BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Angel of the LORD is evil part 2

Moses had a prob. His prob was a simple one. Everyone who knew Moses knew that Moses was an Egyptian vassal- 1 Moses was the adopted son of Pharaoh's daughter. 2 Moses was a resident of the Egyptian court. 3 Moses was an Egyptian. Everyone who knew Moses knew this. His prob was identification. This is my final choice in our word game- Identification Moses had an identity crisis. How could the Egyptian Moses change his identity into the Isrealite Moses? Moses' prob was a simple one that demanded a simple solution. All Moses had to do was to murder an Egyptian task master then everyone would know that Moses had turned. After the murder of the Egyptian task master by Moses we have- 1 Moses was no longer the adopted son of Pharaoh's daughter. 2 Moses was no longer a resident of the Egyptian court. 3 Moses was no longer an Egyptian. Moses was a murderer from the beginning. What beginning? The beginning of his life of crime. When Moses killed the Egyptian guard Moses automatically became a fugitive from Justice. Now why would God choose a murderer to give the Israelites the Ten Commandments? Answer: God intended to use the Law to kill every single person on Earth. To do that would take a murderer. A serial killer. A Moses. A Joshua. An Angel of the LORD times 2.
The Angel of the LORD is evil part 2

You are pulling this all out of a hat. I already explained the Hebrew definitions of the different words. The word "in the beginning" is "b'reshit" and it means in the beginning. The root word is rosh, which means head, top, chief or beginning. Devil being a murderer from the beginning means from the beginning of creation he committed murder. I am not playing any word games, just taking you back to the original language to clear up confusion about different words. It Is not against Gods Law to kill period. only to ratzakh murder. It is God himself that sends the angel of the LORD to various people in the scriptures. You clearly have some weird beliefs about the Scriptures. There are no vain words going on. every word has a meaning that should be interpreted by their true definition within the context in which it was written. Joshua was the warrior of Yahuwah! It was Yah Almighty himself that spoke to Joshua in Joshua chapter one and told him, "Be strong and of a good courage. take the land of Canaan, there shall no one be able to stand before thee all the days of your life." Yah Almighty himself commanded Joshua to kill everyone. Nakah l'mot smite to death, and harag kill. never once is ratzakh used in these contexts. give me one scripture that says, "Thou shalt not harag kill, or smite to death nakah l'mot. These are the words used in the original language and they are different one from another. The devil MURDERED from the beginning of creation. None of these righteous men committed murder at the commandment of the angel of the LORD. none of these righteous men were connected to the devil. And by the way, I did choose "smote" in your little game. Go back and read it. "It is against the law to take innocent life by any means including to "smote". This depends on your definition of innocent. A child born of the Canaanite is not considered innocent in God's eyes. It is the child of a wicked man. In 1 Samuel 15 Yahuwah himself commands Saul to kill ALL the Amalakites; man, woman, child and infant. according to Yah's judgement this was a righteous thing to do. And because Saul rebelled against this commandment, the spirit of Yah left him and the kingdom was taken from him. It is only against the Law to ratzakh murder. Nakah smite can be againsts the law if it is done by ratzakh murder. But it is not always like that.
The Angel of the LORD is evil part 2

Well Con, you were given "smote" as an option. You can pick smote. But here is the problem with "smote"- The word "smote" has no meaning. Your word game has no meaning. The life and death of the young defenseless child that Joshua the seasoned professional army guy "smote" had/has no meaning. The "smote"-ing of the children of Jericho was a meaningless act. How shall we change the list for Con? 1 Vain 2 Vain 3 Vain 4 Vanity 5 Vexation Because Joshua was not commanded by the LORD to "smote" any innocent life. We have this in writing. It is against the law to take innocent life by any means including to "smote". The LORD gave Moses the 10 Commandments. What Joshua did was the opposite of what the LORD put down in writing. We are going to keep playing the word game. It is my turn to pick a word- Beginning Does the word "beginning" have any meaning? Or is it to be vain like "smote"? The Gospel of John 8:44 has the devil as a murderer from the "beginning". What beginning? There is a connection between the devil and Moses if we say that the act of murder starts the "beginning". Here is how it works- In the beginning of Moses' life in rejection of the way of the Egyptian Court Moses was a murderer. (For he, Moses did murder the Egyptian guard.) Now that we have established the link between Moses and the devil as starting out in the beginning as murderers we want to focus on Joshua. We want Joshua because Joshua represents the Angel of the LORD here on Earth. 1 The Angel of the LORD could not be stopped through human methods 1 Joshua could not be stopped through human methods 2 The Angel of the LORD was a killing machine 2 Joshua was a killing machine 3 The Angel of the LORD killed indiscriminately both believers and nonbelievers 3 Joshua killed indiscriminately both believers and nonbelievers What "beginning" are we talking about for Joshua? It is the beginning of his life of crime. Crime against the 10 Commandments. Crime against the State. Crime against humanity. We are talking about War Crime. It is against the LAW for an officer of the military to enter a defeated city and execute the innocent civilian population. It is against God's moral LAW. And it is against man's moral LAW.
The Angel of the LORD is evil part 2

