BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
authorized kjv is right 100% of the time :)

Hey again, mr gj :) Thanks for your kindness; I truly had no idea the debate process. I found this website and said the first thing on my mind that I felt was worth defending. I am too much of an oversimplifier, but I will try :) Yessir, we do agree that the bible gives great advice and all. Psalm 119:1,2 KJV Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord. Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart. The version of the above verses which you posted are questions; The KJV verses are the answers to those questions... "How blessed?" "Blessed." Why is "who" capitalised? "Observe?" or "keep?" Which is most respectful? Idk. "...all their heart," translated to, "...the whole heart," why did that need to be translated? Someone underestimated our intelligence, I guess. About the "puzzling situations" I mentioned.. well, those stories are best told over coffee, and I thinkI'd better take some KJV advice right now.. Proverbs 17:28a KJV " Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace is counted wise:" (lol jst a little bible humor:) Okay, about the definition of translation, you're right. That verse about paradise works both ways, at the same time. Okay, about translation after translation after translation...I know a guy who's an expert on that subject, i wish you could talk to him.I do have some comments, though. The authorized KJV can be reprinted and/or distributed freely, whereas other versions reqiure permissions and/ or royalties. This implies that one motive for translating is for financial gain, and as if the publisher were the owner of those words. Something about the version of Matthew 5:17 posted within your response: Matthew 5:17 KJV says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy but to fulfill." "I am" is actually a name of God, why omit that reference of oneness between God and Jesus? Im happy and excited that there are bibles, and that people are blessed by them :) I wouldnt want anyone to miss out on the above "ah-ha" moment, though :) In conclusion to your 1,2,& 3: 1. Yep. that's what i was sayin'. (lol gj! Jst a little play on words :) 2. The core message seems to be mainly lost in the world, which might make it seem like he word of God isn't powerful enough to jelp in times of trouble, or otherwise. Idk what happened to make it this way; my theory is perhaps the words have been corrupted. 3. Amen, God is perfect. Matthew 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." That's not idolatry. ps... the specific bible advice I was gonna tell you about is actually in Matthew 5:33-48... Works every time, God bless all :)
working mothers vs. mothers who stay at home

Thank you for your point. But I want to provide one omore argument which support idea that mothers should stay at home. Aside from spending less time with their children, new mothers often find it difficult to make it to work consistently. Unexpected events can and will occur, which can inhibit the ability to attend work multiple times per week. Some companies will be understanding of new moms, but others may not be as lenient towards being late, missing work often and leaving early. When returning to work, a flexible position will be extremely helpful in achieving a positive work/life balance.
working mothers vs. mothers who stay at home

Thank you for your point, but I want to give my contraagrument. If you are afraid of that children erly go to the kiner garden. who says that mothers can't work at home?! They can, and working at home has any good sides. Mpthers who stay at home and work can see their chil;d every day. Women can do some interesting activities at home, like reading books and watching interesting films.
working mothers vs. mothers who stay at home

I disagree with you. I think women who have children should stay at home. My first agrument is that working mothers' chidren can be agressive. Childrens whose mothers work very erly go to the kinder garden. A study performed by the National Institute's Study of Early Childhood Development concluded that children who spend several hours a day in a daycare or similar facility have more aggression and behavioral problems than children who stay at home. Children tend to filter their feelings of abandonment and lack of attention, which in turn can result in aggression towards other people. Children often express their feelings by acting negatively towards others.
working mothers vs. mothers who stay at home

I think that women should work and they can raise good children, becasue they can work on part-time job. As a result, such kind of job help to spend more time with children M. Price in article "Better was to a woork\life balance" state that more working mothers ee paert-time, rather full-time., work as the ideal employment situation. Women whowork at part-time jobs can spend a lot of time with their childrne and play great role in children's growing up.
working mothers vs. mothers who stay at home

I totaly disagre with you, because my last argument is that children whose mothers work have slower development than chidren whose wothers stay at home. According to Institute for Social and Economic Research, mothers who work before their children start school risk having their children develop more slowly than normal, and as a result, receive lower test scores in math and reading. Other studies, as reported by the "Daily Mail Online" show that children whose mothers went back to work within the first nine months have poorer verbal skills than children of mothers who stayed home. Returning to work results in lack of time available for teaching verbal skills, and as a result, the child's verbal skills don't develop as quickly.
working mothers vs. mothers who stay at home

Today there is a lot of electronic media on the world, which help every mother to keep in touch with her children anywhere and anytime. Skype, Facebook, Tweeter and many other social networks help people to communicate with each other. If women has a child and has to go to another city to work, she can call her child on Skype and help him to do his homework or just lak with him. It helps for mothers who has a lot of business trips.
Napoleon Bonaparte would beat George Washington if they fought a war.

