BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
BIRT America should continue to participate in the Military Coalition against ISIS

Ah yes, good morning to you as well, I"d imagine you"ve probably done some research on my profile to figure out who exactly I am by now which I wouldn"t blame you. I"m fairly new to Debate.org but not to debate, I Debate in the National Forensics League as a US Student. I"m just as interested in this topic as you so I"d hope to keep it friendly. Now with my negative constructive. The United States should spend the next few years to work on self-development: Ever since World War 1 the United States has felt the obligation to support and police the world, practically doing the mission the United Nations set out to do. First we need to understand that the United States is not UNICEF and the entire world is not ruled by African warlords capturing children to serve in a civil war. If the United States wants to help in international affairs it should be done through the United Nations this way it could protect US assets and be done as a collective whole. Unlike World War 1 however this war on terror hasn"t boosted our economy, if anything it"s done the exact opposite. You cannot declare war on an idea, as John F. Kennedy said "A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on", I believe that if we want to stop the rise of ISIS we need to work on it from a more domestic standpoint rather than an offensive and international standpoint. I"ll pitch a few ideas and allow you and the public to rebut and comment on them. Let"s face it, the United States like every other country will cease to ever be perfect, but the United States has a ton of problems going on domestically that need to be worked on. The United States still has failed to secure its southern border, still in debt, still has tension between citizens and may be on the verge of another civil war, there"s a lot going on right now... Granted I"m not saying the United States shouldn"t get involved but we should do it through ways that can benefit us, bring our troops back home, focus more domestically, support the aid through the United Nations or other groups. The United States should only get involved militaristically when things back home are alright or there"s a massive attack on US Soil (9/11).What will be the most beneficial for our citizens, economy, and allies, that"s what this boils down to. Idea 1: Send aid through supporting international groups such as NATO or the United Nations and do it in such a fashion to protect our assets. Idea 2: Don"t get involved (This will clash with your third argument but I"ll wait until the next round to begin rebuts) Idea 3: Work on educating citizens to prevent them from joining ISIS, work towards cutting off the finical assets of ISIS through the intelligence community
BIRT America should continue to participate in the Military Coalition against ISIS

Rules: - No trolling or semantics. - No swears or racial slurs. - Forfeiting means an automatic loss, unless deemed okay by both sides. - If you break the rules of each round (as specified below), automatic conduct violation. - No google doc links. Order of rounds: R1: Acceptance and definitions. R2: Maximum 2 arguments, no rebuttals. R3: Maximum 2 arguments and rebuttals are allowed. R4: ONLY rebuttals and conclusions. Con may not refute what I have said in R4, because I don"t have a chance to do so for your R4 either. Definitions: The military coalition we will refer to in this case is specifically the American led-effort proposed by President Obama, who laid out his plans to the public in the September of 2014. To make the above even less ambiguous, we will define "participate in" as active participation via the deployment of offensive military assets. ISIS is referred to the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria America is defined as well, I assume you will know what the United States is
Rap Battle

My opponent has gone on a long rant that is insulting and vulgar and I ask you voter to take this into consideration when voting. My opponent cleanly drops all my arguments and thus he admits rap battles are bad in certain cases meaning by default you negate. Remember my opponent allowed me to frame this debate any way I wanted. My opponent is saying the title was, "NO RULES, ALL EXEPTION". I agree their were no rules, but "exeption" is not a word and thus my opponent gains nothing from this argument. My opponent is trying to change the debate which he is not allowed to do in his final round, it can be assumed that since he failed to counter any arguments he has forfeited and thus you should vote Pro by default. My opponent even says "im not taking up your argument" meaning he cleanly admits he is dropping it. Furthermore my opponent's entire argument is a rap which only backs up my argument even further that rap battling is good, and thus turn my opponent's entire argument against him. Therefore since my opponent has forfeited, you may vote off any argument in Round 2 such as that rap is the progression of civilization. My opponent has allowed me in Round 1 to frame the debate and he may not change this framework in his last round. He never refuted my frame work in Round 2 and thus that went cleanly dropped. Therefore you vote Pro. P.S, (Just a little fun rap for me) My opponent's rhymes were whack. His skills did lack. I hope he checks his opening formatting before he comes back. He will now learn his lesson after I left him to dry on a rack. Another victory that was easier than a smack. My pet rock has more skills than this tack. It lives in a shack yet it rhymes more than this piece of flak. Sky_ace25 out!
Rap Battle