Because the object of the game is to establish a double standard, I can not play, because I do not believe in a double standard. Nevertheless I will answer the simple question.... The Almighty God commanded Joshua to take the city of Jericho. He even helped take the walls down. The men of Jericho were evil, and all their children would grow to walk in the same evil way of their fathers. But when a child is innocent, having done neither good nor evil, He is accepted into the kingdom of God for his name's sake (1 John 2:12). It is actually the mercy of God that ended the innocent lives before they could do evil. The words here used are "nakah l'mot" (Smite to death) and "harag" (kill; take a life). Still not breaking the commandment "thou shalt not "ratzakh" murder. Joshua was Executing the righteous judgment of the Almighty. #4 smote, and you needed more answer choices for your multiple choice.
The Angel of the LORD is evil part 2

My opponent wants to play a word game. Name of game: Thimblerig, (in this case with words and angels) The object of the game: To establish a double standard. Rules of the game: 1 Strict adherence to literal word definitions 2 If the Torah does not say it specifically then reading a meaning into the scripture is not allowed Example: When Joshua entered Jericho he was around 60 years old. By that time Joshua had fought several battles and killed many men. Joshua was a seasoned veteran of war by the time he conquered Jericho. So when Joshua entered Jericho and picked a young defenseless child up by the feet and dashed the child against the wall was it- 1 Murder 2 Self defense 3 Justifiable Homicide 4 Smote 5 Genocide (Pro explanation of what is going on: As Con stands at the table entertaining the crowd by moving the three shells around, Con's partner is pick pocketing some of the observers in the crowd. For more information please see the famous painting "The Conjurer", by Hieronymus Bosch.)
papa my god what do you believe and think am i true or wrong, any lawyer from my papa accepts truth

papa the world is actually controlled by genies who wins through any truth be it temporary truth or any truth and when any genies wins from any truth they take time from others and there time is changed and when any genie wins from anyone they keep proving they are true until there genie dies or says they were lie until there god or master proves they are not lie or wrong. Papa humans life is controlled by genies only who makes time of humans for doing anything in advance or through humans memories or dreams or thinking so why humans are proven as wrong when they are not wrong and why religions gods genies wins from them by proving fake truth why they dont stay with original truth and they keep saying they are with truth and even sees future by believing in there god so until some genie proves others are wrong with any temporary truth by keep remembering there humans memories or dreams to take time will you believe in there truth to be real and give them winning or genies takes winning by proving they are true with any truth like from 4.5 billions years religions gods won from each other by proving they are true which was fake truth as if there was any truth then there truth they come and defeat others by forcing them to sin or win from them to prove they are true. I want to know papa how the world and universe is running with those who says they are true with there own truth which is temporary fake truth which is not proven as lie or wrong then them. That truth is wrong or lie which is proven as lie and wrong and since 4.5 billions years religions gods and believers believed in temporary fake truth and saw future and went in future and went in past and what else you know it better. So how did they believed in fake truth to be true a truth which is not proven as lie by anyone and did many things. So dont you think papa just prove truth and win from everybody whether be it any truth then them and if anyone becomes wrong with there truth then they lost there time and property and genies takes there all and gives to there gods. I will be waiting to know what you will say whether i am true or wrong and if i am true why i cannot see future from current and why i cannot see past from current and why i cannot go in future from current and come back and enjoy my life. I need answer from you god because you give victory to those who are true so do you give victory or genies give victory when truth is proven ? i want to know answer god. Tell me do you like me or love me and do you like me with the time set by someone to write this to you. What do you think of me. Have you seen me did you like me, what do you think i am ?
Resolved:In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