Tactics Guerrilla tactics would play a very little role. During the American Revolution, Washington used guerrilla tactics to weaken the enemy before actually fighting the real battle, in which he usually lost. Resources My opponent argues that the British fought an open war with the French during the War of the First Coalition. However, who won the War of the First Coalition? France, even when France had many enemies and were outnumbered. Foreign Aid Both Britain and the US was involved in the Panic of 1796-1797, which caused both countries' economies to fall. Britain would not help the US when they are already trying to save their own economy. Troops I thank my opponent for conceding that Napoleon had better troops. Artillery Napoleon's artillery would however do plenty of damage while on land. Cavalry My opponent still has not addressed my point that the main reason why the British won the Battle of Camden was because of their cavalry, which proves cavalry to be useful. Also, my opponent argues that, "Cavalry is susceptible to attack by massed infantry." But again, Napoleon, the tactician, would not randomly send the Cavalry to attack without infantry support. Also, my opponent has not rebutted these arguments: The majority of the battles Washington fought with the British were lost. France's army is similar if not better than the British army. Therefore, the majority of the battles Washington fights with Napoleon would be lost. The main reason Washington won battles was because of number and French support, and Napoleon won many battles while outnumbered. Again, look at the statistics. Napoleon Bonaparte Austerlitz - Victory and also was outnumbered Jena - Victory Waterloo - Defeat, but would have won if his officers cooperated Logan - Victory and outnumbered Pyramids - Victory and was outnumbered Wag ram - Victory George Washington Fort Washington - Defeat Brandying - Outnumbered the British, made poor decisions and lost Saratoga - Victory Germantown - Outnumbered the British but lost Monmouth - Draw Yorktown - Victory, but only because the French came And now, look at the battles George Washington did win. Yorktown- The British were outnumbered 3 to 1. Washington also got French support. Battle of Eutaw Springs- British were outnumbered and the US lost way more men. Saratoga- Victory Trenton- Outnumbered the British. There were 2,400 American troops with 18 guns. 1,400 Hessians with 6 light guns. Washington's victories were purely because of number, and Napoleon won many battles with low supplies and numbers. My opponent's main argument is that Napoleon had many enemies and low supplies. But this argument can be easily rebutted because during his Austrian Campaign, Italian Campaign, and many other wars he had many enemies and low supplies, and yet he still won. Conclusion Napoleon's superior tactics, artillery skills and troops would defeat Washington. The fact that he had low supplies and many enemies would not matter very much because he won many wars while facing many enemies and had low supplies. Clearly, Napoleon would win against George Washington.
Napoleon Bonaparte would beat George Washington if they fought a war.

I will post my arguments. 1. Tactics Most historians agree that Napoleon was an expert at tactics. This is undeniable. For example, at the Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon used his many tactics to win the battle. When he faked a retreat and his enemy chased him, he cleverly used his cavalry to charge. He then surrounded his enemy and won. 2. Battles. Lets look at some of the most important battles Napoleon Bonaparte and George Washington fought. Napoleon Bonaparte Austerlitz - Victory and also was outnumbered Jena - Victory Waterloo - Defeat, but would have won if his officers cooperated Logan - Victory and outnumbered Pyramids - Victory and was outnumbered Wag ram - Victory George Washington Fort Washington - Defeat Brandying - Outnumbered the British, made poor decisions and lost Saratoga - Victory Germantown - Outnumbered the British but lost Monmouth - Draw Yorktown - Victory, but only because the French came As you see, Napoleon is a much better general than George Washington. 3. Troops Napoleon's men were highly trained, compared to George Washington's inexperienced men. 4. Navy Napoleon had a large navy. All Washington had were a few frigates and many privateers. As you see, Napoleon Bonaparte would clearly win if he and Washington fought a war. I look forward to my opponent's arguments. Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.onepowerfulword.com... . http://www.historyofwar.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://sc94.ameslab.gov... . http://www.whitehouse.gov... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.pbs.org...
Puerto Rico should become a state.

