BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I am much cooler then you

"If you were gonna write in all white font would the page be blank." Was that a question? if you noticed, after the number is labeled, the rest is in white font. And if there is any part of the page that is not blank, I think any "cool" person would be able to tell that I must have stopped using the white font. The only thing you solidified was your D i c k when you saw a naked dude, F a g. Nah I'm just joshin you. I know that your not a f a g. However, according www.uncyclopedia.org, Gloria Estefan was part of "The Who". If you were "cool" then you would have seen on my profile that I enjoy listening to applause when I win debates like this one. BOOYEAHSHAKA!
I am much cooler then you

I'm cooler than you because I know how to type in white font. Which is what I will do for the rest of the debate. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28) 29) 812) 813) 814) 815) And it is for those 815 reasons that I am cooler than you. And you can cry all you want about how I wrote in white font but I'm just too cool for black font. By the way, your right I skipped a few numbers. I did that because I was too cool to attend math class from the first grade until now. I was too busy skipping with the other cool kids. (Who were clones of myself!) Anyone who posts a comment about how lame this debate is should be shot with a Nerf gun. You know Pat, There are three kinds of people in this world. One:
Rap Battle 4

Finally, you got better with these freestylin', spittin' a verse barrage Who wouldn't give you their own whack raps from the garbage n' garage I freestyle off the top of my dome, so crown me the king of the game of thrones You need to get fit, go back to planet fitness then come to earth after you leveled in judgement free zones Your style is flat and your tone is so whack, it's as cold as a pile of snow cones These raps that you spit don't even make sense Between you n' 50, i think i'd toss you 50 cents If we fought in real life, on your head, i'd leave 60 dents But since we're verbally fightin' i only break your heart into lil fragments If your talent will destroy me, why haven't you done it? I obliterated this debate with this diss, i run it I can tell you have no confidence by the way you respond to this Look man, you better off makin' a punch line given you had a toy iron fist Good Lord Rap, how long did it take to write this? we don't got all day It cost me 5 minutes to write these lyrics, it cost you a heart to pray Rappin' with you is like rappin' with glue, better yet E.T Your lyrics are so feminine, they saved you a spot on Glee Little boy, don't waste my time, talkin' about i lack passion That implies that you do since you know all about monster mashin' Who the heck ever heard of RapPtheRapp? Thought he was lyrically smart, but fell into his own trap Go to tha school of hip-hop, wear the fool's dunce cap Maybe you'll learn a lesson in charity from cleanin' up all this crap
Rap Battle 4

Here we sit, don't know why we're clashin' This battle's shiit, because you lack passion. I'm done, that's it. You're style's out of fashion. My fuse was lit, but your lyrics provides no attraction. I don't want you to cry, and take negative action, But I won't act surprised, if this gets a bad reaction. You might ask "why?" You're styles only a fraction. I won't say "Bye", when you're gone like subtraction. All you ever do, is criticize lines, it's no wonder why, You don't produce any original rhymes. But you can try, feel obliged, oh my, who am I? I've arrived to apply my mind and take what's mine. I don't care if it's forever, or only briefly, But every other rapper out there will be beneath me. Go ahead and struggle, there's no way that you can keep me. Now you're in big trouble, 'cause my talent will destroy you completely. You can't hurt me, I've been numb, I hate you, I'll break you and then some.
Rap Battle 4

Hahahaha, your rhymes are so weak you used the same recycled from last week Light the ignition? You couldn't even light a cigarette Your ambition invests in too much, couldn't get out of debt You think you can rap cuz u can rhyme n' like graffiti? Your raps are so cheap, it could barely support the needy These raps are so whack, they're not even intact Work on your build-up before you call this a rap I can scramble these words, use them against you After sendin you to hell, you gonna have to reflect on what you just went through Matter of fact, lets get started right now You got ammunition, i got all the retribution If you bought an army of rappers, there'd be no substitution Forget a mission, i stand alone in a rampage Try to predict me n' find that this wasn't staged Your raps don't even make sense, it's like a sword gone wild By the time you rap next round, these bars will be out of freestyle Oh my Lord, these lyrics are so whack i don't know where to begin If Shake-sphere were here, he'd cry out, yellin' "this is a sin!"
Rap Battle 4