It would be naive to think that civil disobedience is a cure-all or that in some way, would lead to a perfect society. The goal, however, is to fight for a more perfect society. As I argued in the first round, the fight for justice is a struggle, and at different times in the struggle, certain actions are appropriate weapons. Again, what makes a weapon appropriate is the situation in which it would be used. You do not use a pocket-knife to fight a war and you do not use a bazooka to hunt deer. The options available to those fighting for justice are varied and exist on a spectrum. I agree with my opponent, that the proper channels must be tried first, that the laws be changed through compromise and diplomacy. Certainly at times the fight for injustice ends here. If, however, this may fail and as my opponent noted earlier in this round, the other option is to "persist." People do not give up the fight for justice just because the majority has made it impossible to correct the situation legally. It is true that not everyone agrees on a definition of justice, which is what presents the problem in the first place; however, people, by nature, will fight for a more just situation, regardless if we consider justice as a universal ideal or an individual ideal. This was the case with slavery, equality, universal suffrage, and national independence. As I noted in my first round argument, people will set aside their safety to correct what they see to be injustice. My opponent argues that a successful campaign of civil disobedience is not fair in a democracy because the majority's views are not implemented as law. However, civil disobedience is not terrorism, it is not a coup d'etat, nor is it a civil war. Civil disobedience does not force the majority to change the law by violence; rather, it works by highlighting the injustice and peacefully swaying members of the majority to change the laws. Contrast a peaceful sit-in with holding a gun to a legislator's head, and the difference is clear. My opponent argues against my second contention by stating that civil disobedience hurts the fight for justice because it is ineffective in our time. Just because civil disobedience is one step above the majority's "proper channels" does not mean it is so radical that people will reject it outright. Many social-justice movements, from India to South Africa to the United States have gained support and credence from the majority simply because they were non-violent. Just because the rally or sit-in may not make the six o'clock news does not affect its appropriateness as a weapon to fight injustice. Again, in the context of democracy, the fight for injustice calls for a measured, non-violent approach to peacefully sway the majority to correct the injustice. This, in the proper context, can be achieved by civil disobedience.
Resolved:In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

basically i want to see what people will say to this. it is the National Forensics League's January topic for Public forum Debate. I chose Con. I negate this resolution because: 1. Civil Disobedience (CD) is not within the parameters of a democracy, as the people's voice is already heard. 2. CD can cause threat to personal security due to the breach of the social contract. 1. in a true democracy, all people's views and voice would already be heard. A democracy, by definition, represents everyone's views and is a government BY THE PEOPLE. therefore CD is not justified, because the people's views are actually already heard and represented adequately. 2. CD violates the social contract, and therefore may cause anarchy and threat to security. In the social contract citizens agree to obey laws set down for them by the government (which in a democracy basically IS the people anyways). If suddenly breaking the law is openly justified, then there is no reason for people to continue to adhere to the law. Persons could break laws in the name of CD because they don't agree with it. The people should voice their concerns through the proper channels. there is no need to violate the social contract and void the purpose and validity of a government. now i'd like to hear arguments for CD, this will hopefully let me write cases, although i left my notes at school over the break, so i may start another debate in the near future...
Center is a more important position in basketball than point guard

http://www.basketballtraininggrounds.com...:The point guard is the floor general. He orchestrates the offense like a symphony, directing his teammates and setting them up for easy baskets. He is a catalyst for the offense and makes everyone around him better. The point guard is most often the shortest but quickest player of the 5 basketball positions. A good point guard possesses: Excellent ball handling (usually the best ball handler on the team) Excellent passing Court vision = the ability to see the entire court and know where all teammates are at all times Quickness Good shooter In addition, good point guards have a good basketball iq or sixth sense about the game. They are able to “read” the defense and exploit openings. They like to score a lot of points and often look for their shot. The point guard is more of a team player and assists players going for goal. http://www.dummies.com... - Point Guard is defined as: usually the shortest player on the team. Should be the team's best passer and ball handler; not primarily a shooter. Traditional role is to push the ball upcourt and start the offensive wheels turning. Should either take the ball to the basket or remain near the top of the key, ready to retreat on defense or safety, incase of a fast break. -Best and brightest: Derrick Rose. Point guards can dunk too! Point guards are almost like the controllers of the court. They usually bring the ball down the court, fast and zippy to set up the offense. They are good passers, fakers, shooters and great at assists. They are usually small but can jump high due to their small mass of body fat. proves what a point guard is like. Point guards compared to a center are: faster, better change of paceand zippier better at trick passes or passes in general have better stamina and are better sprinters better at shooting 3's can shoot inside and outside the paint They can also dunk have a role to set up the offense are leaders of the court lower defensive stance Point guards are better that centers. No dought about it.
Center is a more important position in basketball than point guard

