BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christians can be Homosexual

Romans 1:27 says "And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved." However just a few pages past that, and probably the same page in most bibles it says in Romans 3:23 "For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard." You don't become a Christian by being sinless. The bible states this is impossible. You become a Christian by accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and asking for forgiveness for your sins. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." You can be a homosexual, serial killer or any other deplorable thing in the world and be a Christian, because Jesus has been sacrificed in your name.
Why apples are better than Oranges

What you mean problem with gun People died so many times because of guns. Any way back to topic, the biggest reason why apples are better than oranges is because... Apples make wayy more money than oranges do. If you were to check the 2010 revenue, Apple.com made 63.5 billion dollars and Orange.com made only 44 million dollars. Huge difference!!! Even a word or quote from Sir Isaac "bug Friz" Newton says," Shoot!!!! Not only did apples invent gravity, but they'll also split thine wig." This is an actual Quote from him.
Why apples are better than Oranges

Yup!!! I also know that apples are better than oranges because and this is for the kids, the word "apple" doesnt reveal a violent message like the word "orange juice" for its hidden violent message is "Rejoice,A Gun. Amother good resaon why apples are better than oranges because on a pie chart, of different pies, the "orange" isnt even on the board. An APPLE pie is the best type of pie in the world!!!!!!!!!
The God of Islam Is Evil

According to Islam, Jesus is not the Son of God (Sura 10:68 & 112), yet this god's deception is the reason why the "heretical" belief that Jesus is the Son of God exist. Surah 4:157 says, "And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah . " And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. ". This "God": 1) Didn't tell anyone Jesus wasn't crucified until nearly 600 years later. 2) Preserved no evidence that the disciples didn't believe that Jesus was/is the Lord. 3) Didn't preserve any of the "Original" Gospel. All of the worst things this god could have done, which he did do, has lead to over 2 billion people on the path to Hell. Couldn't have Allah have exposed Paul when Paul was alive? Couldn't he preserve evidence that the disciples didn't believe Jesus was/is the Lord, and have preserved the "Original" Gospel, to leave every single Christian who came to that knowledge without a single excuse? 2. This god is a liar. Sura 7:157 says, "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel". Where is the unlettered prophet (Muhammad) written of in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and/or Deuteronomy? Where is he in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and/or John? A Muslim may say that he was mentioned in the original versions, but they can give no evidence that these original versions ever existed. The oldest Old Testament records (The Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls. These span from 300 B. C. to 50 A. D), are largely in agreement with the Bible we have today (And we can simply fix all the errors), and the oldest New Testament manuscripts (The oldest manuscript from the Gospels are only from the second century, so about a 2nd-3rd hand account of Jesus' life), are in multiple languages, spanning across many time periods. All are in agreement with eachother, and the current Gospels. Therefore, a Muslim either has to support their claim that an Original Torah and Gospel existed, and show where Muhammad is mentioned there, or they have to support their claim that Muhammad is in the Bible we have today (Which is the same as it was 2,000 years ago, unless they want to prove that wrong).
Internet has decreased the creativity of students

According to statista.com, 66% of artists are encouraged to share items on social media. Therefore I disagree because of this and, that the Internet today gives students access to lots of cool things, they allow young people to do their art and, it is a secure way of sending work. I think that it is important because, it gives inspiration for example, it is easier to get inspiration from other artists because, searching is so much quicker. This means that people can learn about art styles before putting it in to there own work. If this false accusation to, the internet is true, why are there so many young artists out there. Even in Britain there are so many great artists who have not at all been affected by social media or the Internet, except in good ways. These young people had and have peers around them at all times to persuade them to use social media but they ignore it, persist and they are just great, talented people to be around. These young people are the forefront of the future, and should be given all the tools they need, the Internet is one of those, they use it for inspiration and without it they wouldn't be the artists they are. On the other hand there are artists out there who wouldn't be artists without the Internet, Directors use the Internet for movie making purposes and Photo shop artists could not download there software without it. Young people also enjoy acting a lot and things often get lost in the post however, if they go into the acting career could not safely get their scripts without, the security of the internet In conclusion I believe that the internet is important for inspiration, media to use, and the security of work sending.
Internet has decreased the creativity of students

Today 51% of total population of India is having access to Internet .We get everything on internet and bcoz of this do u know what's the mentality of today's student..Instead of creating things on their own they would rather prefer to go on internet n copy the things of others ..Today if a student class 6 is asked to write two three lines on any topic ..He won't write instead he would go on Google n type on that to get the desired result for that
should abortion be legal yes or no (no)