OKAY, I went along with your bullsh*t for one round. But you've no proof of anything you clown. Your just a google fenatic, your mums should be ashamed, the b*tch she birthed a spastic. The title of this debate is rap battle, NO RULES, ALL EXEPTION. Rap Battle, it seems you know not of its definition, your just a brainless erection. Taking this into ccount, your argument is null and void. This is a rap battle, im like an A-Bomb, your just its replica toy. I pi$$ your elementry talk out my d*ck like orange wizz. Shouldnt you be out on the street playing with all the other kids. I molest your debate, and rewrite its rules, now contemplate. NO RULES ,ALL EXEPTIONS, i change my stance and take up your side of the debate. I am now pro and you are con, and id prefer some rhymes from you, kinda lika a sing along. No wait, im not taking up your argument, it was sh*t. Right now your felling like you did when that first plan did hit. These are my rules, a schtsofrenic on the drool.. Another waisted cyber space. And your another useless case.
Rap Battle

. http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... Now then my opponent contends case as in a court room, however since he has accepted the burden of all cases that also includes fake cases, so here are two videos that have raps in court rooms which cancels his argument. Furthermore a rap battle in a court room does not have to occur with a judge, but can occur with other people. Further more my opponent's definition of rap never covers how intense it has to be. If I tell my judge my opening statement in a sing-song voice, which I'm sure people have done before, then I am still technically rapping, as it is a small rhythm. Furthermore my opponent has not proved why a rap in a courtroom would be BAD. I contend that it may actually provoke some form of applause at how diverse one lawyer tries to be. You can't be discriminated based on how you present a case, thus rap would only be a plus. However, to expand on the definition of case which my opponent never clearly defines with valid definitions I present, case-character case-an occurrence of something wordnetweb. princeton. edu/perl/webwn Now thus my argument that rap battles are good in all occurrences is now justified. Furthermore my opponent must prove that rappers are bad, as they are a case (character), and he must prove thus that all rappers which make money and power and have respect among the community are bad. This means even rappers such as Will Smith and his clean rap which was highly popular with the folks. My opponent goes on this long rant about the "spoken word", yet he offers no link as to how that disproves rapping's success. Further more the environment would be destroyed anyway by an asteroid or meteor so this is not a harm associated only with raps. To conclude, my opponent has argued that court cases are bad, but he has accepted the burden in ALL cases. This means these rap videos alone disprove that claim, as they are popular videos that took place in a court room. Further more my opponent must still prove how all rappers are bad, and how all cases of rap battling are bad. Remember the exact definition of case, which my opponent although given the chance, failed to provide. All interpretations of case possible my opponent must be able to defend as his burden that he has accepted. I still contend that in our cultural world their are many rappers who are looked up to by the younger generation such as Tupac, and their are many cases in the modern world where rap battling is a very daily cultural interaction which have helped progress humanity further. If my opponent argues that this is not the truth, remember he has allowed me to frame this debate anyway I saw fit and he has not refuted his point.
Rap Battle