Light my ignition, I'm on the right mission, You're in quite the position, Careful my bright ambition, Will blind your sight and vision I've got enough ammunition to destroy the opposition, You best reposition Before you're beat into submission. You're in no condition To even audition This demolition Will require a mortician. I won't ask for permission, It's just my disposition, There'll be no remission After this acquisition. You payed no admission, So you're another addition, To the others I've kicked in, I'll have to make a new edition. You'll be wishin' You could just sign a petition To stop me, it's like a tradition. If you look in the mirror, you'll find failures definition
is terrorism just another word for acts based on unjustified beliefs

First off: please leave religion out of it. Their are other groups who commit terrorist attacks. In fact, Italy greatest civilian attack was done by Neo-Fascists, not members of any specific religion. Secondly, ridiculousness is in the eye of the beholder. And fiinally, our debate is about the title of the debate. But their are probably many sources you can find who argue your opinion, so all is not lost for you in this debate. Good luck next round.
is terrorism just another word for acts based on unjustified beliefs

"My argument is that calling them terrorists takes away from what they really are." Actually, your argument as defined by the statement is: "Terrorism just another word for acts based on unjustified beliefs." Until now, I haven't really heard any proofs that these two phrases are synonymous. Rather, you've explained how we need to relabel terrorism, to say it like it is. I do believe that an act of terrorism is an act of unjustified belief, no matter who commits it. But not all acts of unjustified belief are terrorism. I hope to read some interesting, on-topic arguments next round.
is terrorism just another word for acts based on unjustified beliefs

My argument is that calling them terrorists takes away from what they really are...individuals who are acting reasonable and justifiably according to their religion...their intent is not to cause terror ....their actions lead to terror for others but it is not their goal......ic we are gonna label people based on a result even if it wasnt tbe intent why dont we jusg call butchers terrorists since they cause terror in cows...even though its not their goal...we need to label things and situations accurately as to understand what we are dealing with in an attempt to fix it at tbe root of tbe issue.....thanks for the vote of luck tbat was. Ery generous of you but not necassary......
is terrorism just another word for acts based on unjustified beliefs

Few things: 1: The crusaders were terrorists. Everyone learns about their exploits in the Holy Land, not stopping to realize that they killed tens of thousands, maybe even more than one-hundred thousand, Jews who lived Europe. They also destroyed countless synagouges and burnt books of Jewish law. So, yes, the crusaders were terrorists, plain and simple. 2: I feel that you are backtracking. You, as pro, say that Terrorism and acts based on unjustified beliefs are synonymous. But then, you state that some acts based on unjustified beliefs aren't terrorism, as they cause no harm. I feel that your resolution is too broad for it to be embodied completely by your opinion. 3: Justification is in the eye of the beholder. You can't just use the word unjustified as objective. Good luck in the next round.
is terrorism just another word for acts based on unjustified beliefs

This is my first post so bear with me if you can....but i guess my point is.......there are many many many unjustified beliefs and many actions based on them. The actions may or may not produce negative results. When they have no negative impact on society or humanity or lets just say the united states for the sake of this argument, its pretty much unnoticed and doesnt really matter....but when tbe result of an action based on an unjustified belief does negatively impact the country such as blowing people up chopping off heads it is given tbe label or terrorism....the problem isnt the result of tbe action....it is tbe process used in the decision making to perform the said action....that process being, using unjustified beliefs to adrive at said decision....i could just as easily call the crusades Terrorists and ignore their motives or even congress terrorists for making policy decisions based on their unjustified beliefs that impact the world negatively.....these labels give people a ....detour or distraction from the root of the problem......if the majority of decisions were based on the maximum amount of factual data a huge majority of the worlds issues would not exist....so long story short...calling acts based on religion that happen to be harmul terrorism ignores the actual problem......i submit to grammer and spelling
is terrorism just another word for acts based on unjustified beliefs

Good luck to my opponent! I'm hoping for an interesting debate. I believe this is a classic case of, "All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. " Which is to say, I believe that terrorism is a subcategory of acts based on unjustified beliefs, but not a description of the whole group. I'll explain this in practical terms. I'm Jewish, and so I pray thrice daily. This is an action which, atheists would believe, is unjustified, as it conforms in their minds to the definition of unjustified: "not shown to be right or reasonable. " Would atheists call me a terrorist, just because I pray? In short, terrorism is a subcategory, not a synonym, for acts based on unjustified beliefs.
is terrorism just another word for acts based on unjustified beliefs

It is clear to me that the word terrorism is just a word to describe...of actually mask the actual case.....which is people acting apon unjustified beliefs.....why dont we just call it what it really is? And most of the time that unjustified belief is religion. These people are not trying to cause terror they think they are acting in a productive manner and in gods interests . Lets face it
is terrorism just another word for acts based on unjustified beliefs

