BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Short Story Challenge

Gah, 11 minutes left. I call this "Imagine your own action story." "Allison, no! You can't leave with him!" She whipped her head around, her golden blonde hair snapping angrily, "Why not?" She brandishes her short sword in his direction "Why the hell not?". Mark, who had remained quiet up until now pumps his shotgun, the dead shell falls to the floor. "And why can't she come with me Chris? Because you're too cowardly to take her yourself? We both know where they've taken the kid." Chris hangs his head, pleading "It's too dangerous. Let me go instead of you Allison. I couldn't live with myself if anything happened to you!" Allison scawled "He's my son Chris. I'm going and neither of you can stop me." "Well what are waiting for? Let's kill these son of a bitches and get back the boy!" A tense, chase-filled car ride later… "There's two nasty looking men whispering; they're playing a game with a pair of dice…" Allison hurriedly says to the two heavily armed men. "They look dangerous" As the words leave her lips, shots start being fired. Chris takes on in the chest. Allison screams and Mark flies into a murderous rage, firing at will at the trench-coat wearing creeps. "I'm sorry Ally, I'm so…" Chris lets out his last breath. Pulling the pistol from his pants, she too begins firing. A tense gun battle later… "MUM!" the boy exclaims in jubilation. "I'm here Banana-Wildflower." She says with a smile as she pulls her sword out of the chest of a guard. Chris wipes brain matter from his face. "Lets get the hell out of here." They run down the corpse-laden hallway toward the helicopter-pad. A bearded man steps out from the last door way, pointing a desert-eagle magnum directly at them. "Well, well, everyone is here." He laughs, cocking the trigger. A tense villain's monologue later and final struggle later… The helicopter rises off the pad, blowing dust over the establishment. The survivors take one last look of the nightmare and fly away into the sunset. THE END I'll do what you did and offer you these two items. (You obviously don't have to use them both) "Jaaaaaaaack! I told you couldn't kill me. Now I'm here for your head" & These items: A basket, a jug of beer and a dirty pair of shoes.
All Propositions Are True

I do not believe I'm begging the question. I'm using what I've already established in my opening argument to further support my case. My opening argument still stands. I agree that my claim that all propositions are true produces a contradiction. However, since all propositions are true, a contradiction actually does exist. That inconsistency is part of reality. Since all propositions are true, the following four propositions are true. 1. You are right that "not all propositions are true," and you are wrong that "not all propositions are true." 2. I am right that "all propositions are true," and I am wrong that "all propositions are true." 3. You are on your side of this debate and you are on my side of this debate. 4. I am on your side of this debate and I am on my side of this debate.
All Propositions Are True

Pro is committing a "begging the question" fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org... they are assuming all propositions are true in an attempt to argue that all propositions are true.Another example of why Pro's proposition is nonsense:If all propositions are true, this implies that the proposition "not all propositions are true" is true, and therefore that not all propositions are true. This shows that Pro's proposition produces a contradiction and thus cannot be true.
All Propositions Are True

I agree that there are a number of propositions that are not true. However, the fact that there are a number of propositions that are not true does not contradict the claim that all propositions are true. If all propositions are true, then the proposition "there are a number of propositions that are not true" is true. The truth of your example proposition "Donald Trump is a 700 year old zebra from Mars with the largest collection of sex toys on Earth" is substantiated by my opening argument and its conclusion that all propositions are true. The claim that all propositions are true is substantiated by my opening argument, and it follows from the claim that all propositions are true that the proposition "Donald Trump is a 700 year old zebra from Mars with the largest collection of sex toys on Earth" is true. Further substantiation of the truth of your example proposition isn't required.
All Propositions Are True

I previously instigated and completed the debate "All Propositions Are True," located at http://www.debate.org..., and subsequently started and participated in the forum "All Propositions Are True," located at http://www.debate.org.... In the following paragraph, I provide verbatim the same argument I gave as my opening argument for the aforementioned debate. Consider the proposition p = "A rectangle is a square." Since some rectangles are squares, a rectangle is a square. Thus, p is true. Since some rectangles are not squares, a rectangle is not a square. Thus, p is not true. So by Conjunction Introduction, p is true and p is not true. But that is a contradiction. Since every proposition follows from a contradiction by the Principle of Explosion, the proposition "all propositions are true" is true. Therefore, all propositions are true.
human laws were elevated by Moses to the law of God, and adds to discrediting OTestament Law

