BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trinity is not biblical

(I will use the NASB only)The doctrine of Trinity is in which 1 God, manifest in 3 persons, Father, Jesus, and HS, now first by proving that Jesus the Son is not God, therefore Trinity fails, since Jesus is not God which I am going to demonstrate now. Jesus is not God:God cannot be tempted by evil, but Jesus was tempted:James 1:13 "for God cannot be tempted by evil" Matthew 4:1 "Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. "The Bible says Jesus's human nature was tempted but Jesus was which includes him 'all'. It has been recorded many times in the NT where Jesus distincts himself from God, which makes him in no way God:John 17:3 "3 This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. "Jesus is making a distinction between him and 'the only true God', leave no space for Jesus to be God. Jesus is God but has a God, this is very illogical, when Jesus has a God:Ephesians 1:17 "17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. "1 Peter 1:3 "3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"If Jesus fully died then does God die?1 Timothy 1:17 "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. "1 Corinthians 15:3 "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. "Notice how the Bible clearly says that Christ died, not body of Christ, not Human 'mind' all of Christ. The Holy Spirit:pneuma hagion, holy spirit, is used, it can refer either to (a) one of the names of God, one which shows His power in operation, or (b) the gift of God. Let us see some Bible verses that show HS is not a person:Matthew 11:27"27 All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. "Only the Son knows the Father, If the HS was a person, then Jesus's words are false, because obviously the Holy spirit should know the Father, since it is a part of the triune god. In Matthew 24:36 we read "36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. "If the HS was truly co-equal with the Father/Son, how could the HS not know this when it is part of the 'Godhead'. In Luke 9:26 "26 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. "Only the glorious ones are the Father, Son and the Holy angels, wait where is the HS? yes it is not a person! By proving that the Son is not God and the HS is not a person, trinity is false. You may put forth your contention.
Quebec Separatism

I feel that as a self-proclaimed minority, Quebec is taking advantage of the rest of the Canadian provinces, they use our federal government's money, they are given all the same health benefits, and they are in most cases admired by English-speaking Canadians. Maritimers often journey out to the great city of Montreal, to vacation and embrace the French culture. Meanwhile the Francophone are loathing the Anglophones, and wishing they could be rid of us, and rely on themselves rather then the Canadian Federal government. Now many people might suggest that my view of this situation is biased, however, born in Northern New Brunswick, I was raised in a Francophone community, and learned French as a first language. I am proud to be a mix of the two, because it helps me to see each end of the spectrum. Quebec separatists don't have the patriotism, and the pride in this country that it deserves from them. I'm not making a generalization, I'm not implying that ALL Francophone are separatists, what I am saying is that those who are, are taking radical steps even today. In 1970 terrorist acts by separatists were topped off by the kidnapping and murder of Quebec's minister of labor/immigration, Pierre Laporte. The federal government sent in troops and suspended civil liberties. Then In 1974 French became the official language of the province. I just feel that if they were to separate into their ow country, our economy would fail. It sounds selfish, yes, but then consider too, without the Federal governments health care, and tax returns, money to Quebec, etc. How would they cope?
PC Gaming is better than Console gaming.

Are you really going to say that F310 is better than the Dualshock4 or even the Xbox One's? If you're looking for light than Dualshock4 has that. http://us.playstation.com... http://gaming.logitech.com... http://www.xbox.com... . It's probably the way my setup is or something. Even more complications still if you have to set it up. There are used games however. The PS4 can still be very simple compared to setting up a nice, gaming, computer. Most mouses are clunky and usually require an annoying combo with the keyboard while regular controllers manage to fit it in a more compact space.
PC Gaming is better than Console gaming.

Due to your delay in posting an argument, I have been able to try the Logitech F310 for myself. It feels lighter, more rigid and comfortable in my hand that a console controller and there was no install required. Literally plug it in and play. This is either a lie or a personal bug, which can occur on consoles aswell. You made the mistake of commenting on the price. My steam library has nearly 130 games (excluding f2p) and I have spent around 400 quid. On a console, that many games would cost more than 10 times the price. (More in the XBone and Piece of Sh*t 4. Money is not an issue, unless you do not want to be gaming a lot. If that is the case, then spend 200 pounds on a better intel processor and slightly more ram, and you will be able to play on a regular desktop PC. I admit if you have tens of thousands of pounds and the best technical know how, you can get a beastly rig that will crush games bottlenecked by the PS20 and the xbox look we still aren't bust, but that is not necessary. A relatively cheap i5 processor is able to perform better than consoles with both twice the processing speed, twice the cores and intel integrated graphics which have gone a long way. I say GG and recommend you stand down, or make a feeble attempt to provide another valid argument. Please do your research and make it true so that it does not taint the votes.
PC Gaming is better than Console gaming.