I Extend my arguments that Puerto Rico should not become a state on the grounds that they have a dreadful economy, a massive drug problem, a massive crime problem, and a host of other problems that would cost billions of dollars to fix and would take many years to recover. This would all have to be done during the worst recession the US has faced in almost 100 years which means that Puerto Rico may not get the adequate funds necessary to fix the country any time soon
Puerto Rico should become a state.

500 characters? Sources in the comments Puerto Rico shouldn't become a state because 1) Their economy sucks and would provide no benefit 2) Crime would top all other US states and bringing down crime would cost vast amounts of money 3) Unemployment is at 14% and would only add to US economic recovery woes 4) Puerto Rico is poor in resources 5) Drug trade is rampant 6) Companies are leaving, not coming, to Puerto Rico It is for these reasons that Puerto Rico should not become a US State
Puerto Rico should become a state.

There are several reasons that Puerto Rico should vote to become a state of the U.S.A. One reason is the economy boost. Puerto Rico is currently struggling economically, and so is the U.S. The jobs being held by the people in Puerto Rico will boost the USA's economy because those are more jobs, creating more products, creating more money. Also, Puerto Rico has a frighteningly high violent crime rate, especially among youths. A better trained police force might help to lower the violent crimes.
We should adopt Gold Standard

Definitions :1. The gold standard is a monetary system where a country's currency or paper money has a value directly linked to gold. With the gold standard, countries agreed to convert paper money into a fixed amount of gold. A country that uses the gold standard sets a fixed price for gold and buys and sells gold at that price. 2. Fiat money is currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, but it is not backed by a physical commodity. The value of fiat money is derived from the relationship between supply and demand rather than the value of the material that the money is made of.
Should school start time to be later

I now go to school in one of the top schools in the country. When I was in my school district school started at 7:30 and ended at 2:00. I had to wake up at 5:30 and the bus came at 6:30. I always felt tired and it was a pain. I tried having my dad dropping me off but we were always late. When I got home I slept for a couple hours. It was a pain to only have an average of 6 hours of sleep instead of the 9 to 10 hours recommended sleep time for teens.
Should school start time to be later

Students are extremely stressed in the morning and are rushing to get to school on time! That way they don't have a good breakfast they don't have time to review their studies and they get to school tired which causes them to be lazy and not focused during class. Me, as a student, always fall asleep during class or is close to falling asleep. Not during an important class lesson, but during free time or a time to start your homework or something I can do at home. Sometimes even with all that they are still late! Students would get more sleep, would have a good breakfast, would have time to review their studies thus getting better marks. I'm not saying to start late or at noon but around 9 am would be fine. I went to elementary school which started at 845 and ended at 3. Now, I am a freshman in high school and start at 7:55 and end at 2:41 with even more work the older I get. It is stressful! Especially for athletes, just like me. I am a very good athlete and sometimes don't come home from 8 am till 10:30 at night! With extra sleep students will be able to concentrate more. When students get their sleep they will bring up their grades while being more focused on what they need to to do to succeed in their classes, instead of falling asleep or miss school and a bunch of work because they stayed home from school because they were "too tired".
Only sore losers and cheaters look up video game clues online

Only sucky quitters, sore losers and degenerates have to resort to clue books or the internet for information on how to finish a video game. Real men figure out the puzzle, the riddle, the challenge to finish the game without having to be a sissy and have to go on-line to look up the game wiki because they are too degenerate to figure it out on there own.
Only sore losers and cheaters look up video game clues online

2/ Most games are created for the maximum realistic gaming experience, by using cheats it defeats the challenges and makes the player usually invulnerable to enemies and damage, this is not the way the game is meant to be played, and the only reason those clues are there is for game testers to be able to test certain game levels without dying over and over. 3/ God mode is not a realistic way to play a game, that is like playing any type of challenge, knowing that you will win every time. This completely defeats the purpose of what is called a "Game", and it turns it into "I can do anything without fault or repercussion" type of activity. That is not the main goal of a video game. The whole point of video games is to provide a challenge by having a player die, check points, save points, otherwise what is the point of even playing if you will just walk through the whole game invincible? ? That is not a challenge at all and only sore losers would use God mode 4/If a player is retarded they can play Leap Frog or other games for the developmentally challenged users. There are also ratings on games such as M, PG-13 or E for everyone. The autistic person or a person with downs syndrome can play E games which are usually for children if they have motor skill challenges. Nobody says you need to play a difficult game and then cheat on it. Only sore losers and cheaters would use clues from wiki, Real Men can play a game without cheating and solve any type of puzzle or challenge. Cheaters can't
Only sore losers and cheaters look up video game clues online

