BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The usual arguments #5: God's plan

1) God is omnipotent. There is no need for people to starve to death. God created humans, he designed every small part of our brain, why didn't he make us all realize we are fortunate without seeing suffering? Sure, this is how our brain works: we see miserable people and we think we are so lucky because we live better, but if there is a God and he created us, he created our brains, our way of thinking and looking at the world. And so the question remains, why did he chose to let people suffer when he could have changed the way we thing. " God made all these things is so that we can learn and have an opportunity to do good deeds, such as feed the hungry." So your point is that without suffering we wouldn't help people. This is of course true. We couldn't help hungry people if we had no hungry people in the first place. The question is why do we need hungry people? It's probably part of God's plan. This is why his plan is so evil. It needs thousands of people to die in order for a few dozen Christians to go to heaven because of their good deeds. This is not a plan for the grater good. What about all the people that don't receive any help? Is it good to let people die in terrible pains just so a few people can earn their place in heaven by helping them? 2) God also knows everything. When he created the tree of knowledge, he knew Adam and Eve would eat from it, he knew the end of humanity. When he created the world, he knew how it would end. Anything he did, he knew the effect. If he has a plan and wishes to fulfill his plan, he knows in what scenarios his plan would be indeed fulfilled. We do have freedom, but God knows how we are going to use it. Our freedom is ultimately just a tool to fulfill his plan. He knows what our actions will be, he knows if we are going to ruin his plan or not, so if he indeed has a plan, our freedom is just helping him fulfill it. 3) God never actually said anything. We consider the Bible is the word of God, and the Bible teaches that you have to be a Christian to go to heaven. This is also the Church's official position. Some Christians can have a different opinion. George Pell claims everyone can go to haven, even atheists, but this doesn't make it true from a theological perspective. The Bible and the church's official position should be considered true. Sources: http://catholicbridge.com...
The usual arguments #5: God's plan

I would like to argue that God's plan is for the greater good and wants the best for us, as humans and creatures that walk among the Earth. God made many things to teach us good and bad, for example, He made starvation so that we may learn to help people and that we are fortunate. Some people are not. You may see many people ask God in the bible "Why do I have to suffer?" Even Jesus, God's loved and only son had to suffer. The reason that God made all these things is so that we can learn and have an opportunity to do good deeds, such as feed the hungry.But I will also argue that God did not have a very clear plan, even though he is omniscient. GOD GAVE US FREEDOM. And in freedom, often you will find sin. The wars were of our own cause and God made these to show us that people will die. To teach us about sacrifice, and evil and so that we may never have another war (although that is not safe to say that we will not have WW3). If we were all perfect, what could we have to learn? Human life is interesting and extraordinary and confusing becuase we are not all the same, we are not all perfect. Evil, exists as much as God does. If God is real, so is the devil (or Satan or whatever you want to call it). God never said that all non-Christains go to hell. God forgives those. Unless you were a mass murderer, commited suicide or support the devil or evil or whatever, God will love you. That is truly part of his plan. God loves us no matter who we are and even if we did not believe in him. There is an old Egyptian legend that says that what you believe is what will happen (mostly for the afterlife part).God is helping us all the time. He (is that a proper way to address God?) can not do this alone because we all have free will so we need to make the world a better place. God made many things to teach us about the good and evil in life. We have happy days, and many bad ones. Cancer may be deadly but one day, we will find a cure for it. With God's help, we can do anything.
Goku(Kakarot)beating Naruto Uzimaki

Speed (Naruto 1, Goku 0)-At age 17, Naruto can move faster than light.-At age 11, Goku was incredibly slow, he could not outrun fast vehicles, therefore he is not even close to the speed of light.Strength (Naruto 1, Goku 0)-After training with Master Roshi for almost a year, Goku got very strong. And the below picture depicts his strength. However, this was after he trained with Roshi and got 3 times stronger. Which means that Goku at age 11, before he trained with Roshi, can barely budge a rock that is 3 times smaller than the one shown below. -Naruto is much stronger than Goku. In the picture below it shows Naruto grabbing a giant fox by the tail and throwing it in the air. This fox is a lot bigger than the rock Goku pushed, and this fox was THROWN by Naruto, not pushed, and with less effort as Goku too. Weaknesses (Naruto 1, Goku 0)-Goku's weakness at age 11 is his tail, you squeeze it and he becomes so weak, he almost faints.-Naruto doesn't have a specific weakness.Special Advantages (Naruto 2, Goku 1)-At age 11, Goku can turn into a Giant Ape when the full moon is out.-Naruto can turn into a Giant Fox, and it doesn't rely on the full moon.-If the fight was on water, Naruto would have a huge advantage because he can walk and run on water.Flexibility in Battle (Naruto 1, Goku 0)-Naruto is more flexible in battle because of his various techniques that are both long ranged and short ranged. He also had kunai knives that come very handy.-At age 11, Goku only has short ranged attacks, but he had a staff that could extend indefinately, which gave him SOME flexibility.Combat Tactics and Experience (Naruto 2, Goku 0)-At age 11, Goku's never fought a real fight except with dumb animals he hunts for food. -Naruto at age 17 has been in several fights where he's had to out-think his opponent, and has gained a lot of experience from this.
Goku(Kakarot)beating Naruto Uzimaki

