BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The importance of the Star Wars character Jar-Jar Binks.

First off greetings and good luck ROFLMuhWaffles. But death to Jar Jar Binks! ;) 1. I do not believe that Jar Jar Binks is important to the Star Wars story given that his roles in both Episode I: The Phantom Menace and Episode III could have been filled by characters already in existence in the franchise or by new generic characters. 2. Further, if Jar Jar is so important to the story why can I only understand--at best--every other word that comes out of his mouth? Wouldn't an important character have important things to say? Wouldn't a good writer (not that Lucas isn't...but Phantom Menace left much to be desired writing wise) want the audience to follow what the character says? It's easier to understand mush-mouth from Fat Albert than Jar Jar Binks. 3. Wouldn't you want an important character to be at least somewhat endearing instead of a shrill, annoying gibberish machine? Wouldn't it be nice if he didn't make the audience stick their fingers in their ears or throw popcorn at the screen. Then they might stay, pay attention to what he says, enjoy his part in the storyline and be more inclined to come back and pay $10 for your next film?
The importance of the Star Wars character Jar-Jar Binks.

I believe that the Gungan character Jar-Jar Binks of George Lucas's Star Wars series plays an important role in the journey of Jedi Knights Qui-gon Jinn and Obi-wan Kenobi and the battle between the Gungan army and the Droid army that takes place in Episode I of the Star Wars saga as well as his role as a representative to the Galactic Senate.
The United States Should Have A Moon Base

This topic is one that many have talked about before so we should have some good basis for material. We should have a moon base. First off, we need to explore more in the solar system. We can do that if we have a crew closer to the rest of the solar system. The only problem is materials and that can be easily solved by sending cargo shuttles for food and water. It would be very easy for scientists to develop a crew because there are plenty of people who want to go to the moon
The United States Should Have A Moon Base

A moon base would be a waste of time and hardly useful as a staging point for future missions elsewhere for two reasons: 1) the logistics and construction would be too complicated to be economically feasible as there is no oxygen or resources. Contained terraforming would take a long time. 2) landing directly on the moon would require additional fuel and resources versus using the slingshot retrajectory of orbits, which is also faster. For these reasons I propose large space stations in orbit around the earth and moon for stage assembly and for logistical problem solving. Retrajectory from other bodies coils still be used and this method would also be faster http://www.optcorp.com...
The Scriptures Teach That Sinners will be Annihilated in Hell

Your problem is you do not have a bible definition of life and death.When Adam sinned, he died immediately. Spiritual death is now lodged in His spirit man. Not ceasing to be aware of his surroundings, but to have the light turned off. Faith was now fear.love was now hate. Courage is now cowardly. He was as dead spiritually right then as he ever would be.Eternal death.Jesus came to give us eternal life. The light as now turned back. The new birth. Sorry, I just cannot agree with you.
The Scriptures Teach That Sinners will be Annihilated in Hell

CON did not attempt to address either of my arguments: A1 or A2. I addressed as many of CON's as I could. Therefore, you should vote for PRO in this debate. God would let the rich man suffer temporal punishment for a temporal life of sin. For the third time: the soul is made unconscious in hell just as much as the body is made unconscious in death (Matt 10:28). CON did not deal with the issue of the immortality of the soul. Neither did CON deal with the fact that hell kills the body and SOUL
The Scriptures Teach That Sinners will be Annihilated in Hell

I did not see you address why God let the rich man suffer.And you cannot kill the body, it is already dead. It only moves because the spirit man is residing in it. It is merely an earth suit.When we die, we are simply changing locations. Not spiritual conditions.Nowhere does God ever say that awareness would cease. Never does he say that. I think people with your perspective just wish it is like that. Never does he say that the soul is made unconscious.
The Scriptures Teach That Sinners will be Annihilated in Hell