Rap battles are bad in every case…………… Because my opponent never stated what "every case whatsoever" means, I am going to presume that he means "every legal case whatsoever in a court room". Now people, imagine being in a court room, your lawyer is stating the case that "rap battles are bad in every case". All of a sudden you stand up and start trying to have a rap battle with the old judge in his grey wig, the judge slams down his hammer silence in the courtroom, you continue insulting him with your spits, the judge growls out "silence or ill put you in contempt of this court", you continue to try rap battling him, he calls security to throw you out of the court house. In every courtroom case whatsoever, rap battles are bad, you will be held in contempt of the court. My opponent claims that trying to rap battle people in a courtroom case is a key part of our culture and represents the progress of our children into a new culture trend. This is a very awkward stance on there subject of "rap battles are good in every case whatsoever" and I fear that my opponent may suffer from a dreaded incurable case of stupidity. My opponent will now try to convince the reader that I have made a mistake on what this debate is about, but rest assured I have not made a mistake. The definition of "rap" Rapping (also known as emceeing, MCing, spitting (bars), or just rhyming) is the rhythmic spoken delivery of rhymes, wordplay, and poetry. Rapping is a primary ingredient in hip hop music, but the phenomenon predates hip hop culture by centuries. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rap Taking this into consideration I see that the spoken word was man's greatest evolutionary step that led us to evolve into what we are today, an animal that uses and destroys its environment (similar to a virus) for its own greed driven desires. Without the spoken word there would be no rap, without the spoken word the planet would be more or less like it was 1 million years ago, a thriving world of plant and animal life but because of the spoken word that lead to rap it is a polluted and contaminated world. In every case whatsoever rap battles are bad!!
Rap Battle

My opponent has allowed me to frame this debate, and he said no rules all (exceptions, I'm guessing). My opponent has the burden of proof to prove that rap battles are bad. My opponent's only argument is "let it blast solider" yet he offers you no connection as to why rap battles are bad. I actually contend "let it blast solider" is a way to start a rap battle if anything and thus turn this argument against my opponent. Rap battles are a key part of our culture, and they represent the progress of our children into a new cultural trend. To stop them would be cultural backwardness, and oppression. For my opponent to win this round he must prove that Rap battles are bad in all cases whatsoever, (remember he has allowed me to frame this debate). As of now he has not done this and thus you vote Pro. Thank you.
Time itself is not flowing thing

We do not know the thing itself. We know the knowledge about the thing itself is different with knowledge from impressions. Therefore, time itself is not flowing and static thing. We also represent time is flowing and static. Similarly, we express quantum is wave and particle. False dichotomy via ordinary words still explains the physical world as it is. 'Thing' I noted does not mean directly recognizable thing like the chair. Kant's arguments you referred do not rebut 'time itself is not flowing thing.'
Time itself is not flowing thing

Well, I thought your thesis was that time is not a flowing thing. Anyway, perhaps there is a false dichotomy here. We are given two options: either time is a flowing thing or a time is a static thing. But, perhaps there is a third option. Namely, why must we assume that time is a thing at all? Immanuel Kant put forth a fascinating view on time in the Transcendental Aesthetic of Critique of Pure Reason. There, he argues that time is not an object that is mind-independent, a real thing that exists outside of us in the same way as objects like tables, chairs, books, etc. Instead, time is framework through which we view reality. It is the form of our awareness of our inner states and of external reality. One way that Kant attempted to demonstrate the nature of time is through a thought experiment. Imagine a typical experience. Let us say we are walking down a street--there are cars, trees, grass, people, etc. One by one, we can remove each thing from the scene. But the one thing we cannot remove is time. Can anyone imagine a timeless scene? The scene is always in time. Therefore, time must be different than the objects that occupy the scene. It is the foundational framework through which we cognize reality.
Paul Preached A New Gospel

