BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
League of Legends is better than Overwatch.

Greetings my dude. Afrikaans Goeie dag Albanian Tungjatjeta Arabic Ahlan bik Bengali Nomoskar Bosnian Selam Burmese Mingala ba Chinese Nín hao Croatian Zdravo Czech Nazdar Danish Hallo Dutch Hallo Filipino Helo Finnish Hei French Bonjour German Guten Tag Greek Geia! Hebrew Shalóm Hindi Namasté Hungarian Szia Indonesian Hai Iñupiaq Kiana Irish Dia is muire dhuit Italian Buongiorno Japanese Kónnichi wa Korean Annyeonghaseyo Lao Sabai dii Latin Ave Latvian Es mīlu tevi Malay Selamat petang Mongolian sain baina uu Nepali Namaste Norwegian Hallo. Persian Salâm Polish Witajcie Portuguese Olá Romanian Salut Russian Privét Samoan Talofa Serbian ćao Slovak Nazdar Slovene Zdravo Spanish Hola Swahili Jambo Swedish Hej Tagalog Halo Thai Sàwàtdee kráp Turkish Merhaba Ukrainian Pryvít Urdu Adaab arz hai Vietnamese Chào
League of Legends is better than Overwatch.

I will argue that League of Legends is generally better than Overwatch. Con will argue otherwise Round 1 - 4 (this is where the debating happens. You see there are rounds that happen and each round you must give an argument/counter-argument/opening statement/closing statement) God bless this community please follow rulez: 1). If you lose you must change your profile picture to any image THAT the winner desires. 2). No sources? No win. No assumptions either everything must be proven 3). I am Yasuo one trick with 970K points on Yasuo this isn't really a rule but I just wanted to point it out because it seemed important. Here's a scripture from the bible. Read it while you ready up for this incredibly intense debate Ezekial 23:19-20 Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions. And that was a scripture from the bible. Praise Jesus our Lord and Savior. Introduction. Hello. Enjoy and have fun and good luck and yeah
The following argument for the non-existence of God is invalid.

Thanks to my opponent for his quick response and willingness to see this debate through. REBUTTAL 1. God Cannot Be Tested by Science I honestly cannot make sense of my opponent's first argument in this regard. He says, "if we believe mermaids, fairies...are real, then God can't be real, if again God can be real then these fairies can't." This premise simply is not cogent. It does not follow that if mermaids exist, God does not or vice versa. Furthermore, he offers no reasoning by which to accept this ipse dixit claim. Matters get worse in his second paragraph when he says, "the sentence ‘Only that which is empirically verified by science is true.' like you said cannot be scientifically tested because it's an abstract assertion, but just because it's just an abstract assertion does not mean it's can be true." I'm not sure what he's saying. I asserted that the epistemological position that only science brings knowledge CAN'T be true because it is self refuting. He does not counter my rebuttal in this regard, and so it stands. 2. Immortal God/Mortal Jesus Paradox Once again, my opponent argues from a misrepresentation of Christian doctrine. First of all, the bible does not say God is the ONLY spirit. It clearly teaches that man is both flesh and spirit. He is welcome to discredit the Christian Worldview, but to do so will require a formidable argument against God's existence, not a misunderstanding of Christian spirituality. 3. 6-Day Creation is Unproven Just to make this interesting, I suggest my opponent examine the findings of RATE, a group of Christian scientists that have found major discrepancies in radiometric dating. [1] The source lists three questionable presuppositions regarding radioisotope dating, leaving room for doubt. Even if RATE is not completely accurate in its conclusions, one must concede that without the ability to actually go back in time to verify the age of the earth, it will never be known with complete certainty. Moreover, the age of the earth does not disprove that it was created. One very logical possibility is the earth is billions of years old AND it was created. Therefore, simply asserting that the earth is old is not enough to disprove God's existence. 4. Christians Have Misbehaved My opponent continues to offer ad hominem arguments. I will reiterate: the actions of an ideology's adherents do not prove one way or another whether or not that ideology is true or false. Atheists have done horrible things as well, so is atheism necessarily false as a result? CONCLUSION My opponent more or less reiterated his earlier arguments albeit with additional flair. Still, I do appreciate his ardent effort to keep this debate alive rather than forfeiting. I look forward to his next set of arguments. SOURCES: 1. http://www.answersingenesis.org...
The following argument for the non-existence of God is invalid.