CON has yet to address either of my original arguments, which should have been done in this round. CON says that there is nothing to suggest that torment will cease. We could have good debate about that if CON would address A2. Murder kills the body, Hell kills both body and soul (Matt 10:28). What murder does to the body, hell does to BOTH body AND soul. This clearly suggest that the torment will end. Jesus used the "worm dies not" to invoke the image of worms eating dead carcasses (Is 66:24)
The Scriptures Teach That Sinners will be Annihilated in Hell

And there is nothing to suggest that his torment will cease. I believe that is just wishful thinking on your part.Where their worm dies not. Explain why Jesus would use that term.That was coupled with wailing and gnashing of teeth. Why would God not cause cessation of conscience immediately. Why did he let that rich man suffer? If that is his will.Because he can't. He gave man complete dominion of his will. And he cannot take it back.He will lose control of his soul. Not lose consciousness.
The Scriptures Teach That Sinners will be Annihilated in Hell

There was not supposed to be any rebuttal in R2. That is basically all my opponent did. There are are a few problems with my opponents use of Lazarus: 1. I do not deny temporal consciousness; only eternal consciousness. Hell will eventually annihilate. 2. Nothing says how long that Lazarus will be tormented or that his torment will never end. 3. Lazarus was in hades (intermediate state), not gehenna (final punishment). I look forward to my opponent addressing my two arguments A1 and A2.
The Scriptures Teach That Sinners will be Annihilated in Hell

You say that hell will cause cessation of consciousness. And yet the rich man lifted his eyes and asked father Abraham to send lazurus to give him water. He had full awareness of his surroundings.He was tormented in those flames. Jesus said that in hell where their thirst is not quenched and their worm dies not.And the second death is the reuniting of their spirit and soul with an unglorified body.Wailing and gnashing of teeth seems to be being aware of your surroundings.
The Scriptures Teach That Sinners will be Annihilated in Hell

By "annihilate" I mean to cease to have conscious existence. A1: The human soul is not inherently immortal (incapable of death). God alone is immortal by nature (1 Tim 6:16). Immortality (eternal life) is a gift of grace only to those who believe (Rom 2:7; 1 Cor 15:51-57; 2 Tim 1:10). Since sinners are not immortal they cannot be tormented forever. Hell is the second death (Rev 21:8). A2: What men do to the body with murder, God does to both body AND soul with hell (Matthew 10:28).
Joke battle

All the passengers are seated on a plane out on the tarmac and the flight attendant announces, "We're just waiting for the pilots." The passengers look out the window and see two men dressed as pilots walking towards the plane. Both men are using guide dogs and appear to be blind. There are murmurs among the passengers, and some believe it is a joke. The men board the plane and go into the cockpit. More concerned murmurs and uneasy chuckles from the passengers. The plane taxis normally to the runway and begins its takeoff. As passengers look out the window they realize they are nearing the end of the runway. The entire passenger cabin begins screaming but the plane lifts off just before the end of the runway. The passengers calm down and chuckle to themselves. In the cockpit, the pilot turns to his copilot and says, "You know, one day those people are gonna scream too late and we're all going to die!
Hymns vs Contemporary Christian Music