Pro's statement is implying that Goku would defeat Naruto in a fight no matter what and that it is not at all possible for Naruto to defeat Goku.However, Pro did not specify the ages of either fighters when they fight. Therefore I am under the impression that I have the freedom to choose. -Therefore, I choose Goku's age to be 11, which is his age at the very beginning of Dragonball.-I choose Naruto's age to be 16 or 17, which is how old he is currently in the story.Pro must show how Goku at age 11 can defeat Naruto at age 17.
Barack Obama was elected President of the United States in the election of 2008

In a comment in the debate, http://www.debate.org... I was told by Repete21, "Tatarize why do you debate resolutions that have fact on your side? Seriously you'd have a better chance of losing "Barack Obama was elected President of the United States in the election of 2008". I don't mean to bash but you're better than that. I've looked through your debates and these kinds of resolutions seem to be a pattern you've fallen into. Challenge yourself." So clearly I offered this debate. The better question is why would you accept the debate? That's silly. You lose. Dig deeper. Blame me for offering the debate. When Wile E. Coyote is given a sign to stand right here... he probably shouldn't.
Barack Obama was elected President of the United States in the election of 2008

The American Heritageï¿½ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Defines elect as: 1. To select by vote for an office or for membership. 2. To pick out; select: elect an art course. 3. To decide, especially by preference: elected to take the summer off. 4. To select by divine will for salvation. Used of God. Given those definitions even if Obama was selected by an elite plutocracy he would still be elected to the job. They elected to have him their corporate puppet. Also, he did still get more votes in order to get into office. Shadowy cabal or not, he's still elected president via the 2008 election.
Barack Obama was elected President of the United States in the election of 2008

I contend that Barack Obama was Elected President of the United States in the election of 2008 which elected Barack Obama as the 44th president. He took office on the January 20th and after being elected back in November. I contend that that actually happened. It wasn't imagined, it wasn't faked in Hollywood, it was actual and real and really did occur as an objective fact.
Who Votes We Forget Brexit All Together Now

Becoming sick in the UK will be a riskNo they won't. Here is evidence of the UK exporting goods to other countries. This states that the UK exports 26. 341 million medicinal and pharmaceutical products. Meaning if the United Kingdom ever needed any medical supplies simply export less goods. Source: https://www. Statista. Com/statistics/281807/largest-export-commodities-of-the-united-kingdom-uk/After Brexit, Germans will no longer be able to get free NHS healthcare using the EU-wide European Health Insurance Card. Do you mean Germans living in the UK? I advise living in the UK permanently and becoming a citizen. This will allow them to maintain their NHS privileges and also be a part of the UK. NHS is not free by the way. It comes out of taxes. I doubt Germans who do work in the UK are not taxed to make up their share. If they do not want to stay permanently I am sure the UK government will allow them to apply for some alternative that offers pretty much the same thing. Instead of EU-Wide European Health Insurance Card it can be UK Insurance Card. I don't think it is too difficult to implement but I may be wrong. If I missed the point you made above do clarify in the next Round. May I remind this only impacts a small amount of people. Why should the majority of people living in the UK should forget about Brexit?
Alienware or Asus g51vx-x1a...which better for gaming...

I accept your challenge and this should be quite fun. I started off with Alienware, just to be clear. -Asus is cheaper: A typical price for a new Alienware laptop would be around $1,376 whereas a new Asus laptop would be around $475. (Price provided by bestbuy and google). -Graphics: Although Alienware does have better graphics, Asus keeps and updates it's hardware. Alienware has costly updates. -Design: I have to give you a fair advantage for the design of Alienware, it does look pretty... But... You don't buy a laptop because you fell in love with it's looks, you will use this computer. Looks don't count when it comes to use. -Quality: Both Alienware and Asus have had quality issues in the past. Asus has had numerous users reporting that the G51 overheats too easily. Alienware, on the other hand, has some extremely poor customer reviews. Gaming laptops are somewhat fragile by nature. Packing expensive and powerful computer equipment into a small form factor is bound to result in high operating temperatures and long-term reliability problems. On the whole, both ASUS and Alienware laptops are as high of quality as you will find in any gaming laptop computer sold today. Who is the victor? Asus, by the cheaper price and updates. So it gives you more money to actually buy games rather than waste your money away on hardware and updates.
WWII changed warfare forever