"no he was for it, hten he was against it. and i'm asking why he would be later against it. obviously it's said divorce is wrong now. and moses said it was okay then." V. 9 "9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." He clearly wasn't against it as he defines the merits for divorce: sexual immorality.
human laws were elevated by Moses to the law of God, and adds to discrediting OTestament Law

no he was for it, hten he was against it. and i'm asking why he would be later against it. obviously it's said divorce is wrong now. and moses said it was okay then. your answer turns God's law into practical approachings of situations, instead of moral principals approachings. marriage is wrong, but since it does't work, we can allow it. or, since we allow it for practical purposes, it's not wrong? this is all arbitrary, and or unprincipaled, and contadictory.
human laws were elevated by Moses to the law of God, and adds to discrediting OTestament Law

i showed that Jesus said that Moses allowed for divorce. this was part of Mosaic law, the law that was said to come from God. if we accept that it came from God, how can it be that God would be for or even allow divorce, but then later be gainst it? but it doesn't look like GOd allowed for divorce. most plainly, it was moses who elevated the heart of men to the laws of God. mosaic law was treated, even by Jesus, as the law of God.
human laws were elevated by Moses to the law of God, and adds to discrediting OTestament Law

human laws were elevated by Moses to the law of God, and adds to discrediting OTestament Law here is an example. Matthew 19:8 "Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." if what Moses taught was not the law of God, according to Jesus, doesn't that mean he elevated human law to the point of God's law? and what are we to think about OTestament laws when we have such nonsense?
Ronald Reagan was a Better President than Barack Obama

I will begin with my finishing rebuttals, and then conclude this debate. My opponent says that my source only talks about Clinton, however this is false. Read the article man!My opponent says that Apple is doing badly because of Obama, however this is false. Apple, and other companies, are doing badly because of our economic depression, and because of Steve Job's death.http://techland.time.com...Time magazine talks about how it is due to Steve Job's death.Also, try googling "apple stocks" and looking at their economic growth. They reached their peak during Obama's adminstration, and have been falling since Job's death.My opponent said my cold war argument was unreliable, however it was a New York Times article that he apparantly didn't read. You should look it over. REAGAN STOPPING THE COLD WAR IS A MYTH.Then my opponent brings up an imaginary source (the tower comission) which he has mentioned NO WHERE in this debate. We can discard his refutation thusly. I even looked up the Tower Comission for the sake of this debate though, and it is an organization created by Ronald Reagan. Bias source much?As to my sources on the recessions, you are misreading the signs. According to http://247wallst.com... current depression is the worst since the great depression.My opponent also says it was called the Great Recession because of the failure of Barack Obama, however the recession ended a few months after Obama took office... check my source! It ended in June 2009.Then my opponent disgraces Nobel Prize winning economist, who, as I cited in my arguments, says that we need to increase spending and our budget, so that we can improve our nation's infrastructure. !!!My opponent than says that had their been more protection the death of four people might have been prevented. But then you are putting in danger the soldiers who are protecting them! War is death, and we cannot expect to invade a country without deaths.My opponent then calls all Egyptians "Muslim Radicalists" and "Terrorists". There is obviously a racist undertone in his argument. We freed people in Egypt. Do you call freeing a nation a waste of money? They have not acted against us or our allies, so how can we call them terrorists?I have sucessfully refuted all of my opponent's contentions, and he has either poorly or not at all counter refuted my rebuttals.To conclude, my opponent has still not refuted my point about how Reagan destroyed the air traffic control union, and poorly refuted near all of my points.I would like to remind voters to vote based on what has been side on this debate, and not opinions and facts outside of this debate. I am quite confident I have lost this debate, merely because of the audience voting. Pro, I am not educated properly on political history. Please do not let me represent your views of the democratic party. Ronald Reagan was an evil villain, and if I can't prove it, I'm sure some one else can. Reagan went insane with dementia near the end of his term and destroyed our nation, sending us backwards in time.Thanks for starting the debate!
Ronald Reagan was a Better President than Barack Obama