Well, you made excellent arguments and I think you made a very good case :). And yes, Hillsong is very good at theology rich songs, as is Casting Crowns, Michael W. Smith and Mercy Me. Thanks again for this debate once again, my friend :).Now for my arguments :DAlright so let's look at what you have posted...First of all, I commend you for the use of that grand Psalm 27 paraphrase and To God Be The Glory, and that Hillsong piece was excellent :). I refute you with these words, friend.Hymns carry much more meaning to people. They provide a lot of comfort, and they offer a lot, and I mean a lot of truth. They show you the gospel story in depth, granted, some ccm pieces have the same thing but Hymns that show much more. For instance...the hymn When I Survey The Wondrous Cross, which I could post all the lyrics too and I will. When I survey the wondrous crossOn which the Prince of glory died,My richest gain I count but loss,And pour contempt on all my pride. Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,Save in the death of Christ my God!All the vain things that charm me most,I sacrifice them to His blood. See from His head, His hands, His feet,Sorrow and love flow mingled down!Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,Or thorns compose so rich a crown? Were the whole realm of nature mine,That were a present far too small;Love so amazing, so divine,Demands my soul, my life, my all. See this hymn outlines the gospel quite well, and it has great truths, that some ccm music does not have. This ccm piece is a good exzample of that:Let mercy flow in the depths of my soul Like a river of life restore and reconcile Flow river flow flow river flow Flow river flow flow river flow Spirit move in us Open heaven flood our hearts Grace and mercy from above Father hear us as we cry outWe cry out river flow river flow We cry out river flow river flow We cry out river flow river flow We cry out riverChange is gonna come change is gonna comeSpirit move in usIt's like a flood Your river flows It's rising up Your river flows It's like a flood Your river flows It's rising up Joy is on its way joy is on its waySpirit move in us This song has very little in it, and I detect very little theolgoy. Only hymns can truly show the truths of the gospel.Thanks again for this debate :)
Hymns vs Contemporary Christian Music

I am looking forward to it immensly. Let me open by saying that hymns are much more ancient than contemporary christian music. They are very deep in meaning, and have a lot of theolgy. For instance, the hymn Crown Him With Many Crowns has: Crown him the Lord of life, who triumphed o'er the grave, and rose victorious in the strife for those he came to save. This hymn and others are packed with scripture, and they have very well written symbolism that all points to Christ. Thanks for the debate once again :). Let's see your side now, friend
Hymns vs Contemporary Christian Music

I gladly accept :D. I am looking forward to debating this. I am an advocate for Contemporary Christian music, but I also like the Hymns. I think this will be interseting. Since my opponent has not made this clear, I will. BoP is even; both sides must prove their arguments.Pro must prove that only hymns should be in the church today, and that Hymns have better theolgy and deeper meaning than most Contemporary Christian music pieces.I, Con, must prove that Contemporary Christian music have the same theology and deep meaning as Hymns, and that Contemporary Christian music also should be used in church. Let's have a good, fun, yet serious debate (as if I have to say that; Kylar is a good person).
Hymns vs Contemporary Christian Music

Hey all :), Kylar the Christian here :). I have a very good debate here that I think people will find interesting. I am taking the pro side in favor of hymns and only hymns should be in the church today. I believe old hymns have better theolgy and deeper meaning than most Contemporary Christian music pieces, not all, but most. I want Con to explain why contemporary Christian music is a better fit for the church instead of old hymns. Good luck! :).
Hymns vs Contemporary Christian Music

Alrighty. Let's cut to the chase.Refutes:I beg to differ however, on the subject of people nowadays preffering the contempoary Christian music now in the majority of churches. The Baptist, Catholic, Episcoplaian Lutheran, Methodist, Presbytarian and Assembly of God Churches even the Seventh Day Adventists still use hymns regularly and almost if not every Sunday. Granted, there are some denominations like the Reformed Church in America and even the majority of the Pentecostal Churches prefer worship bands and ccm on a regular basis. I am a Southern Baptist Reformed member by affiliation, and we use ccm and hymns in a mixture. However, I believe that people for the most part prefer the old hymns.I was not saying that the churches and the people within them like ccm more, I was saying that the unbiased, unexposed person would much prefer it; I should know, I live, mingle, and associate with people like this. I know that many of those churches use hymns; mine still does.The old hymns of faith carry a far reaching meaning throughout the church of Christ. Not only that, but they are ancient, and living and sharp. The CCM music of today is new and is not yet as deep and as ancient as the old hymns. The hymns offer much deeper theolgy and they show the truths of God's word in a majestic and new light.CCM and hymns have the same goal, same meaning, but not the same tune. The tune is really the only difference between the two. Hymns being ancient have nothing to do with the topic; again, that is liek me saying "Contemporary music is new." CCM is just as deep. From what I have seen from the hymns and CCM songs that we have been using in this debate, they are practically saying the same exact thing with a different beat and style and in different words. I like the contradiction in your statement. I one place, you say that hymns are ancient (old), yet in the last sentence you say that hymns "show the truths of God's word in a majestic and new light." As for the theolgy, both show the same amount. Both Hymns and CCM show different aspects and characteristics of the same God in a different way. Theologically, they are the same.I rest my case for this debate :).I do the same.This has been Round 4. Thanks Kylar for hosting this debate, I enjoyed doing this. Thank you all who have read this debate, and thanks to all that vote honestly and not based off of what they think........ :D
Hymns vs Contemporary Christian Music