Access to an abortion should be legal for these reasons. First, access to abortion is a part of American history. It wasn't until the 1900's that abortion was illegal in every state, and even then it was still permissible in certain circumstances. Thus women have had access to legal abortions longer than they have been barred from it. Second, abortion should be legal because it safeguards women. Making abortion illegal won't prevent abortion it will prevent safe abortions-- to the risk of women. The truth is that women facing poverty, abuse, or simple lack of preparation will seek abortions if they want them. Outlawing abortion would result in a return to back ally treatments, rusty coathangers, and harm to the most at risk and in need women. Finally, abortion should be legal because women have a right to self-determinism. By outlawing abortion we are saying that women are subject men's procreative whim. It supposes that women should be in bondage until they deliver a man's offspring. In essence, we would be arguing that woman lose their agency and autonomy, their very humanity when they become pregnant-- be it through rape, incest, abuse etc.
should abortion be legal yes or no (no)

No, I do not think abortion should be legal. Abortion is not right because the child that is forming inside the mother's womb is not just a clump of cells its an actual human being! Yes, there is women's rights but it just goes too far such as abortion and other things. It is actually proved that 90/100% women who want to do abortion, but see the baby through the ultra sound decide against their abortion plan. Finally, if you don't want a child don't have sex or if you do get pregnant give up the baby for adoption after it is born so it may have a good life with someone who will actually care for them.
Rap Battle

I've seen you before, I know you can't write shitt. You just hide behind god, And call yourself righteous. It's already over, I ain't gotta try at all. Before I hear you speak, I'll grab some tylenol. I'd tell you that I win, But i don't know why I'd call. I don't want to listen to you, as you cry and bawl. I'll say farewell now, because I won't get to say 'bye' at all, I'll just sit here and laugh, As you try then fall. I'll cut this one short, 'Cause I've seen how you back out, Need some time to retort? Before you black out
Junk Food should be banned from schools

Full Resolution: Junk Food should be banned from schools My side: Pro What is Junk Food? Junk food: food that is not good for your health because it contains high amounts of fat or sugar Examples: pizza, donuts, fast food, hamburgers, sausages, hot dogs, cakes, frosting, etc. . http://philmaffetone.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://kimberlysnyder.com... . http://bembu.com... . https://in.answers.yahoo.com... Rules1. No forfeiting: if you forfeit, it is a loss of conduct. 2. First round is mainly acceptance, and the rest is arguments, rebuttals, and defense. The 3rd round can have additional arguments, though the second round is for most arguments. No new arguments in the last round, only rebuttals and defense. 3. The Burden of Proof is mainly on Pro. Con has a slight burden.
Blacks Experience Racism Everyday

Sir, Why discuss recluses if they add no value to the subject or hope for the future implementation of a solution. Are you suggesting that we become like recluses or are you basing your whole argument on a recluse. Have you ever met a black recluse. Tell me about them. WHat is your source. Continue to use your loftiness in your word usage to dig a deeper hole for yourself. It is evident that you have not experienced this sort of racism based on premature statement. You made a mistake in this debate by making this personal and making it as though I believe this way. I am merely stating a resolution. I personally do not hold the belief that I am arguing. Evidently you have a chip on your shoulder that you need to brush off so you can think clearly and respond tactfully. Have you ever been stared at when you entered a store and watched until you left. Have you ever been somewhere in this day and age and told to leave because blacks were not allowed. Have you ever been told by someone you love deeply of another race that since you are black you will have it lot harder than me. Have you ever been treated like you are treating me as though I believe blacks feel like "america owes us something". Damn right I do and it's more than money can pay for. I feel like we are owed "OPPORTUNITY." Since it is not always given I have learned to TAKE MINE. SIR Ebonically speaking, my motto is you don't have to give me nothing, just open up the door and I will get it myself. I create my opportunity. From the looks of your profile you are from Seattle. You are more than likely open minded. However, come to the South. Change it by the recluse argumentation and hommogenous communities. Have you ever lived in an ethnically homogeneous society. I consider a black man speaking intelligently as speaking properly. You come across as a person that innately feels that an anglo saxon always speaks proper english. If it will help you to focus more on the issues at hand and not the man saying it, you would benefit from this conversation. My children are half white and half black. I teach them to speak properly. I teach them to present themselves to others as scholarly but yet try to understand a situation before making an errenous inference. For all you know sir. I could be white. However, I am a black man. I would rather be considered a fool rather than open my mouth and remove all doubt.
Blacks Experience Racism Everyday