War Deity vs. War Deity... a pretty interesting match. Let me start off by saying, as a daughter of Bellona, you yourself should know that war is not only because of territory, for example, the Peloponesian War happened because of Sparta's intuition that Athens will rise, the cold war was because of communism and democracy, World War l and World War ll mostly happened because of Invidia/Nemesis. If you are defining warfare as the style of how a war is conducted, then yes, warfare did change, but it did not change everything happening in war, so technically, it did not change warfare forever. In every war, people try to progress in any way they can to win the next one, and if I might suggest a battle that changed warfare (with your definition) widely, I would say it is not World War ll, but the Cold War. Wars, Battles, they are all endless. As long as we have evil in our hearts, and desire in our minds, we would never abolish warfare, and if we cannot abolish this destructive thing, then we cannot change it forever...
WWII changed warfare forever

Warfare... Warfare... oh! I remember... It is that thing where you kill each other for the sake of territory, culture cleansing, and other reasons which, at first sounds good until you see the violence caused in the name of whatever reason that is. Let's see... The war between Athens and Sparta happened because of a certain reason (In this case: Athen's fast development) then one of them was victor and the other lost. The victor progressed and the loser wept. The war between Greece and Persia happened because of a certain reason (In this case: Persia's expansion) then one of them was victor and the other lost. The victor progressed and the loser wept. The war between Rome and... a lot of barbarians happened because of a certain reason (In this case: Rome is filthy rich so the barbarians tried their luck) then one of them was victor and the other lost. The victor progressed and the loser wept. The war between the French Commoners and the French Government happened because of a certain reason (In this case: The king's power) then one of them was victor and the other lost. The victor progressed and the loser wept. The war between America and the Great Britain happened because of a certain reason (In this case: Taxes) then one of them was victor and the other lost. The victor progressed and the loser wept. The war between The Triple Alliance and The Triple Entente (World War 1) happened because of a certain reason (In this case: Murder) then one of them was victor and the other lost. The victor progressed and the loser wept. The war between The Axis Powers and the Allies (World War 2) Happened because of a certain reason (In this case: Revenge) then one of them was victor and the other lost. The victor progressed and the loser wept. The war between USA and USSR (The Cold Wars) happened because of a certain reason (In this case: Different Beliefs) then one of them was victor and the other lost. The victor progressed and the loser wept. The war between South and North Korea happened because of a certain reason (In this case: Communism vs. Democracy) then one of them was victor and the other lost. The victor progressed and the loser wept. With that said, I don't really see much change after world war ll
WWII changed warfare forever

Hello. Daughter of Bellona at your service. May the best demigod win. I believe WWII changed warfare because of many new technologies that arose from the war. 1) The invention of the atomic bomb. Little boy (Atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima) weighed 9.7 tons.(http://www.atomicheritage.org...). Little Boy killed 150,000 people, bringing on a whole new kind of fatal war. (http://www.aasc.ucla.edu...) 2) The creation of jet fighters also revolutionized war. Nazi 262s can fly up to 541 MPH. (http://militaryhistory.about.com...) these new back breaking speeds would forever change air battles and dogfights. 3) radar. Radar now allows us to protect ourselves from enemy advances. Without radar, we would be in the dark." 4) The Nazis invented the first military rockets with the vengeance series. (http://www.theotherside.co.uk...) This would lead to laser guided rockets, and space travel. I should also mention that the style of war changed completely also. With the blitzkrieg, we were no longer limited to slow, month long battles."
Both debaters must follow the rules.

The infraction count is now meaningless, as we have both broken foundation rules and 'lost'. However, you forfeited by not posting rules in any round so far. Despite the fact that we both have lost, I have won due to your forfeit. "You cant lose the same game twice bud" Neither of us lost this game twice. See above. 'You broke a foundation rule. You lost. The game was over. It did not matter that I did not post my rules because the game was over. " This game doesn't end until you post in R5. The rules apply until neither of us can post any more. I still cannot post rule that contradicts an earlier rule. If I posted rule 26 saying 'Con must NOT follow rule 25', it would be an invalid rule, as per the foundation rules (because it contradicts an earlier rule). The rules bind this debate until the end of R5 (and beyond in terms of voting). 25. Con must refer to pants in R5. 26. Con must follow rule 25. 27. Con must follow rule 26.
Both debaters must follow the rules.

Bud you cant compare this to my debate with mongeese because in my debate with mongeese both of us still believed there was a game to be lost. Even though there wasnt because he lost the same way you did. I just didnt realise it in that debate. The only reason you still believe that you won is because you are still counting infractions, but infractions have only to do with the rules we create going by the foundation rules. 10. Breaking a foundation rule results in the breaker's automatic loss. You cant lose the same game twice bud..... You can commit infractions of the rules which would be counted in the end and the one with less infractions would be declared the winner. But you didn't commit just any old infraction. You broke a foundation rule. You lost. The game was over. It did not matter that I did not post my rules because the game was over. Be a man and admit defeat.
Both debaters must follow the rules.

