BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rape victims are whiners

My first argument is unchallenged. My opponent had said " dropped your last one" but provided no reasons for this assertion simply because its untrue. So, the conclusion "Rape victims are awesome" stands. My second argument is valid. "Notice how the word complain is in the definition of whine " Now, that is absurd, the word complain isn't an alternative definition "complain in a peevish, self-pitying way". As you can see, you can't have the word "complain " without the word "peevish". For these reasons I urge a Con vote.
Rape victims are whiners

It may be seem like my opponent used the second round to clarify his position, that's untrue. You see the title "rape victims are whiners" encompasses all rape victims and my opponent just admitted to not being a whiner and a rape victim at the same time. Also, complaining is not the same as whining. Complain: "to make a formal accusation: If you think you've been swindled, complain to the police." Whine: "to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way: He is always whining about his problems." Both definitions are from Dictionary.com
Rap Battle! Only accept if you know how. Con = White person Pro = Black person

You think you're on my level, but you've just met defeat, i can beat every hacker or cheat You better be aware, once I'm there, i swear no one can pair. They'll just stare when you're finished and done for, and really wont care. I'm am educated underrated star on the rise, though belated, ill kick you into the skies. I have seen all that'cha got, and like it or not I'm on fire, I'm so hot but, I gotta hand it to you, have really learned how to not rap like a 6 year old turd. I guess you're just the type of guy that doesn't even try when I petrify. So goodbye. *drops mic*
Rap Battle! Only accept if you know how. Con = White person Pro = Black person

Spelling is irrelevant not a measure of intelligence, My rhymes are so benevolent your rhymes are in-development. Allow me to translate, better for you to understand. My words circumnavigate, it's like comparing dial-up to broadband. You are similar to Fastfood, I'm more like spinach and peas, I have great exactitude, you lead to heart disease. You are superannuated we no longer need you here, I come from the future and you come from the rear. *flush sound*
Rap Battle! Only accept if you know how. Con = White person Pro = Black person

Oh my god this is just hell. Try'na rap battle when you cant even spell. I don't wanna be that one grammar geek, but its you're not your in that circumstance, your rhymes are weak. I bet you're gonna cheat, but you cant beat me. Ya wont meet my fleet of verses and phrases, I'm a rap athlete. You're croakin', you're chokin', and you wont stop me, I'm insane. I'd do another hundred verses but you can't handle the pain.
Rap Battle! Only accept if you know how. Con = White person Pro = Black person

White chocolate isn't chocolate that's pretty much right, The reason why you dissin you can't handle the white. Your made from cocoa solids, flush em and let it go. I came from the butter that gives it that shinny glow. Let me lube it up a bit with some Vaselinee because every Oreo has white in-between. (_Y_)
Christianity is an Irrational Religion

I thank Con for the opportunity to debate this subject and will respond to last round arguments in brief and finish with my conclusion. Circular Reasoning: This is the only point of contention left. I showed that Con relied on a bible as a justification that the belief in the Christian God is rational. He tried to use some fun apologetics by saying that whichever bible of his choosing gave an explanation of a god; therefore, this explanation equals reason, and since the explanation, or reason, is given then Christianity cannot be said to be without reason. Cute but no. My opponent simply used a bait and switch here and used "explanation" in place of reason. I can give an explanation of my actions and I could, correctly, say I can give a reason for my actions. Reason in the sense used for "irrational" is not same as "reason" used for "explanation". This is simply a word game that still relies on circular reasoning. My opponent offered nothing more than word tricks and "the bible tells me so". Con never could get around the simple fact that the existence on a Christian God relies on the premise of faith, and this faith is not based on rational inquiry. Believe of this nature, true or not, cannot be rational as no form of inquiry based on observation or any known methodology relying on inference or deduction can penetrate it. In addition, my opponent never offered why the Christian God and the biblical explanation fares any better than Allah or any other choice of Gods currently available. Conclusion: I generally avoid the "does God exist" debates but this one had the word "irrational" in the resolution so I took it as many of my friends accept that some aspects of their beliefs are irrational but that does not make them false. I agree. I hoped my opponent could show how rational inquiry supports, not just any god, but the Christian God and he failed to do so. I presented two contentions that withstood all the word games and my opponent's logical fallacies did nothing to disturb them. Many of these debates are judged without a reading. I am interested in how DDO Christians respond to the interesting definition of Christianity my opponent offered, but generally these debates are voted on along party lines and I don't think this one will be any different. I do recommend that Con avoid such obvious word games in future debates. I thought I was debating a YEC for a second. Very Truly Yours, Sherlockmethod
Christianity is an Irrational Religion

