BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
is god real

I believe god sis real. One pice of evidence is that one day after jesus rose agin one of Jesse decimals did not believe that Jesus rose again and sad that he wont believe that he is alive until i put my fingers throw the hill in his hand that was yoused to crossfire him. that is wen jesus appeared and had him do that. I got another story for you. have you heard of the dozes lepercy well one day jesus was coming over the hill now this man with leprcy new that jesus was coming so what he did is sneak around a billing so wen jesus god by he could meat him and wen jesus went by he went up to him and begs him to heal him so what jesus did is put his hand on the mans solder and see you be healed and he was instantly. Let me ask you this how do you explain he moved the rock he was human but god sent an angel to move the rock. we know that the bible is real is because people saw it happen the bible was not rotten by one man it was rotten by several. You might ask me how do I explain how god will let sin in the world, and the ancer to that is free will yes god has the power to distort sin but he lets us have free will. What science seas that the moon was made by a big astroid that it the earth but is a a astroid hight the earth that big the earth will be nock out of orbit.
Are aliens among us now? I say no.

I too believe that other life forms are something which is quite probable, but that is not the argument. I am not asking the "probability" or what is the "chance of" aliens being here. I want to know if anyone claims to know aliens are here now and if there is any evidence supporting the claim. You may have heard stories or accounts of people being taken (abducted) or seeing things (UFO'). I want to know if anyone can provide proof. Side note - I did like your 75% sureness though. That was interesting. I have no idea what that could be based on. (not asking, not part of the debate) Just a curious observation. Regards...
Warning from Space is the best article on Wikipedia

I will be affirming that 'Warning from Space' is, without a doubt, the best article on Wikipedia. Without further ado about nothing, I shall present my contentions. Contention One: The article is exceptionally effective in conveying informationOne need do little more than open the article before one is tolerably bombarded with critical information. Right off the bat, a reader learns that there are multiple names for the film addressed in the article, a vital fact to have knowledge of. The film itself is fairly obscure, and for that reason presented data must be exceptionally accurate while easily comprehensible. Fortunately, that is the case. Out of a random survey, 100% of people agreed that they knew more about the movie after reading the article than they had before they read the article. In fact, out of the population surveyed, 100% scored perfectly on a quick quiz designed by a biased first party to test knowledge on the film [1]. While this evidence is primarily anecdotal, after having read the article, I went on to earn a Ph. D in Warning from Space, plagiarizing the Wikipedia article as my doctoral dissertation. Clearly, it must be a pretty top-notch article to withstand all the academic criticism from the best minds in Warning from Space. Contention Two: The article provides the ideal number of sourcesRecent research suggests that the ideal number of references for a Wikipedia article to have is 28, which just so happens to be the exact number that the article Warning from Space has. In addition, the research 'team' (if you can call one person a team) concluded that the ideal number of external links to have is three, which also coincidentially happens to be the exact number that Warning from Space has [2]. Clearly, that shows Warning from Space has the ideal number of sources and external links. The ideal number is also the best number. If the article has the best number, it is the best article. Contention Three: The article was written by the greatest author who ever livedAccording to an authoratative source, which for a change isn't me, the article was written 'by the greatest author who ever lived. ' [3]. It stands to reason that the greatest author would write the greatest article, and since the greatest author wrote Warning from Space, Warning from Space is the greatest article. ConclusionI have given many reasons to believe that Warning from Space is the best article on Wikipedia. Thank you. Sources:1. Alwaysmorethanyou Institute for Self-Surveying and Self-Testing2. Alwaysmorethanyou Institute for Research3. . http://www.debate.org...;
Cell Phones Should Be Allowed In School

It seems to me that the challenge period barely contains debates, so it will often show a 0 on available debates. So, I decided to bring up this topic. I will let Pro provide the first arguments, just like any other formal debate. With all this done, I will sincerely thank Pro, and wish him or her good luck on this debate and his or her future debates. On the 4th round, we will not bring up new arguments, but just rebutting the previous arguments. Con is the only one that could bring up new arguments in Round 1, to even it out. However, if Pro did not provide arguments in Round 1, Con and Pro would be able to post new arguments in any of the rounds. However, I will list the definitions out: School: Any normal school you go to. Or in . http://dictionary.reference.com... : a college or university Cell Phone: A Black Berry Storm, I guess Allowed: allowed, permit I wish Pro and the readers good luck. Thanks!
Cell Phones Should Be Allowed In School

