BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity is false according to the bible.

By mixing the High Holy Day and Passover week into a East'ar religion that eats swine and teaches little children to worship magic rabbits that lay eggs of many colors. Is one way Christianity is very Satanic!1Co_11:17, Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.1Co_11:18, For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.1Co_11:19, For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.1Co_11:20, When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. I will ask who and why did Christianity change God'Sabbath? There is a Passover week that Christ actually followed. By mixing the High Holy Day and Passover week into a East'ar religion that eats swine and teaches little children to worship magic rabbits that lay eggs of many colors. Is one way Christianity is very Satanic!1Co_11:17, Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.1Co_11:18, For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.1Co_11:19, For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.1Co_11:20, When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. Next everything about the rituals are actually not ordered by God. Like the Lords Supper. Christ never gave more than a word of thanks. Christ always prayed alone. Matt.6:6So why do Christians pray to be seen of men?6 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. 2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. 7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. 9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
Gay Marriage

This is a debate that Gay Marriage should not be legal where limits are to be set for Californian law and customs. Gay Marriage is defined as being: Lawful Marriage between 2 people of same gender. There are 3 points supporting gay marriage: 1. First and foremost, America in general is founded on the civil liberties and freedom for all including for gay people to be allowed to marry. 2. Current California law makes gay marriage illegal. This however, violates the 1st Amendment as well as the general goal for the Constitution to have "the right to pursue happiness." (See www.billofrights.org/) 3. California' diversity (see http://quickfacts.census.gov...) shows the cultural heritage and diverse ideas of the people living there. Making gay marriage legal would allow for these diverse ideas to be truly shown as a complete image including for marriage between couples. The character of Californian people shows how they want the spectrum of ideas to be expressed.
Abortion

C -"I am a straight A student and way smarter then you Hun"- P -How exactly is this measured?.. Do you have a special meter on your computer that values the intelligence of people on the internet? oh and I am a famous doctor who has also been on the moon 3 times after finding atlantis.. just saying >.O.- C -"Hun are you on drugs?"- P -Possibly- C -"Or you can go buy a cheap condom.. That's the easy way to do it!"- P -I thought this was a debate about being against abortion not being against having a kid... because truly whats the difference : /,- C -"Pregnancy isn't a punishment but notice..... BUT it could be and there are plenty of people that can't have babies but want then not everyone wants to adopt an Asian baby"- P -I do hope you realize that there are different means of having a baby ten to just adopt one.." C -"Yes people could Adopt older kids but a lot of people want them when they are babies."- P -again whats this have to do with not having an abortion.. you keep referring to people that cant have babies that want one, this has nothing to do with the topic of the debate to be honest.- P -Also for the people that you keep referring to that can't have kids and don't want to adopt.. there are other means of having children and again what does this have to do with abortion being wrong.. they cant even have a kid for an abortion to ever happen..- -I am now going to have some fruit loops for breakfast and i await my opponents hefty response- VOTE COOOOON
Abortion

And no I'm not on drugs Hun I am a straight A student and way smarter then you Hun are you on drugs?Okay yes it's a type of protection but there's plenty of "pre protection" so why not use that? It's also way cheaper.... Do you really want to pay to have it done? Or you can go buy a cheap condom.. That's the easy way to do it! Pregnancy isn't a punishment but notice..... BUT it could be and there are plenty of people that can't have babies but want then not everyone wants to adopt an Asian baby.... Yes people could Adopt older kids but a lot of people want them when they are babies.
Abortion

-O.o, Be this drugs? You join but an hour ago and challenge me to this? Well..- -"In against it I think if girls can have sex then the can deal with the consequences that comes with having sex....."- - Pregnancy =/= punishment? o wait.. yes of course : P - -"Theres protection out there and lots of people that can't have kids so they would be glad to have them." -That would be called adoption and yes indeed there is protection out there, but that would require leaving the room/house.. too much work you see- -"I think no matter what age you get pregnant you had sex so deal with it."- - I don't know if this debate was serious anymore.. i believe it lost any hope of that when it was started against teh moose?- ---------V073 C0N N0U------------ I await my opponents surely intricate response
Doctor who battle! Darleks are more stronger than the Doctor