Rationality and Irrationality: First, my opponent declares that wiki is fine in broad term or simple definitions. I'll accept it this time and agree with my opponent on the use of wiki as a source since it is only a definition. Additionally, he said how I did not dispute the definition, however, I found it illogical to dispute a definition off of a source I found unreliable. Finally, I found a pretty big difference in the definition my opponent found on rationality and my definition of irrationality in which my opponent's had a lot to do with data while mine had to do with reason. I do agree that words are somewhat similar and I will accept definition a from Oxford. Christianity: I apologize for not introducing my definition of Christianity in the beginning, but I assumed I could add on to your definition and alter it when my opponent said "If my opponent wishes to add on anything to Christianity…" However, I will keep this in mind for future reference and provide a clear definition in the first round. Circular Reasoning and Irrationality: My opponent fails to realize my whole introduction of the Bible. I did not use it as a method to say "because there is a Bible, God exists". However, I used it to match the topic at hand. The topic says if Christianity is an irrational religion. We already have an agreed upon definition in which irrational means "not endowed with reason". A synonym of reason is explanation. I was saying that the Bible gives explanation or reason on the existence of God. I did not say anything about it being PROOF that God exists but EXPLANATION that God exists. Thus my point doesn't fall into this circular reasoning you are talking about which is the basis for your rebuttal. Since the existence of God is not irrational, then Christianity which is based off of the belief of God, like you said, is not an irrational religion. My opponent goes on to say his first two contentions stand because I have provided a logical fallacy, but since I've just disproved that, that must equate to the fact that his first two contentions no longer stand, thus I win this debate.
Christianity is an Irrational Religion

I was inspired to start a debate on this subject after looking at a topic in the forums that had some of this in it. I strongly stand in opposition to this topic and am willing to debate anyone on this matter. A definition for irrational would be "a. Not endowed with reason. b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock. c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment".[1] I believe that the first definition is the most appropriate for this topic and the third definition might work as well. This debate will follow this format: Round 1: Speaker 1 (Me) - Gives introduction, defines any terms Speaker 2 (Opponent) - Agrees to debate, talks about any word definitions, and gives own contentions. Round 2: Speaker 1 - Refutes opponent and introduces contentions. Speaker 2 - Refutes my points. Round 3: Speaker 1 - Continue debate into final round. Speaker 2 - Finish debate and be prepared for voting. Thank you to anyone that accepts this debate challenge.
China is better than India in most ways.

India and China, Asia's most populated countries. Which one is better? Which country has more pros than the other one. I say that China has a lot better in economics and lifestyle than India. China's GDP with an average $3362, but with India with an utmost low of $1298. China's GDP is 3 times greater than that of India's. Their lifestyle is completely different too. When China invented the chopsticks 3000 years ago, India is still eating with their every dirty hands. China has done things India has never imagined. For example there are two wars that USA retreated from. Those two wars where the Vietnam, and the Korean War, both in which China was on the other side.
The 86 Celtics are the greatest basketball team of all time.

No single season was dominated in so thorough a manner as the 96-97 Bulls campaign. Night in and night out, they brushed aside team after team after team. That single season record may stand forever. And yes, they topped it with a championship whose outcome was never in doubt. Michael Jordan came back from baseball and vehemently asserted a stranglehold on the NBA. No one was better. Ever.
The 86 Celtics are the greatest basketball team of all time.

It is a well known fact that neither Parish, nor Mchale deserved to be in the hall of fame. They were overrated and are only there because they rode Larry Bird's coattails to fame. He carried that team in every way. The Bulls, on the other hand were extremely well rounded. They had players that knew their roles and complimented each other perfectly. Their athleticism would have run circles around the plodding, slow Celtics front court. Rodman would have had a field day collecting rebounds against those lesser players. Michael Jordan was the greatest player to ever play the game. Hands down. His wlli and leadership would carry the 96 Bulls over the 86 Celtics in a 7 game series. The coaching was also vastly superior to the Celtics. Tex's triangle offense revolutionized basketball. The stunned and confused celtics would have been helpless. The only reason the 86 Celtics had a good record was due to the poor flooring in the garden. They knew what areas had flat spots and would avoid them. Other teams were at a considerable disadvantage playing there.
The 86 Celtics are the greatest basketball team of all time.

Although the 96 bulls may hold the greater record it doesn't help the fact that the 86 Celtics were stacked with hall of fame players. They easily had the greatest front court of all time with Kevin Mchale , Robert Parish , and Larry Bird. Altogether they averaged 63.2 points, 27.4 rebounds and 4.0 blocks per game on 53.2 percent shooting. Also the competition in 86 was much harder than in 96-97 so even though the Bulls may have ended with a better record the Celtics were still the better team.
Eternal security is a true doctrine based on the Bible which is God's Word.