I would like to begin by reinforcing my rebuttals. My opponent counter refutes my point about supply-side economics being a failure by only talking about Clinton. Okay, yes, I mentioned Clinton, but you are getting totally off topic. Also, just because Clinton gave a tax cut doesn't mean he supports supply-side economics, the Laffer curve, the trickle down theory, whatever you want to call it. My opponent then defends Reagan by saying that him raising unemployment was not his fault. He provides no source or reason, and that counter rebuttal is completely contradictory to all of his points, where he cites no reason it was Reagan's sucess and not his administrations. My opponent is saying that when his administration does good things, it is because of Ronald Reagan, but when they do bad things it is because of the adminstration? My opponent also says that Apple lost stock recently, however this is completely irrelevant to our debate. Apple lost stock because of the death of Steve Jobs, the failure of Apple Maps, etc. As to foreign policy, my opponent completes skirts my refutation on how it was not Reagan that stopped the cold war. All he does is reinforce his own point. My opponent says that it is common sense that Reagan didn't do anything wrong with the Iran Contra affair. If your ideaof common sense is giving money attained by selling guns to drug dealers in Nicaragua (high treason) and then its not your fault, then please explain common sense to me by your definition. On Barack Obama, my opponent says that Obama did not face such a bad recession as compared to Reagan, but this is false. The economy collapsed in December of 2007, before Obama took office. There is a reason that they call our current recession the worst since the great depression. .. I encourage you to look at these two wikipedia articles. One is on the depression before Reagan took office, and the other for Obama. Which seems worse to you? . http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...My opponent says he has no idea where I get my argument that more spending is better in recessions. However, I cited Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize Winning Economist. The reason the Barack Obama recovery is weaker is because the depression was ten times worse than Reagan's! My opponent's counter refutation to my rebuttal that it is not the fault of Obama for the lives lost in Benghazi, but the fault of war, was merely a reaffirmation of his point. He just said his point and expects you to believe that he has countered my refutation. War results in death! My opponent then badly paraphrases me, "why giving weapons to radical Muslim rebels is a bad thing". The answer to this question is that we freed millions of people that were opressed by a dictator. Until my opponent tells us about what Egypt is doing against America (aka nothing) we can assume our affairs in Egypt are sucessful.
Sexism

ok...So your saying there are jobs than women wont do because they are protected by men. So why cant women protect men and why does it have to be the other way round? men can be teachers and they are and in which they are doing a great job! By saying that a man cannot do something a women can is sexist. When someone says that men are good builders and women just are not strong enough it means that they are saying men are the strongest sex. This is discrimination towards women. It is sexist and just not right. Inside all of us are equal. A women can do anything a man can if they just try and have the right tools to do it. That's all. thank you. overall, you did make a good point. I can see where you are coming from but please understand where I am coming from. We should all be equal. Do you agree with me yet?
Lowered 2yr. tuition helps in successful completion and maintains the 4yr. college debt.

I do not understand why you would forfeit the round, but I will still post an argument for you to consider for the next round if you do not forfeit that one as well. The question itself is rather vague. I am going to assume that by 2 year tuition you are referring to Community College, and most 2 year colleges offer an Associates Degree. Firstly, I will start off by stating that I do not believe that government should play a part in education, as they are morbidly inefficient with people's money. Secondly, I will state that college is demand based. If there is more incentive to do something, then the cost will go up. Government subsidizes and created incentive to go to college, which means that the cost of the goes up tremendously. Additionally, Community Colleges already cost a very little amount compared to private universities since they are paid for by the state. The education is of course not as good, but it is also not as costly. Thirdly, I do not understand what you mean by "maintains the 4yr. college debt." For whom? If the government decides to go in to private universities and force them to lower tuition then that will violated the Constitution and most likely the universities will sue. If the government goes in to Community Colleges then that will be okay, but they will have to pay more money. Since we are in a deficit, and currently hold very little money, we would need to increase taxes to pay for this lowered tuition. No one should subsidize other people's lives. You should pay for college on your own. If government left college altogether the demand would go down and so would the cost. This is okay, because some people who attend college are rather stupid and drop out either way.
Lowered 2yr. tuition helps in successful completion and maintains the 4yr. college debt.

I have accepted your challenge. I will be arguing against the claims made by the Pro side. I will be using contextual evidence, as well as my deep understanding on the economy. I will be using sources that support my claim and refute the claim of the Pro side. I will also be maintaining a good atmosphere as to make sure that this debate does not become one of slanderous nature but rather a discussion. I will make sure that this debate does not become one of sympathy, but rather that of factual information. I will await your opening statement.
Lowered 2yr. tuition helps in successful completion and maintains the 4yr. college debt.

