BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should everything be taxed

you are a loser PERVERT THAT DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT TAXES WOW BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM! BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM! PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you believe it is right for Christians to condemn other people.

First of all how awesome it is to discuss theology with another believer! I by no means am going to insult you or call you a apostate or a heretic, but for the sake of the debate and for being the devil's advocate (no pun intended) I will argue for the other side. Second I would like to examine the verse that you quoted, "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."-Matthew 5:7. The passage that verse is taken from does by no mean prohibit all types of judging. There is a righteous kind of judgment we are supposed to exercise with careful discernment (John 7:24), but not the type of judging that is self-righteous, hypocritical, or other unfair judgments. Now with that being said I agree that we shouldn't judge or condemn with the types of judgments listed above, but we should never incapacitate our judgement so that we can't tell what are lies to truths or what is right and what is wrong. Further along you could say that I would judge or condemn a false preacher, because they have greater accountability and are set to higher standard and I certainly would not want them to lead others astray. In essence I would be using my righteous judgment. All in all if one were to look at it Christians do and don't have the right to condemn other people. It all is based upon wisdom to know when and where to exercise your fair, righteous judgement that you can judge your self by. Resources: NKJV MacArthur Study Bible
Do you believe it is right for Christians to condemn other people.

I would like another Christain to argue with me, or at-least an open-minded Atheist.Well occasionally you come across people who say things like "Jesus will send you to Hell if you do X, or if you do Y you won't go to heaven, etc." I do get it is Christian religion to have such a belief, but the thing is most Christians don't truly understand is that they too are sinners so why are sinners trying to prove other sinners wrong? "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5 NIV) Which is basically saying that you shouldn't condemn others if you sin yourself even if you didn't commit that certain crime that you are condemning others of or because "you never will do so."So hypothetically you did commit that same crime you are condemning others under Jesus's name a few years later (I know oh no, this doesn't apply to me, I'll never do that.) Anyways, hypothetically you do, do that and other Christains are now condemning you.Aren't you supposed to love your enemies. Jesus didn't sit with the Pharases and Preists, he sat with the sinners and accepted their flaws. I believe that it is our duty as a Christian to reach a helping hand out to the sinners and accept them with an open heart no matter how much they might mistreat us. "If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them." (Luke 6:29 NIV)Feel free to tell me how your deviatiton of Christianity is different, because I'm a Protestant and believe we should have a close relationship with Jesus, (because after all Christian means Little Christ/follower of Christ)
Is Alyssa A SisgenderScrub

I do not know Alyssa, as I do not go to the disclosed school. So I cannot say if she is a scrub or not. What I can say, though, is that she is not a sisgender. The prefix "sis" usually refers to either femininity or weakness. The root word "gender" is an indication if you are male, female, or other. So being female-gendered may make sense (Assuming Alyssa is female), but the question asks if she is a sisgender. So that would mean she is either a female female or a cowardly female. She may be the latter, but it is impossible to be a female female.
The NFL is more entertaining than the NBA

Like i said in my last argument the NFL is more interesting because not the same team wins every year. 2 teams have not completely dominated the NBA throughout its entire existence like the Lakers and Celtics have. The NFL is a contact sport where every time the ball is hiked someone might get hit really badly whereas the NBA someone gets tapped its a automatic foul. The weather conditions add a twist to the game, makes it a lot more interesting instead of the same indoor scenery every single game. The NFL gets higher ratings than the NBA, in fact out of the 3 major sports MLB, NFL, and NBA the NBA receives the lowest ratings which is why their salary cap is so low. The NFL playoff system is a one game elimination which makes for a very good game because both teams understand they both can not afford to slip and there is no "next time" unlike the NBA where the teams get multiple chances. The NBA playoff structure might as well be a 1 game elimination structure because the favorite to win usually does, most of the NBA finals have not went past a 4-2 series. over the past decade half of the outcomes resulted in a 4-1 or 4-0(swept) series and only one finals went to a game 7 series. Those are not really interesting series to watch to see a team dominate over another.
The NFL is more entertaining than the NBA