I finally concluded my brain by saying it is true that he did won many battles without his companions, still I think that he can't win DARLEKS alone and after all this is about daleks. Don't you think??You stated "OK, so my first argument is that the Doctor seems that he can never win alone."You never specified the Daleks in this sentence; this sentence is your contention sentence. Yeah I know that it is the Bad wolf. In the 'parting of the ways' Rose says that " I am the Bad Wolf." making her the bad wolf! ( I love the sarcasm in Doctor who!!!!!)The "Bad Wolf" was not Rose Tyler."After looking into the Heart of the TARDIS, Vortex energy (if not theTime Vortex itself) filled Rose Tyler, who then temporarily became the Bad Wolf entity."Yeah, I know he is the leader. The handsome dalek Sec still ordered them to stop. Leader or not, He helped the Doctor. ( Yay!!!!! More sarcasm and turnovers!!!!)ALso it's 'Skaro' not 'Skarrow'The human Dalek was Sec.I also know the daleks have a fan club and I'm a owner of the DFCK(Dalek Fan Club Korea) This doesn't mean that the daleks are not strong and we're talking about the story not the actual back ground.I'll ask that you use "powerful" instead of strong, because there is an easy semantic argument that I could use (I won't).Okay, this I agree with but this was not one of my arguments and this was just to finish my speech...( SEE I TOLD YOU, ME!!!!!!!!!! WRITE A BETTER CONCLUSION TO NOT GET COMMENTS LIKE THESE!!!!!!! this was a message to myself:P)You had your conclusion after this argument and since it was a valid argument I had to respond to it.Since this is not a refutation (he even agreed with me) there is nothing to refute.I will now present two arguments against the resolution.Contention 1: The Doctor's knowledge and cunning.The Doctor's main way of attacking is to use his extensive knowledge to his advantage instead of actual brawn which the majority of his enemies use.The Doctor's estimated age is over 900 years old, since he was born he had begun learning and gaining knowledge and uses it to his advantage against all of his enemies.Contention 2: He has beaten the Daleks every time.The Doctor has beaten the Daleks with his knowledge every time.Regardless if they return, he will always defeat them.He has countless times, so why not again and again?I am done for now.
Doctor who battle! Darleks are more stronger than the Doctor

This round will be entirely be about rebutting my arguments by attacking his refutations. He reasonly said that:The Doctor has won many battles without any companions. In the Voyage of the Damned episode, he had no companions. I saw this and I thought ' yes! what! Huh? no! Uh! uhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh' I finally concluded my brain by saying it is true that he did won many battles without his companions, still I think that he can't win DARLEKS alone and after all this is about daleks. Don't you think? ? (P. s Is 'voyage of the damned' fun? If it is I should see it:D )Secondly he saidThe being you are mentioning was not Rose Tyler, but in fact the "Bad Wolf". . http://tardis.wikia.com......(entity)The Bad Wolf had much greater powers than Rose Tyler. One of them, like you said, was an ability to disenigrate enemies. Yeah I know that it is the Bad wolf. In the 'parting of the ways' Rose says that " I am the Bad Wolf. " making her the bad wolf! ( I love the sarcasm in Doctor who! !! !! )Thirdly, he said that :They other Daleks only trusted the "human dalek" because he was originally the leader of the Cult of Skarrow. Yeah, I know he is the leader. The handsome dalek Sec still ordered them to stop. Leader or not, He helped the Doctor. ( Yay! !! !! More sarcasm and turnovers! !! ! )ALso it's 'Skaro' not 'Skarrow'Next, he said:Well this is because the Daleks are one of the Doctor's deadliest enemies, as well as the fan base for the Daleks. I also know the daleks have a fan club and I'm a owner of the DFCK(Dalek Fan Club Korea) This doesn't mean that the daleks are not strong and we're talking about the story not the actual back ground. Finally, he said: This is not really a loss per se, he gains more knowledge and experience each time he regenerates. Also, there has been numerous times where the Doctor has visited previous companions and helped them even if he exceeded the form he was when they were originally his companion. Okay, this I agree with but this was not one of my arguments and this was just to finish my speech. .. ( SEE I TOLD YOU, ME! !! !! !! !! ! WRITE A BETTER CONCLUSION TO NOT GET COMMENTS LIKE THESE! !! !! !! this was a message to myself:P)I don't have much time today so I'll end my speech here and I hope my opponent will have a wonderful debate and post some awesome arguments! THANKS! !! !! !! !! !! !vote darlek! (IT'S NOT EVEN VOTING PERIOD YOU dORK! ! An another comment to myself :P)p. S aooni6.22 is awesome like Matt smith! !
Doctor who battle! Darleks are more stronger than the Doctor