Excellent arguments and thank you my friend once again for a great debate :). This has been a very good debate so far. I will now refute your arguments courteously and respectfully as I have done the last 4 rounds :). Alright let's begin.You put forth very God-inspired artists forward, and MercyMe, Kutless, Michael W. Smith, Chris Tomlin, Newsboys and Matt Maher do a beautiful job of making modern day hymns-packed with scripture. I admit that 100%.I beg to differ however, on the subject of people nowadays preffering the contempoary Christian music now in the majority of churches. The Baptist, Catholic, Episcoplaian Lutheran, Methodist, Presbytarian and Assembly of God Churches even the Seventh Day Adventists still use hymns regularly and almost if not every Sunday. Granted, there are some denominations like the Reformed Church in America and even the majority of the Pentecostal Churches prefer worship bands and ccm on a regular basis. I am a Southern Baptist Reformed member by affiliation, and we use ccm and hymns in a mixture. However, I believe that people for the most part prefer the old hymns.The old hymns of faith carry a far reaching meaning throughout the church of Christ. Not only that, but they are ancient, and living and sharp. The CCM music of today is new and is not yet as deep and as ancient as the old hymns. The hymns offer much deeper theolgy and they show the truths of God's word in a majestic and new light.I rest my case for this debate :).Thank you so much my friend for an enjoyable awesome debate, I learned a lot.
A Joe Biden/Elizabeth Warren ticket would defeat a Hillary Clinton/_________ ticket in the primaries

It isn't about how well you have argued your case. You may have provided reasons as why it is likely to happen but those reasons certainly aren't 100% because if they were then this wouldn't be a debatable topic. I don't need to provide an argument all I need to do is prove that your arguments aren't 100% and that means that your burden is unfufilled. I said that the alien thing is extremely unlikely to happen - and he probably sucks at football because he new to our planets customs and is learning. When he reads your comment he might be bored of football and decide to consume our planet. Unlikely but not 100% unlikely. I would be dead without a brain. Your brain is like the command-central for your body. Everything you do, think and say depends on your brain. The brain is divided into regions that control various functions, such as movement, speech and balance. Damage to a region may affect the functions it controls, causing symptoms such as loss of movement, difficulty speaking, or loss of coordination. I wouldn't be able to type this without a brain - so again, your argument has been proven false. " There was no rule in the first round stating that I couldnt add new rules halfway through the debate, and your interpretation of the debate never said that I couldn't add new rules halfway through the debate XD " You may think that I am a bad troll but your logic is clearly flawed because according to your logic that means that in R1 it also never said that I cannot make rules. You have made the biggest mistake of your life! My new rule is that everything Pro says is false and that Con automatically wins the debate and because there are no more rounds I have won this debate! Better luck next time Pro! Exactly, being in the HoF is only because you have been on this site longer and have been able to troll more than me. You haven't turned the tables on me, you have just ruined any chance of you winning the debate - if you can make up the rules then so can I because it was never stated in round 1!
A Joe Biden/Elizabeth Warren ticket would defeat a Hillary Clinton/_________ ticket in the primaries