ResolvedThe Apostle Paul preached a novel Gospel of Grace which was not known prior to the revelation given to him by Jesus Christ and which is distinct from the Gospel of the Kingdom preached during Christ's Earthly ministry and by the disciples after His ascension into heaven. DefinitionsNovel - New; not previously known.Distinct - Separate; apart from; unique.Gospel of Grace - The good news for all men in this dispensation of Grace whereby one may become part of the Body of Christ, where there is no distinction between Israel and Gentiles, through the faith of Christ, His vicarious death, and His shed blood upon the cross of Calvary, and apart from any works of one's own self, where belief and trust in Christ's finished work of redemption and the power of His atoning blood which has covered all sins once-and-for-all is the only requirement for a salvation which is secured and certain upon belief by the seal of the Holy Spirit.Gospel of the Kingdom - The good news for Israel in the dispensation of the Kingdom whereby one may attain a position in an Earthly kingdom in the New Jerusalem through one's faith shown forth by his works, beginning with repentance of unbelief in Christ, water baptism for the remission of sin, and perseverance unto the end, thus salvation is an uncertain future event.Rules1. Please accept this debate challenge only if you are a Christian who believes the 66 books of the canon of scripture to be your final authority.2. Only arguments from scripture will be considered.3. No logical fallacies or red herrings/slanders!StructureRound 1 - Acceptance (No Arguments)Round 2 - Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals)Round 3 - Rebuttals (No New Arguments)Round 4 - Defense of Arguments Only (No New Rebuttals or Arguments)*Acceptance of this debate entails an understanding and acceptance of the definitions, rules and structure of this debate. Any deviation from these should result in the loss of all points at the discretion of the prospective voter. If you have any question or concern about the debate setup, please inquire in the comment section BEFORE accepting this debate! Thanks.
Paul Preached A New Gospel

I will explain what your scriptural evidence means. Peter's revelation WAS that justification and salvation were reached by faith. However, ,Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did also teach about faith, such as the fishing story where Jesus walked on water, and he told Peter to walk to him on the water. When Peter did he started sinking and Jesus cried out "Oh, you of little faith, why did you doubt". (Matthew 14:22-33, Mark 6:45-50) The meaning of the Cross is not specified in Acts 8 because Acts 8 isn't about the cross. Therefore there is no reason to state the meaning of the Cross. Paul had the same veiws on the cross as being a holy symbol as Matthew, Mark Luke, and John.
Paul Preached A New Gospel

Opening ArgumentsQuite simply, Paul's Gospel was given to him by revelation concerning a mystery which was a hidden secret from the foundation of the world (Romans 16:25, Galatians 1:11-12, Ephesians 3:1-5, Colossians 1:25-27, 1 Timothy 1:11, et al).Paul preached a Gospel which taught that all men could be saved by grace through faith by believing in the atoning power of the shed blood of Christ on the cross, that Jesus died for their sins, and that through the faith of Christ, we could be justified and forever secure in Christ (Romans 3:25, Romans 5:9, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:7, et al).The purpose of the cross was unknown until it was revealed to Paul first (Luke 18:34, Matthew 16:21-23, Timothy 1:16)The cross was even preached as a shameful indictment of murder against the Jews by Peter after Christ's ascension into heaven (Acts 2:36, Acts 3:13-15, Acts 4:10). Paul gloried in the cross and sought only the knowledge of the purpose of His crucifixion in his fellow brethren (Galatians 6:14, 1 Corinthians 2:2).It is my contention that nowhere in Matthew-Acts 8 do we find the purpose of the cross preached, known or understood, and therefore we do not find the Gospel of Grace until it is revealed to Paul (Acts 20:24).
Paul Preached A New Gospel

Paul preached the same Gospel: I agree that Paul did create another unrecorded Gospel, but I don't believe that he taught it any different from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Paul almost definitely Based his Gospel on the previous Gospels written by Matthew and Mark. Although he has never recorded his teachings he was given the blessing of the Holy Spirit just as the other four. This blessing not only allowed all to understand them but it could have given them knowledge of the life of Jesus. Matthew, Mark, and John (Luke followed their examples) were all with Jesus as he taught, Peter was likewise. Peter, Matthew, Mark and Luke all agreed with Jesus' teachings, had all the same opinions on them, and all taught them as they thought Jesus would. I doubt Peter would have wanted to teach differently than Jesus would. I look forward to debating with you :)
maybe is a powerfull word when there is no answer

