholic, I believe that what is taught to the Apostles was handed down from Jesus in a process called Apostolic Succession. I know that everything we hold true is found in the Scriptures and through tradition. I can vouch that, if at any moment scripture seems to contradict itself, it is not that it is contradictory, rather, the reader needs to better understand the context in which the passage is said, and what it says.
Baptism in Jesus Name

1. For my opponent to use the argument that the Author of Acts is using the Name of Jesus to distinguish between other different baptisms of that day is an argument that cannot be supported by any evidence at all, at best, that argument can only be an assumption. 2. Though different wording may be used in different instances in the book of Acts, the difference is not to the magnitude that we have a reason to come to the conclusion that baptism in Jesus Name is not the biblical way to administrate baptism. "Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." - Acts 2:38 (NKJV) "For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." - Acts 8:16 (NKJV) "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days." - Acts 10:48 (NKJV) "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." - Acts 19:5 (NKJV) Therefore, upon these verses, even in the greek, we have no reason at all to come to different conclusions since they are worded differently. Though worded differently, they are not worded differently to the magnitude that there should be a different verdict. 3. It is very clear that in the Bible the name of Jesus is used to administrate different actions after the new covenant is fulfilled. Healing, prayer, and even salvation. Why should we find it so surprising then that baptism also should be administrated in that name? We shouldn't. Especially since the apostles did this all throughout the book of Acts. My opponent has yet chosen to address this point. 4. The awesome significance of water baptism is that it symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and our identification with Him in his death. So, if therefore that is what baptism signifies, and through that sacrifice we have full access to the father and the spirit, baptism in Jesus name would seem more Biblical than baptism in the name of the father, son and holy spirit since we are identifying ourself with Jesus. Obviously the question would be, why would Jesus even say father, son, and holy spirit? but let me point out, that if my opponent is going to take the stance that baptism in father, son, and holy spirit is the correct way to administrate baptism then he has to explain the contradictions in the word of God since we see the apostles directly not baptize the name of the father, son, and holy spirit. On the other hand, if we take the stance the baptism in Jesus Name is the correct way to administrate baptism, then we can understand clearly that the apostles are simply fulfilling Jesus command by baptizing people in the name of Jesus since He is the fulfillment of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
Baptism in Jesus Name

1. I can see how through carefully reading scripture we may come to the conclusion that the Apostles did in fact baptize in the name of Jesus, however, if we notice in Acts 2, Peter is giving a speech to the crowds immediatly after Pentacost. Peter is explaining to the crowds the mystery of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the gift of the resurrection given to the Son by the Father, and how they are all the same, three persons, one God. This is where we get to Col 2:9-12. This is meant for the Jews, who at the time had three ceremonial rituals in order to be "baptized." Paul is explaining to them that Christ is the capitulation of all these things, that through him, they need not follow the old law. - cited from (http://www.jewsforjesus.org..., then scroll to the subtitle [Jewish Proselyte Baptism Compared with New Covenant Baptism] 2. As for when Peter says, "Be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit," he was not actively baptizing anybody. Later in scripture, Acts 2:41, it says that those who had accepted the message just proclaimed were baptized. Now, I believe that there are only four instances in which this statement of baptism occurs (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5). Neither of these instances uses the same wording, which will indicate that these are "not technical forms of baptism, only a description by Luke."(a) It is also a way to distinguish the type of baptism, because at the time, there were multiple baptisms.(b) (a) and (b) cited from - (http://www.catholic.com...) 3. I would also like to point out that in many places the Apostles wrote that they would be arriving to a town to instruct further on certain points of faith, for example: 1 Cor 16:5, and 2 Cor 10:2. There are other places where Paul will send Timothy to teach the people of a certain town. This indicates that not everything has been taught or handed down through and from the Bible, from which we have gathered much evidence.
Baptism in Jesus Name