Fine, don't leave religion out of it. Religion is a very major point in terrorist attacks. But it's not the only point. I know the title misrepresented what you meant. However, people vote based on the official opinions as defined by the title, not by the opinions stated thereafter. I also hope people read this and understand our discussion. Voters, I want you to realize that Terrorism is only a sub-category of acts based on unjustified belief. I want you to realize that spelling and grammar are the icing to the cake, and the fact that my opponent clearly wrote arguments quickly on a mobile device doesn't display a recognition of that. And I want you to realize that the debate topic is what is voted upon, and a debater's change of opinion during the debate means that they have veritably given up on their original belief. Thank You, and have a good night.
You are not my god

On my opponent's profile their religion is listed as Sikhism, now in order to understand why I am your god we first need to understand the view on god in Sikhism. The fundamental belief of Sikhism is that God exists, not merely as an idea but as a Real Entity, indescribable yet knowable and perceivable[1] Seeing as I am both knowable and perceivable as well as a real entity I therefore am your God. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Animal Slaughter Should be Illegal

I would like to start by personally thanking the one who accepts this challenge ahead of time, and I look forward to debating with whomever it may be. The issue that I want to talk about it the slaughtering of animals. Each day thousands of animals are brutally killed-- shackled upside down, shocked into paralysis, throat slit, and then drowned in hot water all while the animal is conscious. The main question is, is this really necessary? Here are my arguments:1. Many may argue that we need meat to survive, but I will assure you this is not the case. According to a study by Michael Bluejay humans are biologically herbivores. Just like herbivores we have well-developed facial muscles, jaw at an expanded angles, small mouth openings, we need extensive chewing like herbivores, a stomach acidity of pH 4-5, cannot detoxify vitamin A, and there are plenty more statistics. The point is, carnivores and omnivores do not have these certain characteristics, therefore we humans are pretty much herbivore. Furthermore, saying we are omnivores because we are capable of eating meat is not a reliable answer. We are capable of eating cardboard, too. 2. What they do to those animals is wrong. Pigs are castrated without painkillers, chickens have their beaks cut off, and practically all animals that are to be slaughtered are stuffed inside cages or pens with many others of their own kind, not having any comfortable living space and forced to live under their own excrement. Most can't even walk by the time they are taken to be slaughtered. No creature deserves to be treated like this. Animals feel pain and are capable of suffering, just like people. 3. Making animal slaughter illegal will help the environment enormously. According to the United Nations, raising animals for food causes more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars, planes, ships, and trains in the world combined. Chickens, pigs, turkeys, and cows on factory farms generate billions of pounds of feces every year. This waste frequently spills over into nearby waterways, killing millions of fish and causing dangerous effects. Eating meat is far less efficient than eating plants. It can take up to sixteen pounds of grain to produce just one pound of meat, and because of the need to grow so much grain to feed farmed animals, millions of acres of native habitat are destroyed and replace with a single crop. And finally, more than 90% of the Amazon rain forest cleared since 1970 is used for global meat production.
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

My primary contention is the First Council of Nicaea. According to the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, it began with the first pope, Saint Peter. Therefore, the Catholic Church began c.30CE. The First Council of Nicaea commenced in 325CE. The existence of the council shows that the Catholic Church has contradicted itself for the purpose of the council was to reach a consensus about the churches true beliefs. Indeed, prior to the council, there were many sect of Christianity that believed in many things that are not in the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, yet they were Bishops of Christ. The problem of separatists and bad ideologies was so bad, that they needed the council. This shows that for the first 300 years of the Catholic Church, it was in a constant state of contradiction. This concludes my opening argument.
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

n this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes. note: -this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use the sins of past popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference. -since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years. -also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation. -there's a difference between practice and doctrine too... preistly celibacy is practice, reading the mass in latin is a practice... etc also try not to be vague. so many claims of contradiction online are superficial. for example, "papal bull regarding jews", without getting into what exactly is contradicting what etc. if possible, find the quote or citation for what you are referring to. also I have debated this topic many times in the past, if you would like you may review my profile to see all the points brought up by past debaters etc
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