Thank you for the debate. I ask that the voters vote based on the debate rather than on personal opinion. ========================== Break down of my opponents arguments: ========================== 1. Unpredictable Outcomes: Loserboi asserts that the NFL is unpredictable in the sense that you don't know who will make the playoffs and/or win the championship. This argument fails until my opponent proves this or shows evidence that this is actually the case. I will further argue this one once he backs it up. 2. The playoff structure is more entertaining: This is left for personal preference however i will show points to try and prove my point and leave it up to the voters. 1. One game elimination vs Best of 7 series. There is a reason that during any experiment it is often preferred to have multiple trials, the results of 1 trial simply are not always accurate. That is why the experiment is often done 3-5 times. It also adds an interesting edge that during the NBA playoffs the teams get a chance to play in both their home teams arena AND their opponents, this gives both of their fans a chance to watch the game, and shows how a team can play in the comfort of their own arena and see how they fair in the pressure of their opponents. "The teams in the NFL playoffs a lot of the time are of same skill level or have some leverage over the other team like in defense, or offense or sometimes their skills are equally compatible for the top 6 teams that makes it in each conference." This is the exact same way the NBA is. "The NFL overall is more entertaining just by how the system works making every year suspenseful" This is so far not shown to be true. ========== My arguments: ========== The NBA is more entertaining not only for the reasons i gave above but for the following as well: 1. Fast paced. The games move along quicker and flow better than the NFL, during football the game pretty much stops after each down/play whereas basketball games only stop during a time out and/or a call is made such as a foul (where the game doesn't actually stop.) 2. Scoring, in basketball there is a lot more scoring a lot more frequently which keeps suspension up, and is just more entertaining. 3. Inside arena ( insert silly face here) When you watch a basketball game, the arena is much more comfortable, you don't have to worry about extreme weather conditions like heat, cold, rain/snow etc you can simply watch the game. Everyone enjoys a game more when they are comfortable! Loserboi has yet to convince me that the NFL is more entertaining than the NBA, this is all I' giving for now, good luck to my opponent in the next round!
The NFL is more entertaining than the NBA

The NFL is more entertaining than the NBA because every year is unpredictable you never know who will win the championship or even make the playoffs for the fact. The NBA every year you can probably tell who will make the playoffs and who will probably win the Championship based on the power rankings made by analysts or even the events of last year. The playoff structure is more entertaining 1 game elimination opposed to a series best out of 7. The teams in the NFL playoffs a lot of the time are of same skill level or have some leverage over the other team like in defense, or offense or sometimes their skills are equally compatible for the top 6 teams that makes it in each conference. In the NBA a lot of the time one team is seen to be a dominate favorite to win. The NFL overall is more entertaining just by how the system works making every year suspenseful
Pakistan should sue america for coming in Pakistan to attack through drones.

I disagree. The Untied States did a lot of good with those drones. Civilian death's are a part of war, their is no way to avoid them. This is just theoretical but maybe those civilians new about the terrorist living there, that means they were harboring enemies of ours, this could justify the bombings. As to the video game aspect I disagree as well. Pilots of unmanned aircraft never think of it as a video game, they know when they pull the trigger, real people will die. Sometimes you just have to accept civilian casualties as necessary. If undercover special forces get discovered by a man, women or child, they have to kill them or they will go back to the enemy and tell them. It is a sad, but necessary action.
It is as likely or more likely that 9/11 was an inside job as compared to any other scenario.

My opponent drops both of his final rounds. I ask that my points are extended. I also realize that most people are in firm disapproval of the topic which I stand for in this debate so I ask that you set your personal opinions aside and simply judge this as a debate and not a personal preference. This debate or the outcome of it has no bearing on the real world what-so-ever. My position: 9/11 is as likely to have been an inside job as compared to any other scenario. This is because all of the evidence combined offers substantial doubt on the official story, enough so for there to have been other possibilities. Thank you.
It is as likely or more likely that 9/11 was an inside job as compared to any other scenario.