This round will be entirely for refuting each of his arguments. OK, so my first argument is that the Doctor seems that he can never win alone. The Doctor always win the battles between the Darleks, but if we think about it. .. Can he win alone? ?The Doctor has won many battles without any companions. In the Voyage of the Damned episode, he had no companions. I never saw the classic series so I will start with Christopher's 'The parting of the ways. ' The Doctor sent back Rose Tyler with his Tardis and he was planting his bomb but he didn't use it because he knew that it will kill other people too. He admitted defeat and opened his arms. He survived only because Rose Tyler cam back and turned them into dust. Let's think about if there was no Rose Tyler. .. Do you think that the Dalek Emperor would have shown mercy? ? He would have been dead on the spot. The being you are mentioning was not Rose Tyler, but in fact the "Bad Wolf". . http://tardis.wikia.com...(entity)The Bad Wolf had much greater powers than Rose Tyler. One of them, like you said, was an ability to disenigrate enemies. Otherwise then that, in David Tennent's 'The evolution of the Daleks', do you think the flying Dalek would have stopped its extermination if the human Dalek didn't stop him? ?They other Daleks only trusted the "human dalek" because he was originally the leader of the Cult of Skarrow. My second argument is that however luck helps the Doctor, the Daleks keep coming back. Well this is because the Daleks are one of the Doctor's deadliest enemies, as well as the fan base for the Daleks. Each time the Doctor regenerates, it means a loss and that he must do that to survive. In that process, he loses his identity and needs to leave all friends that he met in that form. The Daleks however, have nothing to lose. They are just aliens inside robots and they so they don't care about each other. This shows that A Dalek never fears a loss while the Doctor needs to lose everything if he loses. This is not really a loss per se, he gains more knowledge and experience each time he regenerates. Also, there has been numerous times where the Doctor has visited previous companions and helped them even if he exceeded the form he was when they were originally his companion. I have refuted each of my opponents points. Good luck.
Doctor who battle! Darleks are more stronger than the Doctor

I actually thought about this refutation and I finally found it very wrong. The 'Bad Wolf' is a company which is actually 'Bad Wolf corporation.' Rose used the words 'Bad Wolf' as a sign to guide her here and defeat the dalek If you were using the Bad Wolf corporation than you should have clarified so we are using the Bad Wolf entity. The Bad Wolf was the TARDIS heart, so it was technically the TARDIS helping the doctor. This is exactly what I want to talk about! Yes, he did beat them. Still, we are talking about an another scenario which there are no friends to the Doctor. Do you think he would have survived and won battles in 'the parting of the ways', 'Journeys end' and etc.? Yes he has over 900 years of knowledge, he would have thought of soemthign to get out of each of these situations.
Doctor who battle! Darleks are more stronger than the Doctor

Hi again~~~~~ I still like this awesome debate!!!!!!! I also wish my opponent is having a great time too. SO I'LL BEGIN WITH MY REFUTATION!!!!!! My opponent first said: You stated "OK, so my first argument is that the Doctor seems that he can never win alone." You never specified the Daleks in this sentence; this sentence is your contention sentence. This means that I meant the 'Daleks' and that this is my contention and I will be using it as an argument. Secondly, he said:The "Bad Wolf" was not Rose Tyler. "After looking into the Heart of the TARDIS, Vortex energy (if not the time Vortex itself) filled Rose Tyler, who then temporarily became the Bad Wolf entity." I actually thought about this refutation and I finally found it very wrong. The 'Bad Wolf' is a company which is actually 'Bad Wolf corporation.' Rose used the words 'Bad Wolf' as a sign to guide her here and defeat the daleks. Thirdly, he said:The human Dalek was Sec. ....Yeah I know that..... Still, he did stop the extermination so sec helped him 'in a way.' I will now refutate my opponent's arguments His first argument was The Doctor's knowledge and cunning. Yeah, he has this awesome brain that helped him get surrounded by daleks in 'the parting of the ways.' The same brain helped him get shot by a dalek in 'the stolen earth.' The same brain which helped him get stuck in the Pandorica in ' The Pandorica opens.' His second argument was that He has beaten the Daleks every time This is exactly what I want to talk about! Yes, he did beat them. Still, we are talking about an another scenario which there are no friends to the Doctor. Do you think he would have survived and won battles in 'the parting of the ways', 'Journeys end' and etc.? I actually enjoyed this debate and I am now going to debate with my dear pal ,AL about River Song fixing the fixed point in time. I thank you masterkage and I hope you become a good time lord like the Master. Thank you~~~~~~~~
Who could and how they would beat scp 682

