BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Halloween War: Vampires vs Werewolves

Happy Halloween! Mimikyu here, and I see that Vampires and Werewolves are rivals, so to speak. The battle has gone for decades, with people wondering which would win in a fight, and making games based on this.But now, we're taking the debate to debate.org. I believe Vampires would win in a war. The Contender will argue that Werewolves can defeat Vampires. Please read the rules before accepting. Violation of any rules is an instant loss.Rules:1) There will be 50 Vampires, and 20 Werewolves in this fight. If you're wondering why the Vampire population is more, research a bit, and you'll see. [I'm making these statistics before my research. I won't change the populations either.]2) We are free to use any 1 instance of a Vampire or Werewolf, such as Twilight or a novel. In Round 2, we will state our chosen versions of Vampires and Werewolves. However, the version can't be fan fiction. It must already exist as a movie or a novel.3) Forfeiting or running out of time counts as an instant loss. You have 48 hours to post an argument.4) The fight will take place in a village around 1700. Each side has a base where they can strategize during the day. The actual battle will most likely take place at night, unless your chosen version of Vampires or Werewolves don't care about day or night. The two sides have 7 days, 7 nights to kill as much of the opposing side as possible.5) Whoever has the least percentage of starting population will lose. (For example, we're starting with 50 vampires, 20 werewolves. If there are 25 vampires [50%] and 12 werewolves [60%], werewolves win.)I hope you caught all that in Rule #5. It's a bit complex.6) Round 1 is acceptance only. No making arguments in the first round.7) Any form of trolling is prohibited.8) Neither side will be wielding any weapon. Anything holy (holy water, cross, etc.) won't be present. No silver bullets, knives, or anything silver is present. No wooden stakes are present. Both sides must rely on their abilities.9) You must have at least 3 completed debates. And hopefully 3 wins.- If you have any questions, ask me before accepting -I'm taking the side for Vampires.
I believe that all world religions are under the guise of Satan.Muslim, Hindu, Shinto,etc

The Bible even tells us that the other gods are of man's creation, and in declaring that they are the work of the devil, when clearly, some other religions teach us good moral values, is to declare that the Bible, God's Word, is false. While one could try to say that the devil is messing with our heads to create such things, such would be a violation of our free will, meaning that men were fine with worshiping and creating false gods. While such is wrong, it may hold to say that such is of the will of man, not the influence of the devil.
I believe that all world religions are under the guise of Satan.Muslim, Hindu, Shinto,etc

In Matthew 4:10 Jesus told the Devil, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him alone shalt thous serve." The word "worship" here is the Greek word proskuneo, meaning "to kiss, like a dog licking his master"s hand); to fawn or crouch to, that is, (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore)." By this very definition, Roman Catholics do indeed worship statues of the Virgin Mary and Buddhists do in fact worship statues of Buddha. Both religions denounce that Mary nor Buddha are God; yet they worship these historical figures as God. In fact, Buddhists are worshipping devils by bowing and adoring statues of Buddha. The Bible strictly prohibits worshipping or even the act of BOWING to any image of anything. We read in Exodus 20:4-5 (commonly referred to as the 2nd of the Ten Commandments), "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." In other words, Buddhism is an alternative religion for people who reject Christianity. Buddhism teaches that man's suffering is caused by his own selfish cravings and dislikes, and if humanity can change its way of thinking, than NIRVANA (a peaceful state of rest and tranquility) can be achieved amidst the problems of this world. It all boils down to mind control; but this does not address the wicked heart of mankind, which the Bible says is desperately wicked and deceitful above all else. Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Buddhism attempts to reform the human mind, without addressing the sinful heart that cannot be tamed. Buddhism is of the Devil, satanic in origin. Buddha was just a man, a so-called "prophet" in the 6th century B.C., and founder of the Buddhist religion. Sadly, Buddha is burning in Hell this moment, having died in his sins without Jesus Christ.
I believe that all world religions are under the guise of Satan.Muslim, Hindu, Shinto,etc

The Koran tells us, "To kill one man is to kill 100.000." Killing is the 2nd highest offence in Islam, while the first is false idolatry. The Christian religion does not look at the statues and figures, believing they are as idols, but as things to help get the mood and feeling across for worshiping the LORD. In Islam, one should only worship the LORD, though it does appear as if many worship false things. I replied to your usage of words, when I responded about Satan. But what we should wonder, how is their proof that Christianity is the only belief which is not Satanic? How do we know it isn't Satanic? Buddhism, for instance, shares many beliefs that one would generally agree is morally good, and similar to Christ's messages.
I believe that all world religions are under the guise of Satan.Muslim, Hindu, Shinto,etc

so, you believe that Catholicism, while Christian is under the guise of Satan, yet not Christianity. It should also be noted that Lucifer is meaning "The bearer of light", and is not in fact the name of Satan. Buddhism contains within it moral standards similar to the moral standards of Christ Jesus. Atheism does not involve the worshiping of any deity, though one could argue that it would befit Satan's plan to take away from the worshiping of the One Lord God. What of beliefs similar yet varying slightly with Christian beliefs? I would hold to argue that Islam is more hated than Christianity, due to misunderstandings and prejudice.
I believe that all world religions are under the guise of Satan.Muslim, Hindu, Shinto,etc