I will now go ahead and post my arguments. There are many reasons why center is more important1: Centers have a tremendous size advantageThe center is traditionally the biggest player on the floor, which gives them a size advantage. This in return allows the center to generate easier shot opportunities and chances. . http://www.youtube.com...(Video 1) Look at how easily 7'6 center Mamadou Ndiaye dunks the ball over his defender! Easier shot opportunities lead to my second point.2: Centers have a higher field goal percentage than guardsThis past college basketball season, 4 of the top 10 field goal percentages were held by a center[1], including the top spot. Only 1 spot was occupied by a guard. A higher field goal percentage means that the player is scoring on his shots more often.3: Centers rebound the ball betterCenters also grab a higher number of rebounds than guards. This past college basketball season 5 of the top 10 rebounding numbers were held by centers. No guard was in the top 30 for rebounding! [2] Rebounds limit the opposing team's chances and give your team more chances to score. 4 Centers block more shots. Once again this past college basketball season there were more centersin the top 10 for blocked shots than there were guards. [3] Blocked shots change the momentum of the game and energize the crowd. . http://www.youtube.com...(video 2) Look at how fired up the crowd is after 7 foot center Amida Brimah blocks a shot! With that I close my opening arguments. Thank you. Sources:[1] . http://espn.go.com...;[2] . http://espn.go.com...;[3] . http://espn.go.com...;
Center is a more important position in basketball than point guard

shows evidence of my points from round 2.Pro state that 'centers have a tremendous size advantage'. However, http://www.nba.com... proves that you don't have to be tall to be a centr. "You can't teach size," is the mantra coaches have preached for years.The same website quotes- That's not to say superstars like LeBron James (6-foot-8) or Kevin Durant (6-foot-9), physical freaks of nature by most anyone's measure, aren't still the dream standard. But Golden State Warriors point guard Steph Curry, all 6-foot-3 of him, was the leading All-Star vote-getter for this weekend's 64th All-Star Game in New York -- not James. And the 6-foot-5 James Harden, not his former Oklahoma City teammate, Durant, leads the NBA in scoring this season. Pro's second point states 'centers have a higher field goal percentage than guards'. http://espn.go.com... shows that you are wrong. Guard have more accurate 3 pointers and a higher percentile of mid ranged shots. Point guards also do more assists than centers.Centers do however rebound the ball better. But the main job of a center is to rebound and reject shots- all defensive apects of the game. Guards are back for saftey in a game, preventing the other team from getting a fast break. has best snippits of a game and guess who got the most steals? The guards did. Guards have faster feet and quicker hands to steal the ball.Guards rely on the centers to get the ball in the hoop as they have dribbled down, penetrated the defence then dished off. A fast, hard and accurate pass to the center, assuring that they would make the bucket. Overall in that game, the guards scored more points. More 3 pointers, more layups, more assists than a center. Guards are better than centers, and it doesn't depend on height. After you watch these, don't you feel emotionally impressed, happy and alsmost joyfully sad. Mojority of the 3 pointers were made by guards, they had wom the final, or the grand final depending on the case. with all the training and great ball handling as shown in the first video, it proves you can win finals. To be a guard you have to be quick, a good shooter and have amazing ball handling. That proves you can win games if you posess those 3 things.
Psychedelics could be of use to the psychotherapy process

I will do this by, 1. Describing what psychotherapy is 2. Describing the affect of psychedelics on the psyche, as well as what the general effects are. 3. I will give examples of recorded instances of usage, when used safely; to which led to the betterment of the state of mind and general well being of the user or patient. 4. I will then take the above information to piece together the my idea's into a thesis.
There is more evidence that God does not exist, than there to is prove that he does.

Thanks very much for your well written and well thought out opening argument. But I do question one thing - you mentioned "There is great design in the universe". I assume that by "great" you mean large and complex, and not that the design itself is good or perfect? Because it is not. Please could you clarify what you meant in your next response. And thank you for your suggestion that I must show the Universe came into being by chance. However if it's alright with you, I will instead go down another road... Of course, if you are initiating the argument of a designer, you must also be arguing that the Universe, and indeed, life, had a beginning. Meaning there was a point before it existed. For life, at least life on Earth, that is of course true, but for the Universe? I'm not so sure. Imagine The Big Bang taking place approximately in the centre of the already existing Universe almost 14 billion years ago. Just a theory, but perhaps caused by the death of a star, or implosion of a galaxy, something of that nature. I think that it's fair to assume and perhaps has already been proven, that a significant amount of outward force was created by The Big Bang. Now imagine any and all of the elements that were around at that time being pushed further out into space by that force.... so far out that their light has yet to reach us and in all likelihood will never reach us. This theory fits in perfectly well with the scientific evidence that the Universe is expanding, thus it has to at least be considered. And, I argue, it makes much more logical and theoretical sense than a "creator". The point I am trying to make is that with this theory, The Big Bang was not the beginning of the Universe. It would simply have been an event, the likes of which are not too difficult to imagine happening constantly in the Universe. It is just one of a number of theories that aim to prove the Universe is eternal, by which I mean it had no beginning, hence, no creator. It has always been there and quite possibly always will be. Considering that you cannot definitively prove the existence of God, you must first eliminate all the scientifically plausible explanations before your "designer" argument can be accepted as fact.