Really? I had to buy my remote and setup it up only to realize that it works on specific games. I've already said that modding can be complicated and buggy itself. Using disks isn't as complicated as the PC can be. The argument I'm hearing is: You didn't take my ____ golden path. PC gaming can be better if you have the money and the know how, but consoles are usually better for beginners or people who don't want to make such a change that can be pretty complicated.
PC Gaming is better than Console gaming.

Controls are a matter of opinion, but it is often free and not time consuming to get a controller up and running. Simply getting a driver from the internet and using the USB cable or Bluetooth dongle can get most console ones working. Most PC gamers will agree however, that the accuracy and pin point precision of a mouse is unrivalled by dual analogue sticks. Assuming arguments not responded to are in agreement, I move onto the topic of modding. Modding can be seen as a cheap way to sell a game with little content *cough cough* minecraft, but the point of modding is not to supplement an incomplete game. The point of modding, is to come up with new ideas to add replay value to a game. Take inFamous on the PS3. Once you have finished, you aren't going to double your time with end game messing about. You may play it again because of the karma system, but without doubling production costs they can't realistically get a 200 hour game. Just Cause 2 has an amazing modding community, and as such I have nearly doubled my time in the game, from mixing and matching and having different mods active. It adds a fresh feel and you can't complain to the dev for spending time making naked character models for a Pegi 3 game. Mods add new things to the game, not supplement an unfinished game like any call of duty release. Finally, it isn't hard to set up a computer with the parts to be able to boot in under 20 seconds and be on the homepage of steam big picture without touching anything other than the power button. The argument that consoles are simple is invalid, especially as they use so many bloody disks, this long after 2006. Also, when I say run in the background, I don't mean next to the game, although a secondary monitor is perfect for that. I mean custom pirated music, or personal messaging systems, or whatever you would do while gaming. Second monitors can have websites open which you would have to stop the game for on a console.
PC Gaming is better than Console gaming.

That's the thing with the simple minded, consoles aren't as complex. The problem with PC's is finding the parts that can operate as well, if not better than consoles. Modding is great, but I don't want to feel the need to mod a game to really get the best experience. Modding can be pretty complicated and can mess the game up if you're not careful. Most of the games I've played required me to go fullscreen (although I can still pull steam up). Consoles can pull an extra screen for communication with friends and I don't see why you'd be doing that much else. I had a very rough time with controls, I got the F310 gamepad and had to install it unlike console remotes. Not all that many games support F310 and the controllers can feel inferior to the next-gen ones.
I lifted this from a Cadillac Owner's Manual

If we are talking about students plagiarize here is my approach of understanding this topic. There are several sources of student's fear. One is that students may feel ashamed to fail, especially in terms of family expectations. It should be noted that it is more "honorable" to receive a low grade than to be caught cheating or plagiarizing. Other students may feel their writing or research skills are so weak, that they can only pass the course if they buy a paper written by someone else. Clear guidelines may help students put their skills in perspective Finally students may claim that they are unable to state the content of a source as well as the original. In that scenario, instructors may wish to explain that being able to rephrase a concept is important for the assignment as well as for learning overall. It is recommended for all teachers to inform students in your syllabus that you may any plagiarism checker. I would recommend and personally use the one that detects all types of plagiarism and of course to cite you work. I always use the http://kingcitation.com...
I lifted this from a Cadillac Owner's Manual

Remember Darwin and Wallace: great minds can and do think independently but in parallel. A real-life example: the famous Tribble of Star Trek, as created by David Gerrold. Robert Heinlein, long before Star Trek in 'The Rolling Stones' came up with a creature, the Martian flat cat, similar to the Tribble in its general morphology and fecundity. As it turned out, both writers were beaten to that punch by Elizabeth Parker Butler's 'Pigs is Pigs,' a 19th Century story of guinea pig proliferation run amuck. The 'p' word, according to Mr. Gerrold's memoir of his Star Trek experience, did come up, but Heinlein, when given a copy of the Gerrold script, did not consider that the case and himself mentioned the Butler tie-in. So an idea-pet overbreeding-made the basis for three different tales with three very different outcomes. If you haven't seen 'The Trouble With Tribbles' read 'The Rolling Stones' or read 'Pigs is Pigs,' I won't spoil the experiences for you. It could, for a clever teacher or professor, still in a great search about the boundaries of originality and plagiarism!)
I lifted this from a Cadillac Owner's Manual