I believe that all world religions Hinduism, Shintoism,Muslim,Catholicism,Buddhism, Taoism,Confucian,atheism ,satanism,shaminism, is under the guise of Lucifer. Lucifer Satan wanted to be like the most high Satan (Lucifer) did not want to worship or obey God; he wanted to be God (Isaiah 14:12-14). .Clearly through these religions Lucifer is achieving just what he wanted worship and I believe all of these false religions and worship of idols is a clear path to hell. Lucifer knows this and he will attempt to take any and every soul who does not follow the first commandment Exodus 20:3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Christianity is not a religion it is a following of the TRUE way to Yahweh/GOD; how do I know because Christianity is the most hated in the world. Christians are being killed in Iran, Iraq, India, Africa, North Korea and everywhere else that oppose Yeshua/Jesus. It is ok to do the wrong thing which is worship idols and false gods but when you turn away from these falsities the follower of Christ is condemned and killed. Lastly In (Isaiah 5:20) Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! This is my clear objective of my debate. Your Go challenge me.
minimum wage

Switzerland has no minimum wage, yet their average earnings are 6,200 CHF a month {1}, about 6,300$ month in USD. The Swiss are earning more than we are, with no minimum wage, this is because the Swiss have something called a "free market" and "labour unions," so they don't need a minimum wage, infact they do better without it and are more productive. Think about it, if you are guarenteed 10$ a hour for your labour, you would be inclined for personal profit, to put in labour worth less than 10$ a hour. Whereas if you are payed according to the quality of your work, you become more productive to earn more money. Also, the tenth ammendment saysa:"The powers not delegated to the Federal Goveronment, nor prohibbited to the states, shall be granted to the states respectvely, or to the people."The constitution never grants the federal goveronment the power to establish a minimum wage, so this power should be given to the states through state minium wages, or to the people through labour unions. {1}. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
Cast

I have a counteroffer to your video game/movie series. I call it "Rolling Pin."In a world where the future of humanity is forced to evolve or die in the endless cycle of warfare, men have, through forced evolution and genetic engineering, have turned into zombies...It is up to housewives everywhere to fight off the endless zombie hordes...Bethesda has teamed up with Treyarch to bring you the greatest movie/game IN THE WORLD..."Rolling Pin," rated N for no one. Release Date: Never"Rolling Pin" has... A terrible story Low definition graphics Terrible third-person shooting action Inaccurate hitboxes Too many glitches to count Stolen graphics Small, unoriginal maps A promise of multiplayer, when it's actually a singleplayer game
Cast

There should be a movie and game series with a name like Cast where chaos breaks lose, causing an apocalypse. Kinda like gta 5 the game would have an offline for missions (Story Mode) and an online to play with other players. Online there are as many sections as missions. To unlock a new section, you must finish the mission assigned to it, thus giving it the level of destruction inside. In each section you have a different rank for how much you have played that particular one. When u unlock a new one, you can go to the old ones still. All progress would be saved for each section. what do you think?
Warfare: Land Power (Pro) vs. Air Power (Con)

Thanks sengejuri, for the Challenge!My only query with the above before we begin is that I'd like it if you could provide a definition for Sustaining Operations along with a yes or no answer as to whether or not Sustaining Operations are also included as an acceptable alternative to Decisive Operations. However, even with a "no," I am prepared to argue Airpower as a Decisive Operation and Ground Power as more or less a shaping factor within the current definitions provided by PRO and the DoD Operational Framework.Got to say, I've been eagerly looking forward to this! To those generals and historians out there who say Airpower can't be decisive; I say to you now - that you have obviously never encountered carpet bombing!
Warfare: Land Power (Pro) vs. Air Power (Con)