1. None of my arguments had anything to do with the name of Jesus being so powerful therefore that is why we ought to baptize in the name of Jesus and not in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. Colossians 2:9 says, "For in Him (Jesus) dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Therefore, the reason, I administrate baptism in Jesus name is because all the apostles fulfilled Jesus's command in the book of acts by baptizing in the name of Jesus. Which, at first glance would seem as a contradiction but then within the context of Colossians 2:9 comes together in perfect harmony. If you are accusing me of being disobedient to Jesus's command, you are also accusing Peter. So, no, I don't see my argument as disobedient to the Bible since it so clearly stated in the Bible that Jesus commanded to baptize in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit and we see that command fulfilled in the book of acts which all the apostles baptizing in the name of Jesus. My argument is not a hard argument to understand. The majority of the Christian faith baptize in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit. I am defending water baptism and giving my arguments on why jesus name is the correct way to administrate baptism.
Baptism in Jesus Name

This is how I am understanding your position: Because Jesus name is so powerful, in order to be obedient to the great commision given to us by Jesus, to baptize all nations, you would just baptize in the name of Jesus even though, as you have said, He is God, and He has given us this command to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. In other words, you will be obedient to the great commision and baptize persons the way you see is best, and not in the way God sees is best. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord." - Isaiah 55:8 So then, I am viewing your statement as a good intention, as a strong desire to bring people to Christ, yet it is still disobedient. Do you see this as a move against obedience? Please help me to more clearly understand your position.
Baptism in Jesus Name

I will simply give arguments of why Jesus name is the correct and biblical way to administrate water baptism. I'd like to begin with a stocking first point I believe: 1. Baptism in Jesus Name coincides with the trinity more than oneness theology. If the argument is going to be used that baptizing in Jesus name excludes the trinity or the roles of the Godhead, I would have to disagree. Baptism in Jesus name actually gives us a clearer perspective of the Gospel when we already have the foundational understanding of the roles of the Godhead. When we are being baptized we are publicly signifying our commitment to the Gospel. If that is what the Gospel is, then we also have to understand that through Jesus we have access to the father, and through Jesus the Holy Spirit works through us to testify of the Gospel. In other words, through Jesus we have full access to the Father and the Spirit. Therefore, putting it in that perspective, baptism in Jesus name would even be more theologically appropriate if it has to do with the Gospel because we are signifying are oneness with Christ who gives us the boldness to stand before the Father righteous and boldness to live out the Gospel through the Holy Spirit. 2. It's not far fetched to believe that Acts 2:38 is the fulfillment of Matthew 28:19. The great commission was fulfilled in the book of acts and was very clearly acted upon through baptism in Jesus name. 3. Why should we find it so shocking or unbiblical to administrate baptism in Jesus name if we administrate other biblical actions in the name of Jesus also. For example, the apostles and even Christians today, heal in the name of Jesus, we pray in the name of Jesus, and most importantly, salvation comes through belief in Jesus. Paul said in Romans 10:9, "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Peter said in Acts 4:12, "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under haven given among men by which we must be saved." Therefore, if Peter and Paul found the name of Jesus important enough that salvation comes through that Name, why should we resist the belief that baptism also should be administered in that name? Therefore we have to follow the evidence where it leads and believe that Baptism in Jesus Name is the correct way to administrate water baptism according to the Word of God.
Dogs are better than cats

Dogs are obviously better than cats. Think of all the good things a cat can do to you. Nothing! on the other hand, think of all the good things a dog . Heaps! first of all dogs protect you. You can play with them when you are bored. You can train them to do anything so you don't have to. Dogs are friendly and when you get old your children's won't live with you but your pet dog will. So dogs are the best! Cat's can make you sneeze and get allergies which is really...... bad. If you are smart enough you will now know that dogs are much much better than Cats.Dogs are smarter than cats too!
Should there be gun control

I will be accepting the challenge: gun control in the United States is necessary. For every 1 "justifiable" gun homicide there were 34 criminal homicides, 78 suicides, and 2 accidental deaths. The immediate aforementioned being an FBI, CDC source claim from 2012. Guns are a tool but they are also a weapon and it's our country's duty to control them to maintain a safer United States.
chess sucks

Wait, I'm not a girl... last time I checked. *looks down* Phew... you scared me a bit there for a moment, Con.Now, Con has so graciously expanded on his earlier arguments by saying we should play sports. I agree, and GM Kasparov agrees, we should play sports. That is why, after I send this, I'm going to go play the great sport of chess.I don't know, voters, you can pick on a lot of stuff to vote for here: Con was checkmated, clocked on time, and outplayed.Ladies and gentlemen, let the resolution be affirmed: chess sucks.
chess sucks