"Ok good points but it could survive the sun or quasars."My point still stands. Where is it going to go? It would take hundreds of millions of light years before it could make it back here.. Moving it far away would be enough to remove it as a problem."point has been torn down to the molecular level but survived"You aren't tearing it down to molecules. You are removing the atoms that make up the scp 682 from existence."it cannot be mind controlled a super being able to control any things mind had tried he nearly went insane"You fundamentally misunderstand lesser Magic. Lesser Magic isn't control. Rather, you use it to manipulate something into believing the actions you want it to do are what it wanted to do all along. I have no abilities to control minds. What makes me powerful is that my Lesser Magic is aided by Greater Magic, and it can reach an unlimited number of people so long as they can all hear my voice."another point being even omnipotent beings such as god himself could not permanently harm or let alone destroy i"You blaspheme the name of Diometrix, the god of magic. May the Infant, the Reaper, the Reveler and the Keeper and the Mother punish you in the afterlife.".he is immune to any and all forms of instant kills or gurantees such as let's say a spell to eliminate anything no matter what it is so continue."You could use any manner of Seals. You could separate its soul from it and have it fight a spirit. Since it isn't in its body it won't have its abilities, so a moderately powerful spirit should be enough. You could banish it to another dimension. You could use the power of the great Enchantmente.
Who could and how they would beat scp 682

Ok good points but it could survive the sun or quasars.it could survive the fire point is it swims in acid it has been burnt to a unimaginable tempature. point has been torn down to the molecular level but survived.and it cannot be mind controlled a super being able to control any things mind had tried he nearly went insane.he breaks any others rules by which they abide such as the bookends that any book placed between them come true exactly as said no matter what but even that didnt work becuase they had the book that was written about the monster that could and will destroy scp 682.but it failed and the book changed to the monster that tried to destroy scp 682 but failed.another point being even omnipotent beings such as god himself could not permanently harm or let alone destroy it.he couldn't and never would kill itself even if it tried it most likely stop its own body from doing it.and something he has survied he is from that point immune to it he could be sent to alternate dimensions but he would be sent back by the dimension in question he has near immunity to all diseases and he could adapt to any before it could kill him.he is immune to any and all forms of instant kills or gurantees such as let's say a spell to eliminate anything no matter what it is so continue.
life is game

who said you cant get a 100 anything is posible your hight is changeble with age and so id you feet. but not any of this is revalent to what am saying, look at bigger picture. first ask your selfe what is life and what is game . everyday we walk and think thinking is game we play with our thouths and find the purfict i dea. look at game in biger prospective its compitation its choises its wonting to always win or be on top its about proving something to yourself and the world then what is life ?
life is game

Life is not a game as some of the choices we make does not lead to what we want as much we have in our lives. for instance, as much as i want to pass a Calculus test with a 100, i know it can't happen because i have difficulties understanding it. From my own beliefs, i see everything in our lives has been decided and we can't change it. For instance, if i have an 11-inch sized foot, there is no way that i can change that, nor can i alter my 6'1 height. Our lives has been predetermined already.
life is game

Life is not a game because if it was, we would remove the bad things in our lives and allow only the good things to occur to us.The choices we make does not directly affect outcomes. for instance in sports, if i were to have a great game and hit 2 home runs, it does not mean it will lead to a victory. Additionally, if i were to have a great GPA but be afraid of seeing blood, i cant become a doctor. Some of the choices we make does not lead to what we want as much as we have seen in our lives.
life is game

live is a game and no the one you play on ps4 but the one you play with friends and family. ones you lose a football game or super ball theirs no restart, theirs no posse or i have 3 more chances. the choice you made in that game led you either to win or lose. same in life the choice we make like go to collage or not effect if i will become a doctor or not. what do we do when we play football, you plane you make choices, you practice, you think etc, what do you do in life when you wont somethin
life is game

Life is not a game. If life were a game, then every time one would fail a quiz or exam, they can just press a button and restart the quiz/exam. The actions we commit in our lives can never be changed. for instance if i were to go swimming with crocodiles and be eaten, i cant say, " its fine, i still got 3 lives. Ill just use one of those", because we only get one life opportunity in this world and once its taken, its the end. Life is not a game as there are no "do-overs" or "additional lives".
life is game

what is the concept of playing a game. its making the choices you believe our right that with help you win the game. life is a game we constantly make choices that we believe are right and with batter us in achieving what ever we are trying to achieve. for example I want to be a doctor i make choice to enroll in medical school to become a doctor. life is game in witch we make choices that will help us win the game or simply get to were we want to be.