My position for this debate is that Land Power is more decisive in war than Air Power. My opponent will argue the opposite. Since we are both making positive claims, burden of proof is shared. Nuclear weapons will not be considered in this debate. Definitions: "Land Power" - military forces and weapons that are deployed on the ground. Examples include: Infantry, armor, scouts, direct action special forces (SAS, Green Berets, etc. .. ). "Air Power" - military forces and weapons that are deployed in the air. Examples include: Bombers, fighters, air-to-surface missiles, close air support/close combat aviation, UAV's, etc. .. "Decisive" - as defined in U. S. Army ADP 3-0: "Decisive operations lead directly to the accomplishment of a commander"s purpose. " In this debate, we will assume the commander's purpose is to win a war. The opposite of a decisive operation is a Shaping Operation which is defined as - "Shaping operations create and preserve conditions for the success of the decisive operation. " So, I am essentially arguing that land power is decisive while air power is shaping, and Con is arguing the opposite. (**Note - I am NOT saying air power is unimportant or ineffective, simply that it is not decisive. Same goes for Con in relation to land power) Limitations: Naval forces will not be considered. This includes naval based missiles. The only exceptions are planes that embark from aircraft carriers (air power), and Marines (land power). Air inserted infantry (paratroopers, etc. .. ) will be considered land power, because in this case the aerial platform simply serves as a mode of transportation, not a weapon. Sources are welcome. I will not consider quotes as "appeals to authority," however, the following limits apply: - Quotes should merely supplement arguments already put fourth in our own words. They should not be used alone as independent arguments. They should be used to present facts, figures, and data. - A Quote WILL be seen as an appeal to authority if it is used in a way that suggests "this guy is really smart, and he agrees with me, so I win. " - The intent is that the argument remains between Jingle_Bombs and myself and does not devolve into a contest of who can find the best quotes. If my opponent agrees with these conditions, please accept.
The Trinity is not Biblical

Thank you for responding, I was worried I was going to have to wait through forfeits. No need to apologize, religion is a very personal topic. My opponent references "apostolic fathers." Apostolic fathers "are a small number of Early Christian authors who lived and wrote in the second half of the 1st century and the first half of the 2nd Century. They are acknowledged as leaders in the early church, although their writings were not included in the New Testament."(1) As I mentioned in my last argument it is "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established ... into Christian life ... prior to the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."(2) Not only is the Trinity not taught in the Bible. It seems that it was not taught by the Apostolic Fathers either. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://www.auburn.edu...
The Trinity is not Biblical

Resolve: The doctrine of the trinity is not Biblical Trinity: "Also called Blessed Trinity, Holy Trinity. the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being."(1) Biblical: "of or in the Bible." "in accord with the Bible."(2) Pro will argue that the trinity is not biblical Con will argue that the trinity is biblical Round 1: acceptance Round 2: opening arguments Round 3/4: rebuttals and arguments Round 5: rebuttals and closing statements, no new arguments. (1)http://dictionary.reference.com... (2)http://dictionary.reference.com...
If the country stayed on the path it's on, there is a good chance for a coup.

You say your argument is that "Barring a change, the US will have some internal struggle." Well, it seems like you've widened your scope a little bit. "Internal struggle" does not mean a coup. In fact, we have an internal struggle every four years. Our system has always been fractious. Nothing is going to change that. Our "path" as you call it will lead us nowhere that it hasn't led us before. There will be, in all likelihood, a Democratic Administration for four or eight years, but people will get sick of the corruption and then we'll have another Republican landslide. Sound familiar? That's because it's happened since America's inception. There is nothing to suggest that it won't continue to go on, even if we stay on the same "path." Our governmental system is great, but its members can easily manipulate it to do whatever they want? Yeah. Right. Sorry, but this sounds very much like a conspiracy theory. You've been watching too many movies like "Shooter." That kind of conspiracy could never happen in the U.S. And anyway, if that was true this sure wouldn't be a great governmental system. Frankly, our rights are not being challenged more now than they ever were. Well, at least we agree on something. Ron Paul is a nut. In conclusion: I'm still wondering what you're talking about. I get the impression that you don't know how to express yourself, or you can't articulate your arguments, or you didn't have any in the first place. I've yet to see a good, solid argument. Therefore, I've had to guess your arguments, and that doesn't make for a good debate. Well, good luck!
If the country stayed on the path it's on, there is a good chance for a coup.

My argument is that i believe that in the future, barring a change, the US will have some internal struggle. No i don't want this to happen nor do i support it. (by the way Ron Paul is insane.) Yes we have a great governmental system. But the people in it can manipulate it anyway they choose. When people rights challenged, the people speak out. Our rights are starting to be challenged. So if this continues I can only imagine that SOMEONE, someone, regardless of if regular people or crazies, will try to revolt.
If the country stayed on the path it's on, there is a good chance for a coup.