My opponent is obviously going into defense mode. Pulling out circumstantial evidence that he wouldn't have thought about in the first place if I had not BLOWN HIM AWAY like I had in my last round. It seems that my opponent had been so intent on proving me wrong that he just proved himself wrong. Point: He says that cell phones should not be allowed in school. Then, he says that "rules are meant to be broken"~ Ethiopia 619. So why make a rule that cell phones are not be allowed inside of school in the first place Ethiopia 619!! For a rule to be succesfully enforced, one has to discourage students from breaking that rule. One, have snitches inside of the classroom who get rewarded for telling and protection from the trouble makers. Two, have harsh enough punishments so one doesn't want to risk being caught. Three, make an example of the subordinate. Punish the trouble maker in front of class. Seeing that children are easily intimidated by punishment, way less children will bring cell phones into class than before. It will be nearly impossible to completely get rid of cell phone abuse all together, but the number of children involved will be extremely decreased. In a CLASSROOM setting, I could see this working because a classroom is small relative to the outside world.
Cell Phones Should Be Allowed In School

This student says that the decision to bring a cell phone to school is still in contention. Therefore, this student knows about the distractions, addictions, the cheating, taking pictures, and the theft that can be caused by bringing cell phones to school. I'm an advocate for bringing cell phones to school. However, in the classrooms is a totally different matter. One can bring a cell phone to school without using it in class. If teachers and school personnel were worried about CHEATING, PICTURE TAKING, DISTRACTIONS, and THEFT. They would enforce their school rules so the infractions of these rules would not happen. I do not think teachers can enforce laws about addiction. I was stumped on how to counter that one. However, I do not think that students use cell phones enough in class to suffer from cell phone addiction inside of the classroom, but rather outside of the classroom. This can be blamed on the students parents. It is the job of the parent not the student to enforce the safety and the rearing of your child to not be addicted to cell phones as much. Cell phone use in schools has many advantages. With the help of cell phones, students can be in touch with their parents, relatives and friends. This can prove to be very useful in time of emergencies or when parents wish to know if their child is doing fine or not. With the help of cell phones, students can inform their parents about their changed programs or if they are coming home late. http://www.buzzle.com... I know that cell phones and school can coexist because I went to a school that allowed us to bring cell phones to school as long as we did not use the phones inside of class.
Cell Phones Should Be Allowed In School

My current school is facing a problem of allowing or banning cell phones at my school. I believe that cellphones should not be allowed. 1. Theft Obviously if you own a very expensive phone, there would become a higher rate of theft. Lockers will be broken, and your items may be stolen by an unknown theif. This can lead to the school losing money because they have to pay for the repairs. This is unhelpful. 2. Pictures Some boys and girls who have phones with a camera on it may take pictures of someone that does not know that he or she is being taken as a picture. This is unappropriate. ==> Conclusion Cell phones should not be at school. Citations: 1. http://cellphones.lovetoknow.com... 2. http://cellphones.lovetoknow.com...
Cell Phones Should Be Allowed In School

I will introduce my arguments now: 1. Distraction When children are in class, there will be an urge to turn on their cell phone. This can distract children from the lesson, and will result in confusion on homework. This distraction can also lead the child to go to detention, so they would miss part of their class time. Some cell phones contain games, of course, and text messaging. Kids will have a nagging feeling to text message their friends. Furthermore, some cell phones have internet, which could lead into Facebook chatting during class. This chatting device could lead to bad grades. 2. Addiction Students can be addicted to cell phones. Many students are tied up with their cell phones, and do not pay clear attention in class. Cell phones can lead to bad eyesight: near-sighted, far-sighted, cross-eyed, and more. When you are near-sighted, far-sighted, or cross-eyed, it is not particularly fun to have glasses on during P. E. , and are not very comfortable. These harms of the cell phone may lead to grades gradually fall. 3. Cheating With the application of texting, students may send each other messages on tests. This is considered cheating. When the student sends a letter, the other student would write it down. This is unhelpful to the students. ==> Conclusion After all this, I hope that the readers and Pro will understand my point on how cell phones are not very helpful at school. Therefore, cell phones should not be recommended at school. P. S. I do have a cell phone, although I do not bring it to school. Citations: . http://cellphones.lovetoknow.com...
why missile defence system is bad