Let the record show that my opponant has again gone off topic and made ad hominim attacks about me just because I do not belong to his sect of "Christianity". Christianity is about having a relationshipt with Jesus, and that is it. Let the record show that my opponant has also refuse to address every single Scripture that I have provided. Let the record also show that there are more Scriptures that support my position than any that ALLEGEDLY support his, caps for emphasis only. This debate is about who did a better job of proving their case by staying on topic, avoiding logical fallacies, and providing proof. I have done a better job of this. My opponant has not. Vote for me.
Eternal security is a true doctrine based on the Bible which is God's Word.

My opponant claims that I am not a Christian. I will briefly adress this fallacy before I begin. A Christian is someone who follows Jesus, end of story. Labels matter not as long as we have Jesus. Now for the smackdown: 1. Like I said, Ephesians 2:8-10 proves that good works are the rsult of, not the cause of salvation. When my opponant claims that water baptism is mentioned, he or she is twisting the Bible to fit his beliefs, No where in Ephesians 2:8-10 is water baptism mentioned at all. In fact, it only mentions salvation by grace through faith. The proof: Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Let the record show that m,y opponant is inserting things into this section of Scripture that do not exist in the original languages. Now for Scriptures that prove my position: 1 Peter 1:5 says that we are kept by the power of God. That means that God will protect us from apostacy. Ephesians 4:30 says that we are are sealed unto the day of redemption. Philippians 1:6 says that He will complete a good work in us until the day of Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:6 says that God has raised us together to make us sit in the heavenly place. Ephesians 1:13 says that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. Ephesians 5:30 says that we are members of the body of Christ. Colossians 2:10 says that we are complete in Him. 1 Corinthians 1:8 says that we are confirmed blameless until the end. Believers are preserve unto the heavenly kingdom according to 2 Timothy 4:18. Believers shall never perish according to John 10:28. According to John 6:39, Jesus never loses a believer. Jesus never casts out a believer according to John 6:37. We are saved by the life of Jesus, not our life according to Romans 5:10. Romans 5:18-19. 1 John 5:13: believers can know that they have eternal life. 1 Peter 1:4: believers have an inheritence that cannot be corrupted. 1 Peter 1:3: blievers are born of an incorruptable seed. 2 Thessalonians 2:16: believers have an everlasting consolation. I ask that my opponant not go off topic this time and let the evidence speak for itself. God bless.
Eternal security is a true doctrine based on the Bible which is God's Word.

I am a Christian and my intent is to prove through the Bible and logic that eternal security is a true doctrine. I will first state how I believe that salvation is obtained for the background and then lay down Scripture and logic to prove my case in the second round if my opponant accepts. I ask that my opponant stick to the subject only unless otherwise needed. I will be using the King James version of the Bible for the record. My opponant is welcome to use whichever version he sees fit. Let's begin: I believe that salvation is obtained by repenting (changing your mind about and being sorry for) all of your sins, past, present, and future, accepting Jesus, and confessing Him to the best of your ability. According to Ephesians 2:8-10, good works are the rsult of not the cause of salvation. Not that I have gotten that out of the way, please accept, dear opponant.
Italians should always be considered White.

For definitions I offer up the following to clarify this debate: Italian-a native or inhabitant of Italy White-a member of the Caucasoid race Caucasoid-Caucasian: of or relating to Caucasian people wordnetweb. princeton. edu Another definition: "A common definition of a 'white person' is a person of primarily, or wholly, European ancestry. [1] However, the term is sometimes used more broadly, so that it becomes similar to the concept of the Caucasian race or Caucasoid people, which includes people with ancestry from the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Central, and South Asia, who share certain physiological characteristics and genetics with Europeans beyond skin color. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... To clarify this topic further I would like to first point out that the resolution doesn't imply that the person has to be 100% white, but merely be of some fraction white. Therefore a person who is 1% white can also be considered white, because by definition a white person is somebody who is "relating to Caucasian people". By definition all Italians come from Italy and thus all Italians are European. By utilizing my definition we see that Europeans are primarily white or have some portion that is white. Therefore because all Italians are European; they all are some percentage white. The resolution does not imply that I must prove Italians are 100% white, but only that they can actually be considered as white. As all Italians can be considered as white, bare in mind here the word considered, the Pro has affirmed the resolution as of now. I will now hand over this debate to my opponent to see her case and her rebuttal.
Italians should always be considered White.