Your position in this debate is to argue that there is a 100% chance. Mine isn't to say that there is a 0% chance. I am just arguing against the resolution which means that all I have to do is argue that there isn't a 100% chance. Not why there is a 0% chance and I interpret this debate so that the BoP is on Pro since their role in this debate is to prove that there is a 100% chance. He claims that there is a 100% chance that Tim Tebow wont convert to Islam, hijack an airplane and fly it into the Peyton Manning's house in Denver for taking his job there, come back to life, and swallow the entire Earth whole. However this is not true the chances may be extremely slim however as I have stated nothing is impossible. For all we know we may all be in the Matrix. Everyone around you may be robots and you may be the only human being alive. Maybe Tim Tebow is secretly an alien who has infinite powers and he reads your argument and sees it as a challenge he may then decide to do the challenge that you have set him. You cannot prove my argument 100% false. You can say that it is more probable that it is false but you cannot say that it is completely false. Maybe I hypnotised you to say those exact sentences because if you were really that smart you would realise that a hypnotic spaghetti monster my brain would be spaghetti so I would be pretty dumb ... of course there isn't a 100% chance that my brain would be spaghetti so it is possible that I would have a brain .... By the way, Pro - you cannot create new rules in R2 since I have accepted the debate that is unfair on me since I did not know that you would do that. It is like me doing a God debate and suddenly changing the defininitions and stating that my opponnet cannot argue against the definitions in any way halfway through the debate - that's just unfair. The instigator of the debate should not have more power over the challenger other than the fact taht they can set up R1 once the challenger accepts they are both equal for the rest of the debate unless somebody breaks a rule. New rules aren't allowed half way through a debate and as a result the rules that you made stating that I cannot interpret the resolution, BoP or definitions without your permission is invalid. And by the way, just because you have been on this site longer - it does not mean that you are a better troll than me because I am certain that I am better.
A Joe Biden/Elizabeth Warren ticket would defeat a Hillary Clinton/_________ ticket in the primaries

"I interpret the resolution to mean that there is a 100% chance that a Joe Biden/Elizabeth Warren ticket would defeat a Hillary Clinton / ___ ticket in the primaries."So you want to play that kind of a game? lol, youre out of youre league, kid ;DIf my position is to argue that there is a 100% chance of Biden/Warren beating Hillary, then I'll interpret the burden of proof to mean that YOU have to prove that there is a ZERO percent chance that Biden/Warren would beat Hillary/______, since both you and I neglected to define the burden of proof in the debate so far.... That means Con must now argue that there is a 0% chance that Biden/Warren would beat Hillary/______Here's a tip con, dont try to troll a debate against someone who knows how to troll way better than you ;)===================================================================================Now then, cons arguments for why there is a 0% chance that Biden/Warren would beat Hillary/________1) "Nothing is ever 100%"Things can always be 100%. For Example: There is a 100% chance that Tim Tebow WONT convert to Islam, hijack an airplane, and fly it into Peyton Manning's house in Denver for taking his job there, come back to life, and swallow the entire Earth whole..... There are facts and qualities about reality that make it impossible for impossible things from happening, and for probable things to have a probable chance of occurring. Because things can be 100%, the opposite of those things can only then be 0%. The arguments I presented previously are my reasoning for why there is a 100% chance that Joe Biden, if he decided to run, and Elizabeth Warren, if she were selected by Biden to be his VP, would defeat Hillary Clinton in a primary match-up, regardless of who she picked as her own VP.... If we accept Con's argument though, then nothing can ever be 0% either, which means he forfeits the burden of proof he holds in the debate. "How do you know that I am not a spaghetti monster typing on my computer now hypnotizing you as you read these very words?"Because if you were a hypnotic spaghetti monster, you would have been smarter, and able to come up with a better argument then the asinine one you ended up using ;)================================================================================I extend all other arguments and eagerly await for con to present arguments for why there is a 0% chance of Biden/Warren beating Hillary/______ in an election matchup. Just as a giant screw-you to con as well, I will exercise my authority as the creator of this debate to ban any and all further interpretations of the resolution, the burden of proof, definitions of words, etc. that are done without my permission. Back to you con