"if you have that missiles you won't afraid of the other bomb" Are you suggesting that the United States would not take the threat of WMDs seriously? As a reminder, the U.S. already does have missles and other WMDs, however, that doesn't mean that we would take other countries having them lightly. For instance, we've already spent about $520 billion dollars and sacrificed thousands of American lives by going to war with Iraq because of the POSSIBILITY that they even had them. Your argument holds no water. "if they make something that you think it's wrong you will taunt them and war will start and it will make global warming too because ICBM has a............ something that it kills you by cancer and the NMD will help it!" 1. War is not always a bad thing or the wrong decision 2. Prove to me that ICBM causes global warming and cancer "but if you don't have those missiles you will be afraid and don't mess with "nuclear owner" country right? then NO WAR!" No, if we didn't have missles and other countries did, we would just build our own or buy them from other nations. Plus, war is a result of many different circumstances, not just bombs and missles.
why missile defence system is bad

DUH!!!!!! you forgot one thing if you have that missiles you won't afraid of the other bomb and if they make something that you think it's wrong you will taunt them and war will start and it will make global warming too because ICBM has a............ something that it kills you by cancer and the NMD will help it!! but if you don't have those missiles you will be afraid and don't mess with "nuclear owner" country right? then NO WAR!!!!!!!!! (well that you say i misuderstand about NMD that's right at first any way i still can argue you)
why missile defence system is bad

"National Missile Defense (NMD) as a generic term is a military strategy and associated systems to shield an entire country against incoming Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). The missiles could be intercepted by other missiles, or possibly by lasers. They could be intercepted near the launch point (boost phase), during flight through space (mid-course phase), or during atmospheric descent (terminal phase)." [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...] Now that I have clarified what "missle defense" refers to, perhaps your perception of it and the ideology behind it and its supporters would be a little different. It is not about the race to build bigger and better bombs, or a competition regarding who has more weapons of mass destruction. Instead DMD refers to a system that would intercept missles that would cause catastrophically damaging effects to this country should an attack ever be launched on us. And given our current reputation in the world today, you never know when another nation might seize the opportunity to attack. Now, whether or not it could actually work is an entirely other issue (though I do believe that anything is possible). But from a personal standpoint, if we could perfect a way to develop such adequate protection in a time where entire countries could be abolished by the mere push of a button, then I'm all for it. If we could spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a pointless war and throw tax money away to fund other frivolous programs, why not be willing to develop a program that ensures our safety and well-being? While my opponent mistakingly feels that NMD will promote war, I argue that instead it will deter it. It would 1) make our opponents think twice about attacking our nation and 2) Protect us should a threat ever become a reality
why missile defence system is bad

... Err, I have absolutely no idea what my opponent was trying to say in his last round. The only thing I have gathered was, "NMD is like an armor then when no one mess each other no war!!!" -- So basically he is saying that NMDs would prevent war? Right. Well, that is exactly the foundation of my entire argument in this debate. Because I'm confused (so the readers must be too), let me just end this "debate" by reiterating some of my main points: Implementeing the NMD would save the lives of American citizens who would perish as a result of an incoming missles destruction. The government as an institution accepts responsibility for protecting citizens; proof is the "Safety At Home" platform that many politicians use to win elections. The NMD would also preserve the land that this nation was founded on, and that we have a right to protect. Furthermore, having a NMD can presumably act as a deterrant from war, meaning we'd never even have to put it to use. As my opponent said, NMD is like armor - when no one messes with each other, no war. Now as I've mentioned, given the current situation... the U.S. reputation; our unpopular involvement in at least 2 wars; the growing number of nations with access to WMDs, etc, I'd say that there is potential for an iminent threat and we should protect ourselves as efficiently and adequately as possible.
The "one way to heaven" doctrine is wrong

It’s amazing what the Bible can say when you don’t read it. Luke 19:1-10 He entered Jericho and was passing through. And behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus. He was a chief tax collector and was rich. And he was seeking to see who Jesus was, but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was small in stature. So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was about to pass that way. And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today.” So he hurried and came down and received him joyfully. And when they saw it, they all grumbled, “He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.” And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” Why was Zacchaeus saved? He had a direct encounter with the Way, our Savior, and because of that, he changed his life. He was saved because salvation - Jesus - came to his house. Not because he gave money to the poor. You continue to prove my point! The thief on the cross knew that only Jesus could save him, so he pleaded with the Christ to be saved. That is how we must be saved as well. He is the one and only Way. The thief knew it, Zacchaeus knew it, Paul knew it, Peter knew it, the disciples knew it, Jesus knew it, God knows it, and the early church knew it. You say, “I too, am a Christian who believes the bible, unless it says something ridiculous”. So you’ll cut out the parts you like, and ignore the parts you don’t like, and then claim those who don’t cherry pick their beliefs are the ones that are wrong. God did not ‘reverse’ the animal sacrifice method. He fulfilled it and made it perfect in Christ, as I have already shown. And obviously, nothing is impossible with God, so He can reverse His decisions if He wants to. That is, in fact, what your entire case rests upon - God reversing His decision to make Jesus the only Way and adding other ways to Heaven. If the OT is still relevant, then all of it is still relevant. Should we kill homosexuals (Leviticus 21:13) or not wear mixed fabrics (Deuteronomy 21:11)? Of course not! Because we don’t live under the OT anymore. God did not change - He fulfilled the old covenant with a better new covenant - Christ - as I have shown. Vote Con: All my arguments stand. Pro picked random verses he liked and ignored all my evidence by either saying it flat out didn’t exist, or that it wasn’t in the Bible, or that he simply didn’t like it. If you want, read this page about what Pro did: https://en.wikipedia.org.... I would also appreciate spelling and grammar points: Pro’s initial argument was unintelligible at points (“Was not a Christian or a Jew”), and it was often difficult to discern between his arguments, him quoting me, and him quoting the Bible.
The "one way to heaven" doctrine is wrong