Regarding other blacks as "his own" is a very racist statement of yours. Some blacks might experience racism every day, but you have no grounds for saying all blacks do, or that there is nowhere without racism to be experienced. For one thing, I'm sure there are a few black recluses. Recluses don't experience racism, or anything else, unless they themselves create it. And in those few pockets of individualism that remain in the world, racism is an utter impossibility (without collectivism, there can be no racism). What about ethnically homogenous communities? It's kind of hard to find racism there, at least the kind you experience, it would get too annoying to the racist :D. You might consider a black man speaking intelligently as "trying to be white." I don't, and frankly I don't know anyone who does. Oh and you're also forgetting any albino blacks or blacks light skinned enough to "pass." Since people don't know they're black, they can't be racist about it.
This is a great feminist poem-it takes us to the heart of the feminist experience

Socialism: [crudely] the antonym of Capitalism. Feminist socialism: Capitalism is rooted in masculinity and is wrong.According to the poem, feminism is "Capitalism's tool." To say that this accurately portrays feminist socialism is akin to saying Marx was very good in his defence of the capitalist free market, or Nozick provides strong arguments for communitarianism. Either you've misread their work, or they were so horribly wrong that they've managed to actually make a point anathema to their original one.Secondly, the resolution was "This is a great feminist poem..." it is not great. It is universally hated. And no wonder: "Turn them against men compete love their ruin true" this isn't even remotely grammatically valid, yet alone legible and able to be comprehended. Note my opponent's disinterest (or inability) to provide sources for those who like the poem. They cannot be found, because they do not exist. Seriously: google the poem, find a positive review that isn't from the same uploader each time under different names (most likely the author posting them online as well with an ego bigger than New South Wales). I cannot find any. They do not exist. This is not a great feminist poem, it is a terrible, terrible poem which uses the word "feminism".
This is a great feminist poem-it takes us to the heart of the feminist experience

I have backed up my claim with an example con says "It is universally hated as terrible poetry" but to tun that against himself "You can think that it"IT IS UNIVERSALLY HATED AS TERRIBLE POETRY" all you want, but it doesn't make it true, anymore than the madman's ravings justify the existence of bunnies on Jupiter" con says "It is universally hated as terrible poetry" con is talking off topic the post it not about it being good or bad poetry but being a great poem that takes us to the heart of the feminist experience and con sorta supports that when he says con says "Socialist feminists argue that Capitalism is a creation of masculinity and the either essentialist male nature of competition or the cultural construct where being masculine and successful includes competition and therefore lends itself to competition. that just supports my quote "Feminism you fool Nothing but capitalisms tool Get um out to work We can"t have the economic system crash Turn um into men power suits short hair Offer them power money all men"s lair Feed um up on feminism Give um ideology you fool Then the system will power capitalisms tool Teach the girls early that men are bastards true Teach the girls early that money power is their due Turn them against men compete love their ruin true They will have it true every thing the lot except a lovers woo Give um ideology you fool Then the system will power capitalisms tool" so con has not adequately refuted my claims so I win he
This is a great feminist poem-it takes us to the heart of the feminist experience

You can think that it captures feminism all you want, but it doesn't make it true, anymore than the madman's ravings justify the existence of bunnies on Jupiter. Socialist feminists argue that Capitalism is a creation of masculinity and the either essentialist male nature of competition or the cultural construct where being masculine and successful includes competition and therefore lends itself to competition. It is universally hated as terrible poetry.
This is a great feminist poem-it takes us to the heart of the feminist experience

con says "No, it doesn't represent feminism (especially second-wave and the socialist feminists)" I think this captures the lived experience of feminists today APOTHEGM Feminism you fool Nothing but capitalisms tool Get um out to work Out of the home Baby off the tit Kids in a cr"che We can"t have the economic system crash Turn um into men power suits short hair Offer them power money all men"s lair Feed um up on feminism Give um ideology you fool Then the system will power capitalisms tool Teach the girls early that men are bastards true Teach the girls early that money power is their due Turn them against men compete love their ruin true They will have it true every thing the lot except a lovers woo Give um ideology you fool Then the system will power capitalisms tool
This is a great feminist poem-it takes us to the heart of the feminist experience