I will respond to each of his points in turn: REBUTTAL 1. God Cannot Be Tested by Science My opponent argues that God's existence cannot be verified by the senses or empirically tested. His observation is accurate, but such thinking does not disprove God's existence. Consider the following statement: Only that which is empirically verified by science is true. The above statement cannot itself be scientifically tested since it is an abstract assertion. It can only be true if it is false, so it must be false. Therefore, even though God cannot be observed by our physical senses, it does not follow that he does not exist. 2. Immortal God/Mortal Jesus Paradox My opponent cites an apparent paradox: an immortal God died a mortal death. This argument is simply a misrepresentation of Christian theology. The Christian worldview presupposes dualistic man—that humans are made of two parts: mortal flesh and immortal spirit. [1] There is no paradox in the flesh dying and the spirit living on. Therefore, there is no logical paradox in Christ the Man dying on the cross and Christ the God living on. The only way for this argument to go any further is to disprove that man and Christ are immortal spirit. Of course, the only way to do this is to philosophically disprove the existence of God. In other words, this argument begs the question. He'll have to win the debate before he can continue with this line of reasoning. 3. 6-Day Creation is Unproven This argument is simply a non sequitur. The age of the earth does not disprove that it was created. It should be further pointed out that science is unable to empirically verify how the earth was formed. There are theories, to be sure, as the earth's formation can only be hypothesized. Again, my opponent rests all his laurels on the axiom that scientific validation alone brings objective truth. I discredited this presupposition in contention 1. 4. Christians Have Misbehaved My opponent's final point is merely ad hominem, it argues against the people rather than the ideology. The fact that people have done violent things in the name of Christ gives additional credence to the Christian notion of fallen man, and it most certainly has no bearing on the existence of God in general. My opponent will have to make actual logical connections between the violent behavior of some Christians and the non-existence of God before this contention can even be considered. CONCLUSION The debate is over the validity of my opponent's arguments. So far, he has relied on self-refuting axioms, question begging, non sequitur, and ad hominem attacks. I have shown all his contentions to be invalid, so the resolution stands affirmed. SOURCES: 1. . http://www.reformed.org...
The following argument for the non-existence of God is invalid.

I'm a Christian, but I'll make this a challenge to me, personally, thus it's a real test to me, for my faith and also with you looking for the absolute truth. Your first introduction was God is all Holy, God is all that, just and things... but your point is that is that God created things, God is full with blessings but there are lots of points that I want to "point" out: _ Nobody, I say no one can touches, feels or or smells God, the concept of an existence of God cannot be tested by science, or any other way, I would be rather to think about God just like a hypothesis rater than something like a law or a definite being that can be in touch with humanity. _ God as you're saying is a Christian God I believe, and I also think that you believe in an immortal God that cannot dies nor required to eat, but the Bible states that Jesus the Christ Himself required to eat and He actually died on the cross(though He actually rose back from death.), a big contradiction in the Christian God, while the Bible states that there are no flaws in the Bible, and the Bible is use to teach people and written from God, can an almighty God made a mistake like that? _ God created the world in 6 days is totally unproven, while we know that this earth had been for millions of years, the Bible and the Qu'ran and the Torah, 3 of these biggest monotheistic religions, all 3 of them are totally said something which very nonsense as God created the world in 6 days. This doctrine about God creation of the world again I say unproven and remained somehow a mystery and unscientific. _ I believe the acts of God on earth are some how really abnormal and questionable, Christianity believe that the only way to go is through faith, because of that many people had killed other people whom different from their faith like the burning of the witches in the Dark Age(I think so), God in the Bible said that only faith is mandatory, so you don't need a mind to rethink, to check again what you're believing? "Just believe, don't you dare to question anything I said!"? Those are my arguments, this is my second times to debate, therefore there might be some mistakes in my vocabulary, please don't mind, and for sure, let's me say this again... "I am a Christian."
The following argument for the non-existence of God is invalid.