1. Because the plane disintegrated. 2. Most of the holes were caused by the strongest structure of the plane, the landing gear (Official story). I don't see why physics would somehow require the plane to create a cookie cutter outline. I would like to address your idea of a missile right now before I move on. The idea requires you to prove that the government hired hundreds of people to plant derbies all over the field, paint "AMERICAN AIRLINES" on it, plant plane derbies, ETC ETC. All of the families would have to be fake, the friends of the families of those on the plane.... Are you able to prove all of that? 3. More on this later. 4. K. 5. If you look though the photos I showed, there's photos of lamp poles knocked down by the plane.... Now.... How would a missile do that? Furthermore, the explosion is clearly seen from the outside- are you to suggest the missile went all the way though the building, turned 180 degrese around, came back out, and exploded again? - 1-2. The passport was in poor condition. Many papers and other parts of the plane were found, there's no reason to suggest that some items from the plane could not have possibly made it- especially considering some DID make it. 3. The BBC was doing a report on mistaken identity. -- 1. The buildings didn't fall at free fall either. 10 seconds is made up, the videos I showed clearly show at least 14 seconds, perhaps 16. 1-2 facts -- did you ignore my entire part about me explaining how you misunderstood what 'pull' meant? "My opponents last argument is that my last four points were all ad hominem. This is all true," Which nullifies them. Sorry that I was so brief, I promise my next arguments will be better.
Agnostic Viewpoint

I'll drop the scientific theories argument because it doesn't really matter. As I noted before, it was really more of a sidebar. I'd also like to point out that I was citing various explanations for creation to note the scientific process and that they are not necessarily making assumptions. It had nothing to do with my standpoint as an Atheist. Now, on to the real area of debate. You say that I need to provide proof for the negative. But why? Again, it is the idea of Russell's Teapot: the burden of proof does not lie on the skeptic. Rather, it lies on the person making a claim to a positive. IF you make a claim, it is up to you to prove that claim. But the skeptic is making no claim. They are simply defaulting to the negative. They require no proof for the negative,a s no proof has been offered for anything else. It is not an assumption to rest in the negative; it is simply a default. You kind of went around this point and didn't offer any real argument against Russell's Teapot. You said that the negative has to offer proof, but you gave no reason why. However, there is a reason as to why the positive should offer proof. The psotive is making a claim. As the claim-maker, it is up to them to prove this claim. On the flip side, people in the negative makes no claim. They just default against unproven claims.
Agnostic Viewpoint

Excellent points Khan, not all of these scientific explanations are BASED purely on assumption. Much of it is seeing our environment and drawing likely conclusions from it. However, we do not know for fact that any specific theory is correct, just as there is no solid proof that a god does not exist- It is an irrefutable POSSIBILITY that a god may exist. You debate from an Atheist standpoint, but you offer more than one possible explanation for creation. Which means that you are ASSUMING(taking it for granted) that there is definitely no god, based on these POSSIBILITIES that science offers. My Agnostic standpoint does not take anything for granted. Agnosticism simply means to "be at terms" with the fact that nobody knows the true deal with creation at THIS point in time. As far as the mythical creatures go, it is true that we do not know for certain whether they exist or not- we haven't seen them. However there does lie that small possibility that some of them could, or could have existed. Some things we simply do not have the information to know for sure... It is MOST DEFINITELY making an assumption to default to the negative with no proof. You need proof to state something as a negative, the same as you need proof to verify something as a positive.
Three Philosophical Topics - 1D