Alright amigo, let's look at a few incidences where Jesus said someone is saved, Luke 19:8-9: "But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount. Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham." What did Zacchaeus do to be saved? He gave half his possessions to the poor, and played back four times what he ripped people off of, so that is one way to be saved, also it does not say, "meh, I'm gonna save you Zaccheaus", but "salvation has came to access especially house", as in, he earned it. Luke 23:42-43: "And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom! And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." There is your other way, ask Jesus to remember you, I too, am a Christian who believes the bible, unless it says something ridiculous, anyway, that is what it says amigo, and these are in the new testament, you see in Leviticus 5:10: "The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven." Hmm, forgiven, as in like, forgiven, hmm, oh, but God reversed this- oh, wait, Isaiah 43:13: "Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?" No one! And, no, the old testament is not out dated amigo, does God change, or is he the same today yesterday and tomorrow, if God does not change the old testament is still active and relevant.
The "one way to heaven" doctrine is wrong

I guess there is no real argument to make in this round. It’s not “the Jesus I describe”. It’s the Jesus the Bible describes. All my descriptions of Jesus are quoted directly from the Bible. As a Christian, I believe what the Bible says. What the Bible says is that God loves everyone. Yet, Adam and Eve rebelled, ate the fruit, and became sinful. Despite this rebellion, God still loved everyone, so He sent His only Son to die, so that people didn’t have to work for salvation (as they do in Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc). Nothing I said indicated that Jesus hates people from other religions. Everything I said indicated that Jesus desires everyone to be part of the Way, the Truth, the Life, the Resurrection, the Vine, and the flock of the Good Shepherd, so that they can know the love of God.I hope you are Christian because you have felt the Holy Spirit working in your life. I hope you are Christian because God calls us to love one another. I hope you are Christian because you know the truth.I hope you don’t fall away from faith simply because so many others have. I hope you don’t fall away just because you see so many hypocrites. The hypocrites who preach lies are not our example, nor are they Christians. Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, our loving God and Savior. I hope you don’t just believe what you want to hear, but you really search for truth.I wish Hell didn’t exist. I wish God was a ‘cosmic vending machine’ who gave me whatever I wanted. I wish He brought everyone to Heaven, no matter what they’ve done, what they believe, or what the condition of their heart is. But I know truth. And because I know truth, I aim to spread that truth, so that others may also know the Truth and be saved. You can’t deny that what I’ve said so far in this debate is in the Bible. Well, you can, but you’d be wrong, because I quoted it directly from the Bible. Do I like everything that is in the Bible? No. Do I believe everything that is in the Bible? Yes.Good luck to you. It seems the real debate is over. At this point, all my argument remain, and you have introduced no rebuttal or argument in this round.
The "one way to heaven" doctrine is wrong

You know amigo, it is doctrines like this that make me wonder why I am a christian, then I say "hey, that isn't in the bible", well, from how you are describing Jesus, he sounds a lot different from the Jesus I read about when I read the New Testament, the Jesus you describe is a God that hates people from other religions, may-haps you were referring to- this god? Unholy Qur'an 2:24: "And if ye do it not - and ye can never do it - then guard yourselves against the Fire prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is of men and stones." Unholy Qur'an 39: But they who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein. Unholy Qur'an 2:90: Evil is that for which they sell their souls: that they should disbelieve in that which Allah hath revealed, grudging that Allah should reveal of His bounty unto whom He will of His slaves. They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a shameful doom. Maybe you and Christians like you should convert to Islam, you would like their doctrines.