I love a quote I heard the other day.........."whenever I hear someone saying "I'm just telling it like it is", it so often means that they are telling it like "they are". I feel the same goes for questions we can ask. To use the works "maybe" and "powerful" and "no answer" in such a small question is quite a feat in an effort to begin a dialogue or debate about God. However, based on my anecdotal quote from above, personal perception becomes seemingly relevant, as we usually use words to express where we are in our own minds. We are all in the process of "becoming", and the only truth is that of our own, from our own perspective. No two "truths" are required to be the same. That is only conditioning from society, and the way we feel connected to others.
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Just add the previous two digits together to get the next digit in the sequence: 1 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 8 - 13 - 21 - 34 - 55 - 89 - 144 - 233 - 377 - 610 - 987 - 1597 - 2584 - 4181 - 6765 Select any 2 consecutive numbers from the list. Divide the larger number by the smaller one. You will end up with an approximation of the Golden Ratio. The larger the 2 numbers are, the closer the approximation is. This ratio largely influenced Renaissance artists and can be found in the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper, among other artworks. [1][2] [1] http://library.thinkquest.org... [2] http://www.mathematicianspictures.com...
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

I negate the resolution, because I believe beauty is in the body of the beheld. ======= Refutation ======= PRO only makes one claim, which is that "The attractiveness of a person is determined by their own self, and people cannot know they are wrong for saying such a thing. " Unfortunately, she fails to back it up. She only gives a testimony of her own attraction, which is hardly admissable considering her goal is to win this debate. There is no justification whatsoever from PRO that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ' ======= Alternative ======= Your beauty is determined by the mathematical proportions of your body. The more closely your body's proportions are to the Golden Ratio (1.618), the more attractive other people find you. [1] Hate to break it to you, but beauty is only skin deep. [1] . http://www.intmath.com...
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Beauty- the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest). (Random House) The attractiveness of a person is determined by their own self, and people cannot know they are wrong for saying such a thing. For example, I do not think the DDO user "Asiandebater" is attractive in any way (http://www.debate.org...) , yet I find Rachel McAdams to be extremely pretty (http://fredvidal.files.wordpress.com...). Futhermore, as I have never met "asiandebater" before, but have seen Ms. McAdams act, I can conclude that personality has an effect on overall attractiveness of a person.
Which car company has the most pretty fastest cheapest car

Well you see pretty is a matter of opinion, and the Hellcat has the same top speed as the Corvette Stingray and a lot more power, but are you sure you didn't mean the Z06 because the Z06 is the one that's $80,000, if so then I will change to the Dodge Viper Srt, it looks prettier, and is faster and has a price tag of $85,000, a $5000 difference, but it still beats the corvette 2/3.
Resolved: That debate.org's 'big issues' should be changed.

Well, my opponent forfeited this debate, so you are faced with no choice but to vote for me. I lived alone my mind was blank I needed time to think to get the memories from my mind What did I see? Could I believe? That what I saw that night was real and not just fantasy Just what I saw in my old dreams were they reflections of my warped mind staring back at me? 'Cause in my dreams it's always there the evil face that twists my mind and brings me to despair Night was black was no use holding back 'Cause I just had to see was someone watching me In the mist dark figures move and twist was all this for real or just some kind of hell 666 the Number of the Beast Hell and fire was spawned to be released Torches blazed and sacred chants were praised as they start to cry hands held to the sky In the night the fires are burning bright the ritual has begun Satan's work is done 666 the Number of the Beast Sacrifice is going on tonight This can't go on I must inform the lord Can this still be real or just some crazy dream? but I feel drawn towards the chanting hordes seem to mesmerise...can't avoid their eyes 666 the Number of the Beast 666 the one for you and me I'm coming back I will return And I'll possess your body and I'll make you burn I'll have the fire I'll have the force I'll have the power to make my evil take its course