"Now the topic is if free will exists. Not if one model is better than another. If you wanted to debate that then you should have made it clear. " ----> This is why I advise you and others to read up on more literature concerning free will. The Leeway and Source model are attempts to explain the concept of control (and how we should conceive of it). Depending on which model we accept, our approach to free will can vary greatly - for example, I find the Source model to be correct and under it's framework, I find free will to be implausible. At this point you have 2 ways of attacking my position: by either demonstrating the falsehood of the Source model or the falsehood of the connection between the Source model and the denial of free will. In response to your intentional finger burning example, I will first point out an obvious possible reason for doing so and then go on to rant (heh) about the irrelevance of such counterexamples that free will advocates commonly employ: Firstly, a possible reason excluding impressing people or for personal gain is perhaps you are attempting to prove you have free will. This is a hilariously ironic possibility, but a plausible one as well. After all, wouldn't doing something with seemingly no benefit show credibility for free will? Yet, I have supplied a perfectly "rational reason" for your action - as you would put it. Now, I want to say a thing about these examples. .. they are rubbish. It's common for those who believe in free will to act in a similar fashion when confronted with someone who doesn't believe in the existence of free will. They would do something random (like speak some lines of gibberish) and point at this random, incoherent, and seemingly pointless act and hail it as a proof of free will. Not only is this incredibly weak empirical evidence, it ignores the philosophic reasons for denying free will. I and others aren't saying free will is the ability to do any type of act, but rather we conceive of free will as a SPECIFIC TYPE of acting. A type of acting that would (in my view) originate from you as the ultimate cause and harbor moral responsibilities along with it. This is the type of acting that is what I am talking about, and of which I find nonexistent. It's this common failure among most who support free will that bars a good debate on this subject. Yes, I agree you have freedom of physical action, but free will is some metaphysical notion that you are clearly missing.
Three Philosophical Topics - 1D

I'm not going to let you get away with regurgitating text. Your going to have to give reason. So then you agree that the definition is correct. It may be "broad and generic" as you say, but it is correct. Now the topic is if free will exists. Not if one model is better than another. If you wanted to debate that then you should have made it clear. You are welcome to use a model to help prove your case. To say that you support a model is not saying much of anything. According to the topic it's not required that i prove a model wrong, it's your job to prove that rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, choices. Do you understand that? I'll tell you what, i'm going to give you a simple hypothetical situation and all you have to do is prove that there is "rational" reason for it. Your free to post and explain any models you want. OK. Let's say that I turn my stove top burner on high. I'll wait and let it get nice and hot. Next i will place my finger on the burner and fight my impulses to take it off. In fact i'll even use my other hand to help hold my finger on the burner. My nervous system and brain are screaming at me and shoot pain down my arm into my finger. I refuse to pull my finger off. It takes a bit of "will power" but, i manage to keep my finger on the burner for a longer period than my brain is telling me. Notes: I am not doing this to impress anyone, and i'm not doing it for any sort of personal gain. Why am i doing it? only because i can, no other reason, it is my 'free will'. sorry for dramatic example in the last post, but i think it's the only way to make a point. your up..
Three Philosophical Topics - 1D

"Free will - raises the question whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, choices. HELLO! That's what it means. And yet you have still made no case for your side. You have said nothing about why you think free will does not exist." ----> You obviously have no clue what I'm talking about. That definition is a broad and generic one, for the very reason that there are different ways of pursuing the free will problem. As I have mentioned, there are two models of control that are debates over - the Leeway model and the Source model. I support the Source model, and thus DENY free will's existence since under that understanding of control (that for an agent to have free will he must the ultimate/original source of his actions), free will is not feasible. I HAVE given a case, you just don't seem to read what I said. "Here i'll post what your going to say because you have a text book in front of you right?" ----> No, but I highly recommend you get one for yourself. "Your going to say it that every event, including human cognition, behavior, decision, and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences." ----> That can be one of the premises' of the consequence argument, but for now I'm denying free will under the context of the Source model. "Use your own brain kid." ----> This is ironically fitting for yourself. "Now if some guy takes a shotgun and blows your mommy's head off i bet you change your view point real quick." ----> What a meager emotive argument you're using; I hope you really don't think that is a legitimate argument worth considering. " Is he not responsible? I guess he did not have 'free will'.. we should let him go." ---->Morally responsible? No. Legally responsible? Yes. So even though we don't believe in free will, you can still imprison him for reasons such as not wanting criminals on the street.
Three Philosophical Topics - 1D

Free will - raises the question whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, choices. HELLO! That's what it means. And yet you have still made no case for your side. You have said nothing about why you think free will does not exist. Here i'll post what your going to say because you have a text book in front of you right? Your going to say it that every event, including human cognition, behavior, decision, and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. Use your own brain kid. Now if some guy takes a shotgun and blows your mommy's head off i bet you change your view point real quick. Is he not responsible? I guess he did not have 'free will'.. we should let him go.