No, it doesn't represent feminism (especially second-wave and the socialist feminists). Moreover, it is universally hated, apart from the spammer/author who keeps advertising this poet.http://au.answers.yahoo.com..."I'm not too impressed" "I want whoever wrote this sh!t guillotined.""I, too, am ashamed to call myself Australian when I read that sort of garbage."" As a fellow Australian i want to burn the poet Alive for writing such crap and saying that they are Australian. Source(s): We need a cultral cleansing of the idiot types.""I don't like the poem...it has no rhythm."http://www.poemhunter.com..."you say snore, bore, please...no more. you could not even understand the poem at all-the wit irony parody colloquialisms you call it a 4 years rhyme thing is your poem appreciation is at a very low grade level i think"I'd say the list goes on, but this is the entirety of comments on this drivel. It takes us nowhere near the "heart of the feminist experience" - in fact, apart from the clichéd unironically used feminist phrases with no parodic intent, it does not refer to feminism at all. Terrible. I feel I ought to apologise for all with the ability to read English who had to suffer through this poem. For those who have not yet: do not. This isn't a poem which is so bad that it's funny, but one that is so bad it just is a blot on your existence that you wish to erase.
The Impossible 10-part Debate: Part 1/10

I also would like to state here that as I PMed the Pro we will go until one of us basically gives up or we reach ten. If i misinterpreted this please correct me. As of that my stance is that if there were a combat tournament between all the video game characters, they would not all have an equal chance of winning. I am going to set a few precedents that will be important to the argument and if the Pro does not agree please tell me posthaste. 1. This is a combat tournament and so is one character at a time going against another until one is left. This is continued between all existing video game characters until such a point where only one is left. 2. There are no teams. For example, the Avengers. Only one character at a time. There are exceptions such as the ice climbers but must be stated and agreed on beforehand. 3. These battles between characters are fights to the death. Not Pokemon where it is fight to the faint or loss of energy. 4. Characters are in the exact same stadium at any point during the battles. 5. The characters are allowed their signature weapons or powers but no more, no less. For example, Cyclops(from X-Men), is allowed to use his beam vision and glasses but not attack people with a tazer. If any of these are not agreed, tell me and we will fix it. Now to the debate: There are several reasons why a tournament between all video game characters would not be fair to all the characters: 1. Some characters have powers like wolverine, and some have guns, like Captain Price. The good Captain would not have a fair chance against someone with superhuman powers when only equipped with a gun, knife, and a few grenades. There is an imbalance of power(yes, pun intended) about the characters in some games against others. The best example is Army Men RTS. If we took, lets say, 30 soldiers of varying types that are army men and put them against the Hulk. The plastic men, even with guns, would have little to no effect against the mass of the Hulk who would just squish them. 2. There are video game characters that are invincible. The Wolverine and his brother, Dead pool(both the normal one and X-Men), and Superman. While, Yes, superman could be defeated by Doomsday, that is only one character with any possible chance of killing superman. As for Dead pool, Wolverine, and Victor they have regenerative powers that we do not know the full extent of and causes them to survive any attack and do not age. While killing them may be possible, some of the best have tried and failed without leaving a scratch. 3. In a tournament of characters, we would eventually be left with the invincible characters, thus leaving a permanent stalemate. They cannot be killed and so the tournament cannot continue. I will post sources on the conclusion. Back to you Pro!
The Impossible 10-part Debate: Part 1/10

I will be arguing that if there were a combat tournament between all the video game characters, they would all have an equivalent chance of winning. I would also like to clarify the following:1. Whoever accepts this debate is agreeing to debate the other 9 parts with me. If they say they cannot do that, the remaining parts will be debated with another user.2. Votes are to be on part 10 of this series.3. If the series is shifted to another user, they cannot use the same arguments as any of my previous opponents in this series. I will let my opponent argue first.
The Impossible 10-part Debate: Part 1/10

Oi. Alright, just for future reference, make sure you are perfectly clear about the rules of the debate. I keep running into roadblocks because of rules you forgot to put in. I understand that you may have forgotten but you should realize that others may see this as cheating. Anyway, let me get back to the debate. As I previously stated I need only one problem to prove my point and here we go: 1. The pokemon Magikarp can only splash and defend and has no attack. Anything attacking it would have the advantage.
The Impossible 10-part Debate: Part 1/10

Hola! I am back and apologize for not debating previously. As such I am going to get right to the point. This should be quick because it is one irrefutable statement. This is about one massive tournament between all video game characters all at the same time. The point of the debate is to decide if ALL characters have an equal chance of winning. Therefore only one discrepancy is needed to prove this. 1. The civilians in Ghost Squad are pacifist and so would not fight anyone and would only be killed. Even if they did fight they only have their bare fists with no actual benefit of fighting against video game characters with powers, weapons, etc.
Zombies are possible.

The earth has been around for thousands upon thousands of years. For the amount of years humans have been occupying earth, there have been no zombie attacks. If it were possbiel, it would've happened already. Nowadays, dead bodies are handled much more carefully than they were in times such as ancient Egypt, or in 1892 like your last example. If there were viruses that could reanimate a corpse, it would've happened then because now bodies are handled much more scientifically and in cleaner enviornments.