You are assuming the infallibility of the pope, which is a logical fallacy. It presents a ground which I cannot debate. If we were to assume that the pope is completely divine and true, then that means you can never make arguments that he is not. You are making a circular debate. Moreover, during the Council of Nicaea, the pope voted in ways that were not passed, yet he accepted all of the voted doctrine. This means that he is changing his supposedly divine nature because of the will of man. Furthermore, the quotation from the Catholics says that popes have changed religious doctrine. This means that the pope was sworn in under certain doctrine and then changed them for personal or political reasons. This clearly shows that the pope is contradicting himself. Thank you.
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

it doesn't matter how the pope makes the decision, only that the deicion he made is considered authoritative, arguably infallible. it shows the humanity of the pope... he is only a man, but when he speaks authoritatively that is final. as only a man, he might just take the majority vote. surely if infallbity or the catholic church were true, God would be present in those proceedings too etc. not sure what the forgeries have to do w this debate. sure there were forged documents.. the pope doesn't teach them to be true, or ratify their content etc/
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

The pope himself is indeed the bishop alone. Reincarnation after death ( like in Hinduism) was a voting issue. Does it not bother you that reincarnation was not officially a doctrine because of 1 bishops vote. The pope accepted whatever happened to be in the majority vote. It is how they created the Nicene creed. The pope accepting other doctrines as true shows that the pope is not infallible as he simply put the next 1700 years of Christianity to vote. To give another perspective and to quote the Catholics via their Catholic Encyclopedia: "Substitution of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages. Innocent III (1198) points out nine species of forgery [of ecclesiastical records] which had come under his notice. But such frauds of the Church were not confined to the Middle Ages; they begin even with the beginning of the Church and infest every period of its history for fifteen hundred years and defile nearly every document, both of "Scriptures" and of Church aggrandizement. As truly said by Collins, in his celebrated Discourse of Free Thinking: "In Short, these frauds are very common in all books which are published by priests or priestly men... For it is certain they may plead the authority of the Fathers for Forgery, Corruption and mangling of Authors, with more reason than for any of their Articles of Faith.."(p.96.)" They give you the example, Innocent III.
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

the heart of catholic teaching and the question of "infallibility" is the pope's teachings. the pope intentionally teaches the church on faith and morals. if there were tons of discord, and even if the bishops were trying to reach consensus, all that matters is the end result... what did the pope ratify? what did the pope say? it doesn't matter what one bishop said, or even lots of bishops... only the bishop of rome, the pope. the issue you are presenting has nothing to do with the pope
Wind/Hydroelectric is Superior to Solar

I accept the... nonexistent terms. If my opponent will permit me to, I would like to provide some definitions. Definitions: [1] Wind Power - [Noun] Power obtained by harnessing the energy of the wind. [2] Hydroelectric Power - [Noun] A form of energy generated by the conversion of free-falling water to electricity; the generation of electricity by using the motive power of water; also called hydroelectricity. [3] Solar Power - [Noun] Power obtained by harnessing the energy of the sun's rays. Sources: [1] www.merriam-webster.com
Wind/Hydroelectric is Superior to Solar

byaka, I must respectfully decline this debate due to a full schedule. I will be unable to complete this debate for the following reasons: [1] I will be taking my girlfriend to dinner tonight [2] Have a double header this weekend down in Trinidad, therefore I will be unable to submit any response. Please send me a challenge for this debate again with a three day acceptance dead-line and I will take the case back up with a full schedule. Its not often that a science topic is present unless I start one, so I appreciate the creativity. If I may, I would like to request that we submit single word arguments for 3 and 4, as to not fluctuate our scores. Again, if you are willing to do so, please drop another challenge that I will gladly accept on the coming Monday [4/17]. You have my word.
Wind/Hydroelectric is Superior to Solar

I apologize for the lack of terms. I was in a rush. Anyway, here goes: Wind first- According to https://greenfuture.io... wind energy costs way less. And it works whenever there's wind (almost always) compared with solar, working only during a clear day (not night). They generate significantly more electricity than solar panels, which may not fit to every roof. Wind is a more efficient power source than solar. Compared to solar panels, wind turbines release less CO2 to the atmosphere, consume less energy, and produce more energy overall. In fact, one wind turbine can generate the same amount of electricity per kWh as about 48,704 solar panels. Turbines can additionally be built offshore, and is far less of a potent pollutant. http://homeguides.sfgate.com... claims hydropower is the least expensive alternative energy source in the US. Again, hydroelectricity has a more constant power supply and can function throughout a whole day. There are several other uses for hydropower such as recreation resource reservoirs. Solar is not quite as reliable and is too expensive and too precise in necessary attributes.