While I agree with my opponent on general principle, I also think there could be cases that are exceptions to his claim. 1)The player may have won the game before and rather than go through all of the work again, they use the cheats. 2)The cheats may allow you to do things that cannot otherwise be done when playing the game without them. 3)They may find it fun to play in god mode sometimes. 4)Maybe the are just slow mentally and need some help, but their manhood is fully in check.
Saying yes to every friend request is Not OK

PRO begins his third round with a positive argument, but I urge you to ignore it entirely. As I noted earlier, and as PRO has completely disregarded, new arguments are *not* allowed in the final round of debate. Nevertheless, PRO has opted to lay waste to the ethics of debate. Judges, please bear this in mind when dolling out conduct points. As I also noted in Round 2, I am not obligated, as the person without the burden of proof--and you'll note that PRO never once contested that he had the burden of proof, so it extends through that it lies solely with him--to provide a positive argument. Nevertheless, I have done so, and PRO has completely dropped it. This is even more reason to immediately vote CON. I'm going to rebut PRO's arguments, even though I'm not obligated to at this time since it's, again, illegitimate and unethical to initiate new arguments in the final round of debat. PRO states, "I would like to base my side of the debate off the fact that in the 50 I've verified my e-mail I have beeninterrogated by 3 people, Have been accused of being 2001bhu 6 times and have not been very happy about it! This is to show that you people need to back off." PRO is basing his entire case on his own subjective experience. Not only is there no evidence at all that this actually took place--nor should you buy that it actually did--but this is not in the slightest a rational reason to draw a line in the sand and say "Do not do X." Life is not, and need not, be one size fits all, nor can we reason from any particular subjective experence to a general rule. PRO provides only the former and claims it as a basis for the latter, but this cannot possible obtain. Further, he ignores that he's (1) more likely to either not speak with those individuals than to have contentions relations with them; (2) he may in fact befriend them, and again is "throwing out the baby with the bath water" by also eshewing any opportunity for friendship; and (3) has several means of recourse--blocking, "stopping threads" and deleting the PM conversation, contacting a moderator, etc.--should he feel that a member is harassing them, though again we have no reason to believe that this was the case.PRO states, "Yes I would like to ask that of everyone ealse. Why do you think I am 2001bhu? Why don't you exstend this kind of niceness to me?"This is irrelevant to the debate. Vote CON. Thank you.
Saying yes to every friend request is Not OK

I'm new to the site so here goes nothing.I would like to base my side of the debate off the fact that in the 50 I've verified my e-mail I have been interrogated by 3 people, Have been accused of being 2001bhu 6 times and have not been very happy about it! This is to show that you people need to back off.I am sorry if the top part seems mean. Also how do you know the people most of the time (for me) people end up being jerks and not showing "Friendliness""If anything, refusing to accept that request is extremely insolent, and could result in hurt feelings--and why would you want to inflict that when you can readily prevent it?"Yes I would like to ask that of everyone ealse. Why do you think I am 2001bhu? Why don't you exstend this kind of niceness to me?
Saying yes to every friend request is Not OK

First, PRO seems to be unaware of the convention whereby R1 is merely for acceptance. Second, PRO fully misses the distinction between "making a claim" and "negating that claim." The burden of proof always falls on the person who is making an affirmative claim. Case in point: "The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever." [https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...]So, the fact of the matter is, PRO, in defending a positive claim, has the sole burden of proof, but he has wasted his second round without a single positive argument. No new arguments are allowed in Round 3, so you're already voting CON by default since he has the BOP. With that said, though, here's a positive argument from my side--note that I am not obligated to provide one. C1) Friendliness The main reason you should accept every friend request is because it's a sign of friendliness. Whether or not you're actually going to talk to those people--and you should, if only for the new perspective they could provide and the fact that you never know who may become your new best friend--there is absolutely no harm done in at least accept a friend request. If anything, refusing to accept that request is extremely insolent, and could result in hurt feelings--and why would you want to inflict that when you can readily prevent it?