I can attest to this feeling too! "When you see others getting credit for your work, you feel violated." When you've been burned enough, you learn not to care and chalk it up to the "little world" and the "Penalty of Leadership." For vicarious mimetic enjoyment and reconstruction of that precise emotion "violated", I highly recommend the movie, "Contact." It's sci-fi meme. Carl Sagan wrote it. Dr. Arroway gets violated by Dr. Drummund in the worst way. Talk about politics in the Ivy leagues. C'est la vie. I really like "Contact" because I'm a trekkie and part of the plot is a psychosis in disguise. It's reassuring to know I'm not the only crazy person on the planet
I lifted this from a Cadillac Owner's Manual

According to Wikipedia term "Robert K. Merton": 1)Conformity is the attaining of societal goals by socially accepted means. 2)Innovation is the attaining of those goals in unaccepted ways. Innovators find and create their own way to go about obtaining what they want, and a majority of the time, these new ways are considered to be socially unaccepted and deviant. Robert Merton's motivating force: "I wanted and still want to advance sociological theories of social structure and cultural change that will help us understand how social institutions and the character of life in society come to be as they are." I think Robert created a masterpiece. My systems building hardware(Spock) and software(Kirk)agree with him. That's a rare novelty 'cause Spock and Kirk normally don't agree on anything! Merton is the winning horse. He's got it dialed in. I don't bet on horses. I bet on people. I'm always right about other people. I'm never right about me.)
I lifted this from a Cadillac Owner's Manual

The Penalty of Leadership (old Cadillac ad) "In every field of human endeavor, he that is first must perpetually live in the white light of publicity. Whether the leadership be vested in a man or in a manufactured product, emulation and envy are ever at work. In art, in literature, in music, in industry, the reward and the punishment are always the same. The reward is widespread recognition; the punishment, fierce denial and detraction. When a man's work becomes the standard for the whole world, it also becomes a target for the shafts of the envious few. If his work be merely mediocre, he will be left severely alone-if he achieve a masterpiece, it will set a million tongues a-wagging. Jealousy does not protrude its forked tongue at the artist who produces a commonplace painting. Whatsoever you write, or paint, or play, or sing, or build, no one will strive to surpass, or to slander you, unless your work be stamped with the seal of genius. Long, long after a great work or a good work has been done, those who are disappointed or envious continue to cry out that it can not be done. Spiteful little voices in the domain of art were raised against our own Whistler as a mountebank, long after the big world had acclaimed him its greatest artistic genius. Multitudes flocked to Bayreuth to worship at the musical shrine of Wagner, while the little group of those whom he had dethroned and displaced argued anily that he was no musician at all. The little world continued to protest that Fulton could never build a steamboat, while the big world flocked to the riverbanks to see his boat steam by. THe leader is assailed because he is a leader, and the effort to equal him is merely added proof to that leadership. Failing to equal or to excel, the follower seeks to depreciate and to destroy- but only confirms once more the superiority of that which he strives to supplant. There is nothing new in this. It is as old as the world and as old as the human passions-envy, fear, greed, ambition, and the desire to surpass. And it avails to nothing. If the leader truly leads, he remains-the leader. Master-poet, master-painter, master-workman, each in his turn is assailed, and each holds his laurels through the ages. That which is good or great makes itself known, no matter how loud the clamor of denial. That which deserves to live-lives." originally printed- Jan. 2 1915. The Saturday Evening Post. written by Theodore Francis MacManus
Polygamy should be allowed in the United States.

1) In this point, I am merely addressing an issue and setting the standards for the round accordingly. My opponent never set any round standards, as the Affirmative is supposed to do. I simply pointed out the issue of polygamy and defined how we should debate it. I list the reasons of why polygamy is wrong in my following points. Therefore, my point 1 still stands. 2) I think that my opponent must have not read my rebuttal correctly. In Round 2, I clearly stated, "In this argument, I am not attempting to throw out libertarian views. I am, in fact, supporting libertarian views. What I am trying to say in this round is that we progress with more societal innovations, we will progress into a libertarianan government, and leave issues like polygamy behind. " From this point that I have clearly made, I don't know how my opponent could have come to the conclusion that I have stated that polygamy is against libertarianistic views. Therefore, my Point 2 still stands. 3) While we could not call Bill Gates's actions unjust in the rebuttal provided by my opponent in Round 3, we could definitely label them as unfair. There is a fine boundary between what is unjust and unfair. We can now come to the conclusion, therefore, that in my previous example, it would in fact be unfair for a person to "hog up" money, in the same way as it would be unfair for a man to "hog up" many wives. I have properly upheld this point by rebutting my opponent's only rebuttal; therefore, this point still stands. 4) Since my opponent himself concedes that correlation does, in fact, mean causation, why should the same not be true in the issue of polygamy? I have successfully proved in my opening round why in this situation correlatoin does mean causation from the study that I included by the two authors. 5) It is true that there are many crazy people out in this world; however, I have proved that in polygamous societies, rates of violence and crime are higher than that of normal societies. My opponent denies this but never proves that the crime rate in any society remains the same. Through my argument, I have proved that polygamy influences a person to commit more crimes; "influence" is the key word here. Being polygamous doesnt change what you do, however, as I have proved, it "influences" what you do. Because I have successfully proven my case to be true and successfully proven my opponent's to be wrong, I successfully uphold the fact that polygamy should not be allowed in the US. :)
Polygamy should be allowed in the United States.