I would like to start by thanking whoever takes the pro side of this debate. I would like to thank them by letting them start the debate off. But, I will provide some referances to look at. I am, in fact, an Italian. I've had several people refer to me as that "white chick." I currently have my Ethenicy marked as other. I was upseted by the fact that they [debate.org] did not list Italian as a race. If I am proved wrong, I will change it to White. Otherwise, it will stay that way.
Should the United States maintain its embargo with Cuba

I will be arguing against the Cuban Embargo. My first claim is: The United States should end the Cuba embargo because its 50-year policy has failed to achieve its goals. Feb 7, 2012 marked the 50th anniversary of this embargo and the goal of forcing Cuba to adopt a representative democracy still has not been achieved.If 50 years of sanctions have not toppled the Castro regime, there is no reason to think the embargo will ever work. My second claim is: The embargo harms the US economy. The US Chamber of Commerce opposes the embargo, saying that it costs the United States $1.2 billion annually in lost sales of exports. A study by the Cuba Policy Foundation, a nonprofit founded by former US diplomats, estimated that the annual cost to the US economy could be as high as $4.84 billion in agricultural exports and related economic output. The statistics speak for themselves. My Third Claim is: The embargo harms the people of Cuba, not the government as intended. Cubans are denied access to technology, medicine, affordable food, and other goods that could be available to them if the United States lifted the embargo My fourth and Final Claim for this round is: The Bulk of most of the country in the UN as well as most United States Citizens believe that the government should lift this embargo. A 2012 opinion poll of more than 1,000 US adults found that 62% of respondents thought the United States should re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba, while only one in four was against it. The United Nations has denounced the US embargo against Cuba for 22 straight years. The vote against the embargo was 188-2 in 2013, with only Israel supporting the United States.
Shakespeare? No such author!

How seriously 'Seriously' be taken? Not very.Unfortunately, S has chosen to display a somewhat listless and amateurish form of mockery that bis frankly embarrassing. There is also a tinge of 'the mind like a steel trap' symptom - once it slams shut, there's really no reopening? Pity. I don't suppose you'd prefer to just go back quietly to the sandpit and let the grownups get on with more serious stuff - mmmmm?
Shakespeare? No such author!

http://www.youtube.com... Does eating a ripened (or yellow) banana provide more nutrition than an unripened (or green) banana? Let the debate begin! * Unripened/Green Bananas. 1.) Unripe bananas contain about 20-25% more starch than ripe bananas. What are the pros and cons? * The Cons - this can make the unripened banana hard to digest. * The Pros - your body has to break down the starch itself, thereby causing your blood sugar to rise more slowly than it would in an ripened (or yellow) banana. 2.) Unripe bananas relieve constipation. What are the pros and cons? * The Cons - if you eat too many, it could give you the runs! * The Pros - at least you'll finally be able to go! 3.) The unripened banana can be grounded up and used to make Banana flour! What are the pros and cons? * The Cons - there are no cons in this instance. * The Pros - banana flour is three times richer in minerals than wheat flour, and is a great gluten-free product. * Ripened/Yellow Bananas. 1.) A ripened banana has only 1-2% starch. What are the pros and cons? * The Cons - although low in starch, the chemical process involved converts those starches into sugars. Thereby, causing your blood sugar to rise a little faster than it's unripened (or green) peer. * The Pros - not only is it easier to digest, the "nutrient content does change slightly as the fruit ripens." "As a banana ripens, it's level of antioxidants (which decreases the damages free radicals can do to your cells) increase somewhat." - so stated Dr. David L. Katz, MD. 2.) The ripened banana relieves diarrhea. What are the pros and cons? * Cons - although some disagree, eating too many bananas can cause constipation. * Pros - hey, it keeps you from running back and forth to the little girls/boys room. Even with a side by side comparison, I have to agree with Dr. David L. Katz, MD 'that all of this is so insignificant since both ripe (or yellow) and unripe (or green) bananas are rich sources of": 1.) magnesium (which helps bones absorb calcium and remain strong) 2.) folate (forms of the water soluble B9 vitamin that is vital for fighting birth defects) 3.) fiber 4.) potassium 5.) vitamin C 6.) vitamin B6 So in conclusion, I think the true debate lies with personal taste. Whether their raw, (fried - in moderation ), unripe (green), or ripe (yellow), their both good for you. So have a banana, it's good for you! * A Safety Note: be sure to talk with your physician or a nutritionist to see just how little or how much you are able to consume.
Shakespeare? No such author!

The existence of bananas would be a truly interesting topic - in another and more relevant debate. Shoving comedy videos as proof of anything is absurd to say the least. Imagine how satisfying it would have been had 'Seriously' bothered to read and absorb what was actually written. My argument rests on a premise so simple, that even 'Seriously' should be able to comprehend it. With so much material from other authors available for study, where is even ONE page of the "Bard's" original manuscript in his own handwriting? There is no mystery - only silence. What a pity.
Shakespeare? No such author!

I'm holding a banana in my hand. If I believe the banana is not there and do not say the banana is there to anyone, does the banana still exist? I think yes. Now, if I video the banana being held in my hand is the banana still existent? I think yes. By this logic, if a recent video of shakespeare was to arise, one would assume Shakespeare existed. Folks, attatched is a video of Shakespeare. I rest thou case. http://www.youtube.com...