That makes Con's third forfeit. I may have broken a foundation rule and lost, but he did as well. When one of two losers forfeits, the other one wins. He has again failed to address my arguments. Again, "6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. " No matter what else has happened, NotPurpleHaze has forfeited this debate. I agree that I have 'lost', however, his forfeit surpasses my 'loss'. 22. Con must follow rule 21. 23. Con must follow rule 22. 24. Con must follow rule 23. NotPurpleHaze, would you say that you have broken a foundation rule? A similar thing happened in mongeese's rule debate with NotPurpleHaze. Mongeese said, ""6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. " [NotPurpleHaze] did not post any rules, and therefore, forfeits this debate. I win. Plain and simple. Regardless of the arguments, a forfeit results in my instant victory. ", to which NPH replied, "Balls. .. ". Check it out: . http://www.Debate.org... .
Both debaters must follow the rules.

I'll concede that I broke a foundation rule. However, you have even more clearly broken two: "6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. " "12. ToastOfDestiny must use the numbers 13-27 and NotPurpleHaze must use the numbers 28-42 for their respective rules. " So this is what has happened in this debate, as nonsensical as it is. I lost automatically in R1. You lost automatically in R1. At that point, a voter would have to vote 'tied'. However, you also forfeited in R1 by not posting rules. Therefore, I win this debate. Let me give a quick example of a fictitious debate that follows this same pattern. Debate: neither debater may use the letter 'e'. Pro: Apart from this sentence, neither of us can use the letter 'e'. Let the games begin! Con: Haha! You used the letter 'e'. Whatever, I forfeit. Pro: Shucks. We both lose, but he forfeited. Vote for me! Con: Don't do it! He lost first! Vote for me. Also, I forfeit. It is clear that both players have lost, right? However, voters need to vote Pro here, as Con also lost, but forfeited too. He forfeited in round 2 as well. No matter how many foundation rules I broke in R1 (even if I broke every single one), you must vote for me, as Con has forfeited. Remember: 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. Con never refutes this forfeit in R2. He glides right past it, conceding the point. He has conceded his forfeit, thus conceding this debate. 19. Con should refer to pants in R3. 20. Con must follow rule 19. 21. Con must follow rule 20.
Both debaters must follow the rules.

No my friend. Say I were to post a rule restricting myself from using the word lemon, would you be able to post a rule to make me say lemon? Any rule I could possibly make to restrict myself, would in some way restrict you. So there is no way that I could not break your rules. "7. Rules cannnot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an oppportunity to not break each rule." See this part: Each player should have an oppportunity to not break each rule." Again... "10. Breaking a foundation rule results in the breaker's automatic loss." Thank you. And I reckon you should go change your vote on myself and mongeeses debate because he lost in the same way!!
Both debaters must follow the rules.

Con's actions are interesting, however, he seals his own coffin by not posting any rules. More on that later - right now I will address his accusations. "Because any rule that I could possibly post to restrict myself from doing anything would also be a restriction on Pro from posting a rule that would force me to do what I have restricted myself from doing." You wouldn't be restricting me at all - the foundation rules would be restricting me. You wouldn't be stopping me from posting a rule contrary to your own; foundation rule 2 ("no later rule can contradict an earlier rule") would be. Now let's look at the foundation rules that Con has broken. "6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit." "12. ToastOfDestiny must use the numbers 13-27 and NotPurpleHaze must use the numbers 28-42 for their respective rules." Con has broken TWO foundation rules. He can only allege that I have broken one, while I can show you with certainty that he has broken two. "10. Breaking a foundation rule results in the breaker's automatic loss." This leaves us in a situation in which both debaters have automatically lost by breaking the foundation rules. However, One of us (Con) has forfeited as well. This means you MUST vote for me over Con. 16. Con must write his discussion on rule-breaks (though not rules) in an ABCABC rhyming scheme. 17. Con's poetry must reference Petrarch as his inspiration. 18. Con must strongly encourage voters to vote Pro in all subsequent rounds. He may not negate this encouragement with statements which have similar meanings to "the following is what you should NOT do" or "just kidding".
Both debaters must follow the rules.

"13. Con's rules must restrict himself and only himself." Pro has broken foundation rule number 7 with this rule. "7. Rules cannnot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an oppportunity to not break each rule." Because any rule that I could possibly post to restrict myself from doing anything would also be a restriction on Pro from posting a rule that would force me to do what I have restricted myself from doing. "10. Breaking a foundation rule results in the breaker's automatic loss." Thank you for the debate............