1) Yes, I do. The resolution is "Polygamy should be allowed in the United States." In my opening words I said, "Is there a viable reason against it?" Clearly, this means that it has been deemed wrong and I want an answer as for why. What else can it mean? Just simply stating it's wrong because it's wrong is not a viable reason, nor is it properly addressing the question at hand. 2) How, on earth, is polygamy against libertarianistic views? Would this not allow for more personal rights opposed to the government limiting what you can do? Is that not what the party is for? 3) No, it's not correct. Bill gates could be considered to be "Hogging up money." Is what he's doing unjust because of it? Of course it isn't. Saying that one man would hog all the wives is completely fallacious. Like I said, you must take into account too much that would take this FAR out of topicality (homosexual, man:woman ratio, attractiveness, etc. This, also, is not a VIABLE reason. 4) Yes correlation CAN be causation, but in this situation it isn't even close. It is not the result of not being with a woman that makes you destructive, as many gay men will tell you, it's more so of your uprising in your home, your mental state, etc. This is like trying to tie in dying out of Yo-Yos with scarcity of polar bears now days. It doesn't add up, and is completely untopical. 5) No, being psychotic, crazy, insane, injudicious, imbecilic people influenced them to do these things. These people wouldn't all of a sudden be rational well thought out planners and perfect citizens without polygamy. They'd just have a different method to there sadistic madness.
Polygamy should be allowed in the United States.

I will organize the following debate according to the arguments that he made. 1) My opponent never indicated this in Round 1. I just wanted to make the issue clear. 2) In this argument, I am not attempting to throw out libertarian views. I am, in fact, supporting libertarian views. What I am trying to say in this round is that we progress with more societal innovations, we will progress into a libertarianan government, and leave issues like polygamy behind. 3) While it may be true, as my opponent states, that the man is not attractive or good enough to get a women, his chances still shouldn't be lowered. Using my opponent's example about money, if a person earns 3/4 of the profit of a certain amount, then that would be considered unfair, correct? It would be correct to assume that this person is is "hogging up" all the money, right? Same thing with the wives. We should make everything fair and equally accessible for everyone. 4) In fact, this point was already made clear by the published study by the two authors that I have made above. It was a study conducted by two authors. And correlation does mean causation. For example, if I practiced two hours of violin, the number of incorrect notes I played would decrease, would they not? But if I practiced zero hours of violin, the number of incorrect notes that I played would increase, correct? Therefore, correlation does mean causation. Now referring back to the poll, if in fact they noted that people are more violent in a polygamous society, then that would obviously have something to do with the polygamy going on right? 5) Being a polygamist influenced these people to do these negative things.
Is google easier to use than bing

I accept. Thank you for issuing me this challenge Pro. I'll wait until the next round to rebut my opponent's opening arguments in order to ensure that we both enjoy an equal amount of rounds available to create rebuttals and arguments. People prefer Bing People tend to prefer Bing over Google due to overwhelming evidence showing the superior structure Bing has. According to results Bing recieved from a poll, two out of three people prefer Bing over Google. [1] People generally prefer Bing according to the results. I'll admit, when I took the quiz I believed Google would win for me, but to my suprise Bing was apparently better suited for me to use. Something to note is that it's essentially impossible to "lie" or cheat the quiz assuming you're choosing multiple topics because the quiz asks which page you would prefer without actually telling you if it's Bing or Google. This makes it super reliable and thus a good way to measure which one people like. One can verify whether they personally prefer Bing or Google by taking a quiz known as "Bing it on". [1] Obviously, because it is preferred it has done a better job at creating a quality website and is superior to Google. [1] http://www.bingiton.com...