Ah, my opponent finally decides to deviate from the book and uses his own words. A little late, though, considering he's already been clocked on time."chess suck cause you play the same game 100 times who would not think its dumb?"Eight million registered chess players readily disagree. [4] Also, as you can see from my last round photos, chess is a game of such quality it taught dogs and cats to think critically. It's quite obvious these animals are in deep concentration over their games. That's right, chess is so analytically nourishing it unites and teaches animals to enhance their spatial and temporal skills."i would rather play with dolls than that dumb old boring game"Well, at least Con got it right that chess has quite a history, dating back to the Indian Gupta Empire. Other than that, I'll let Karpov sum it up: "Chess is everything: art, science, and sport." Larsen considered chess a beautiful mistress. I'll let y'all decide on which you prefer.Now, I just can't resist posting another chess game. Let Fischer's brilliance shine again:http://www.chessgames.com...Again, the resolution is affirmed: chess does indeed suck.[4] http://www.chessmaniac.com...;
chess sucks

Such an astute response, if only Con had the heart to use his own words (BmFPyccy's response: [2]). Hm, normally checkmate ends the match, but it looks like Con wishes to take back his pieces and place tham all over the board. It's quite apparent, though, that I still hold his King. Con didn't even attempt to argue how chess doesn't nourish our analytical side, so it looks like the resolution is affirmed: "chess sucks."Well, I've got lots of space left, so here's a picture of a cat playing chess:http://3.bp.blogspot.com...And here's a picture of a dog playing chess:http://4.bp.blogspot.com...All this talk about chess makes me want to play some G/5 blitz. Ciao DDO, for now.
chess sucks

i think its pretty pointless when someone thinks they are so much better than everyone else, literately anyway. So he starts a thread that will attract attention - even if its a small amount just to piss someone off and get some attention. Then he can feel all big when they can't understand his jargon when he bitches at the practicality of a game when his own literal talents are quite unpractical in a forum such as this. Chess is a game of Kings, ever heard that one? Kinda uplifting it from the retards from society if you suck at it learn, its a really easy game so stop crying! And games can last for hours, or 10 mins, its skill dependant on both sides.
chess sucks

Short and sweet: 1. "Chess" obviously refers to the act of playing the sport and clearly the definition of "suck" should be interpreted as "to draw nourishment" [3]. What could be more stimulating than a good game of chess? It's nearly infinite potential and abstract foundation is a perfect blend to create an intellectual atmosphere capable of nourishing the analytical mind. 2. Plagiarism -> [1] [2]. Checkmate. That was quite intellectually stimulating. Now, back to bullet chess. [1] http://roosterteeth.com... [2] http://rtxevent.com... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
chess sucks

However stimulatory chess may be, and I do forcuncuate that it is a brilliant game, it is not practical. Have you ever sat down with a friend and say, "Hey! We have a couple minutes, lets play some chess! I'll be white!" Despite the racial puns that could be inserted, chess is not practical unless you have a lot of time and the skill to do so. I am a novice at chess, my rear is pulinificated every time I play somebody, but most of the time we just get bored and play some football. So although chess is fortucerebellius, it is not the best game in the world.
AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally.

*rings48 turn on rocky theme starts, starts to jog around to random places, punches a wall, remembers why he doesn't do boxing*Thank you very much Debatability. I also want to thank our judges for voting on this debate. I wish luck to Debatability as she starts the debate.*rings48 ices his hand before round 2 starts, smokes a joint, quickly snuffs it out as he realizes he remembers he is Con, has a stupid smile because of the bad joke*
Governments should value economic equality before prosperity

I accept my opponent's challenge and look forward to a good debate. Since it appears that my opponent is arguing that the government should promote economic equality over economic prosperity, I am assuming that he is advocating for the redistribution of wealth through governmental welfare and social programs; such as minimum wage, anti-monopoly legislation, and income taxes. Since my opponent has accepted the burden of proof, the focus of my argument shall be on refuting his arguments and I'd like to remind the voters to keep this in mind when judging the debate. Furthermore, I will keep my definitions short and sweet. I choose to use the term, "economic growth," rather than economic prosperity. Economic growth is measured in gross domestic product (GDP,) and we will define GDP as the total market value of all final goods and services produced within a country. At my opponent's request I will hold off on presenting my arguments until round two.