Having the college tuition rate lowered will have a successful completion rate of graduating a two year college because it is so affordable while also having lowered the debt collection at the beginning of a four year college. The cost of attending college has skyrocketed and is moving faster than the economy today. There are more students who attend college even if they cannot afford to attend which means taking out students loans and making the decision of not having a home loan when it is time to decide to do so in the future (Anderberg). .
Why speaking in tongues is still for today.

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. ***Fact How were they all filled with the Holy Ghost by the sign of speaking in tongues.*** Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, ***Fact how did they know the Holy Ghost was poured out?*** Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. ***Fact when the Holy Ghost came them what happened? They spoke with tongues.*** Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. ***Fact the gift of the Holy Ghost which is speaking in tongues is for your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord shall call. And unless God is done calling you need to receive it.***
Why speaking in tongues is still for today.

I have not posted anything off topic. The debate was on the subject of whether or not speaking in tongues is "still for today," whatever that means. The fact that God does not exist would clearly indicate that speaking in tongues is not a good idea and makes no sense. It is COMPLETELY relevant to the speaking of tongues. Also you clearly said in the first round, "I will use the bible and very little philosophy to prove my point." It is completely within your power to do that but that does not mean I have to, regardless of what you "aspect." In fact, using the Bible over philosophy only shows that you prefer mindless regurgitation of a source over serious thought on a topic as a means of argument. I consider this a very weak way to debate. This debate is completely relevant to whether or not God exists. If God does not exist then there is no reason to speak in tongues. You seem to think that I can't bring up any points that aren't specifically mentioned in the resolution. I suggest you look at some of the better debates on this site: people frequently bring up and address related ideas and arguments rather than just the exact resolution. If you really want an "honest Bible debate" then change the resolution to "The Bible supports the idea that the speaking of tongues is relevant in a modern context." Then you will have nothing to worry about regarding whether or not what the Bible says is actually true, whether or not God exists, whether or not tongues is a real language, and the slew of other problems related to actually speaking tongues. As it stands right now, I have clearly won this debate. Not a single argument was ever offered to actually support the speaking of tongues, just a list of Bible quotes and interpretations which I demonstrated are meaningless. There is no reason to speak the gibberish pseudo-language that is tongues, and the fact that God does not exist clearly supports this. Also, unless your dad is a surgical cardiologist I must cast personal doubt as to whether he has revived many dead people.
Why speaking in tongues is still for today.

You have automatically forfeited this debate. If I had wanted to debate the existence of God I would has started a debate called "does God exist." Con has posted something totally off subject. Therefor I would rather that no one vote for or against me or my con because of their beliefs. I wanted a debate using bible as I stated. Therefore there is no need to prove God exist. After seeing my Dad raise people from the dead through God I no longer would want to deabte the existence of God. If you wanted to deabte the existence of God you should have started a debate. I am thinking about reporting you for taking a debate and totally changing the subject. You knew that this debate had nothing to do with the existence of God. You have really made me upset. All I wanted was a honest bible debate.
Why speaking in tongues is still for today.

The previous round consisted of a serious of quotes from the Bible and interpretations of them rather than actual arguments. Deconstructing this is going to require a series of contentions that build on each other. I am going to try to keep this as organized as possible. C1: God does not exist. My opponent has offered no evidence to the contrary so for now this stands on it own. However, I will offer an explanation for this point anyway. The statement that God exists is a claim about the nature of the universe and therefore a valid scientific theory. Hence, it must be tested and scrutinized to the level that is appropriate for a scientific theory. Theories require observable evidence and repeatable experiments to support them and the theory of God lacks both of these. Therefore the theory does not hold up to scientific scrutiny and cannot be assumed true. C2: It follows from the fact that God does not exist that the Holy Ghost does not exist either. The Holy Ghost is generally considered an aspect of God. However, the first argument disproves the existence of the Holy Ghost as easily as it disproves the existence of God. Just go back and replace the word God with Holy Spirit. C3: Given the fact that neither God nor the Holy Ghost exist, it is not rational to jabber incoherently in an attempt to communicate with either of them. C4: It is also important to note that given the fact that God does not exist, the Bible is not inherently more reliable than any other source of information. The fact that it seems to recommend babbling nonsensically in order to communicate with imaginary beings seems to hurt its credibility a lot actually. ***Fact God does not exist and making up random sounds to talk in a fake language so that you can communicate with him makes you severely stupid if not possibly insane***