MM, why do we blame the government for high oil prices? Because we think they've let us down. But that implies that we had faith in them in the first place. Despite all its flaws, our government is the best in the world. I don't buy into the Libertarian-anarchist "the Government should be small enough to fit around my pinkie finger" malarchy. The good thing about America is that we still think we can change the government from the inside, and it's generally true. I'm pessimistic about the government sometimes, but I think you've got to take the good with the bad with government, and I think we've had fairly good luck with ours. You'll never hear about it, though, because it's harder to recognize. Let me get this straight: Are you an anarchist? Do you WANT a revolution? Frankly, I think there's next to no chance that there will be a coup or revolution because of the "path" we're on. Revolution is triggered by outside stimuli, in general. But I'm still confused. What exactly are you arguing?
If the country stayed on the path it's on, there is a good chance for a coup.

Well I actually do think that this might come into play. But let me clarify. Will an attempted revolution(does not mean successful) happen because of present and future leaders incompetence? The reason people's indifference will help a revolution is this. People hate chaos. So when things get chaotic, they look for something to blame. Look at oil for an example. In the 90's people didn't care because it was cheap and plentiful. They drove their SUV's and did not worry. Now prices are up and who's fault is it? The Governments. If freedoms are restricted or the government makes a very poor decision on another platform people will react, even if they didn't care the day before. All it takes is one person to be able to organize all these people who are discontent with the situation.
If the country stayed on the path it's on, there is a good chance for a coup.

I have debated in the past that Revolution is always possible. I gather that your argument is that this will only happen if the country stays on the path it is on. I am curious to know what path you mean. Do you mean the Bush Administration? Or just our system of government? Let me guess, you're a Ron Paul supporter. --The path of the government is not at issue in revolution, despite what you may think. The people can be dissatisfied with any government; any path. --So you're saying that many people take our Western lifestyle, etc. for granted? Well, you're darn right. I don't think that is pertinent to the topic, however.
If the country stayed on the path it's on, there is a good chance for a coup.

In my mind, the problem with the country today is that few people really care about what is going on. But if any major rights were taken away or an attack/natural/financial disaster happened, they would care. All they would need is a leader It's kind like the power here up north. People take the electricity for granted. But when the ice storm hits and we have no more power, we start to care a lot.
should violent video games be banned.

I believe that I have won this round for a multitude of reasons. I would like to state once again that my opponent"s arguments have no ground to stand on. There are many arguments on the internet and on other sources to attack our case so far, we haven't seen any attacks on our case throughout this round. His arguments are based entirely on personal views of what he thinks. My case still stands for this round and I believe that anyone that logically examines this debate, should only see that this is a pro case.
vi_spex has never won a debate against me

My opponent only makes a bare assertion that I have never won against him. Then he shows some random logic about comprehension of a question being the exact same thing as an answer. This is irrelevant, since this debate is not about comprehension being the same thing as an answer. My opponent hasn't even provided one piece of sound evidence and reasoning for why I am wrong. By the way, Round 1 is acceptance, not arguments. Evidence- Take a look at my profile page. Wins: I have won 6 debates against vi_spex http://www.debate.org... Ties: I currently have no ties with vi_spex, although this debate will be a tie when it ends. Until someone votes on this, the debate will remain a tie. http://www.debate.org... Losses: I have never lost to vi_spex in a debate, meaning that vi_spex (as of now) has never won a debate against me http://www.debate.org... I rest my case
Facebook is better than Twitter

Sorry...You said that twitter has no age limit and this means Facebook have limited and it is more safety for children to not touch with the things which have age limited like some sex page ... If you said Twitter has more theme,how about the million themes of Facebook PAGE? I am not said I play game on facebook but this is also another advantage to relax ourself.Now,you step out to the cafe or Mc Donald,they will promote in LIKE FACEBOOK and i think low than 3 shop from 10 will promote in TWEET ME... At this round, I would like to talk about the limited.Twitter asks you to cram your thoughts into 140 words or less. Sure, "short and sweet" has its place, but if you"re looking to be social, you want to open up and see people open up in response. Facebook has status updates, diary-like notes, photo albums, check-ins, etc. Twitter allows some of those, but all in one big stream. Facebook"s design is built for ease " you click here to see your friends" pictures, you click there to see their political views, you post your detailed Christmas list. Folks share everything from short stories to artwork on Facebook. One of the coolest features is the Like button. No need to type about how great an article or website is. One click and your friends know. Visit a popular website and you"ll see who else digs it. Twitter allows you to send brief messages to the entire world. Facebook allows you to post a colorful summary of yourself for your friends and family to appreciate. Friends and family, mind you, not necessarily a random stranger.
Facebook is better than Twitter

I believe that twitter is better than Facebook for quite a few reasons. First of all, twitter has no age limit on it so it does not matter if you are 8 or 90. Secondly, twitter has more of a theme to it which makes it more interesting for people to enjoy more. Lastly, Facebook as you made the point, is worldwide but you did not make the point that most social media sites are including twitter. The only thing that I could understand where you are coming from is the point where you stated you can play games on Facebook unlike twitter... Please keep in mind this is my first debate.