Seeing that haven't been any debate challenges appearing lately, I thought I'd throw one out there. Simply put, the challenger that accepts this debate will offer an argument for the non-existence of God. I will attempt to refute it, thereby showing it to be invalid. My opponent will use Round 1 to explain his argument. In rounds 2 and 3, I will cross-examine and attempt to refute his/her argument whereas he/she will cross-examine my refutations and defend the argument. Round 4 will be closing statements in which no new contentions will be permitted. My opponent has the good fortune of having both the first and last word. Good luck, and let's make this interesting. EDIT: This debate regards the existence of the Christian God as described in the Westminster Confession of Faith: http://www.reformed.org... ----- There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. -----
Italy is better than Ireland

Thank for accepting =) here's my reasons: The food is better than yours (Pasta, Pizza, cannoli,) Our weather is Nicer than yours ranging 80 in summer to 55 in winter You killed off our people in the Mamaroneck Riot http://en.wikipedia.org... During the late 1800's and early 1900's Anti-Italianism was common through Irish immigrants http://en.wikipedia.org... Italy is also closer to other countries. We are a peninsula not an island so we can visit Greece if we want too. The History- defiantly Southern Italy! It was colonized by the Greeks, Arabians and the Romans. Ireland at this time was Barbaric. I'm interested to see what you got. If you want you can start the debate through one I listed.
The Prince Should Not Have Rescued Rapunzel

This debate is whether the prince should have rescued Rapunzel or not. I can tell you why he shouldn't have, and you can tell me why he should have. The story portrays the prince as a hero, inciting its observers to think that Rapunzel would have never been freed, had the prince never come to her rescue, which not only discourages independence but also encourages dependency. Rapunzel did not need the prince to escape: Rapunzel could have chewed her hair off and used it as a rope to climb down, Rapunzel could have maneuvered her rolls of hair and used it as a cushion to break her fall, or Rapunzel could have jumped while holding the ends of her hair, allowing the rest to inflate and create something of a parachute. Rapunzel would've come out of the situation a lot stronger, had she gotten out of the situation herself, had she solved her own problem, instead of relying upon someone else to solve it for her. My argument is that Rapunzel should have been given the ability to rescue herself, rather than the ability to attract a man. Make the best debater win.
The Prince Should Not Have Rescued Rapunzel

First off, look at when the writer wrote the book. The year was 1812. Back then, saving a fair maiden was all the rage. Next, take a look at the physicality of it. She is locked in one room, for almost two decades, just there, reading and painting. Do you really think she would have the strength with no muscle development whatsoever, to climb down a tower, that tall, using her arms? It would have been impossible. And lastly, she had no desire to escape until she met the Prince. She was convinced that "mother knew best" and was content being up there! Little did she know, that this woman was NOT her mother. If the Prince hadn't told her about the real world, she'd have no desire to leave. She would've never even discovered that she was a princess without him. So, without the Prince, escape would not have been possible. This justifies the ending, or at least makes it plausible.
can religion and science coexist

Let me begin with the definition of peaceably:peaceably (adj.): inclined or disposed to avoid strife or dissention, not argumentative or hostile [1]A Christian parent would not have to 'storm the school' for their actions to not be peaceable, and simply because you have not seen a Christian parent argue with a school about some certain scientific topics being discussed there doesn't mean it hasn't happened. In this round, I will list some of those instances.Take, for example, the website CreationToday (http://creationtoday.org...), which specifically urges parents to drop their children from public school, start attending school board meetings for the sole purpose of dissuading the school from teaching evolution, and "Encourage students to do papers showing the religious nature of evolutionary theory in science class. Your school board may be persuaded to buy some material for the sake of equal time. If not, get and distribute books and videos as a mission project through your church." Argumentative: check. Hostile: check. Disposed to avoid dissention...? No.There have been countless lawsuits from Christian people/organizations (including Teach the Controversy) that are trying to force young-earth Christian creationism (YEC) upon our youth attending public school. All have been rejected or thrown out in court, but the fact still remains that people are trying very, very hard to force Christianity on other people's kids. [2]Last year, a science teacher in Louisiana continuously harassed non-Christian children, specifically calling atheist children 'stupid', and taught her Christian faith at a much higher priority than the required science curriculum. From the article: "The Lane family claims in the lawsuit that Roark openly discussed her Christian faith with her students, telling them "people are stupid if they think God is not real" and teaching the students repeatedly that "the earth was created by God 6,000 years ago, that evolution is 'impossible' and that the Bible is '100 percent true.'" [3]. When the school was challenged, the school district stood behind its outrageous expression of religion, telling one set of parents that 'they live in the Bible Belt and must get used to Christian expression'. This is undoubtedly not the only case of public school teacher evangelism that has occurred in the USA.References[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.christianpost.com...
can religion and science coexist

I would like to start of with the definition of coexist meaning to exist separately or independently but peaceably, often while remaining rivals or adversaries. Thought science does in fact contradict Christianity both can still coexist peaceably as seen every day in everybody's normal day lives. I have not yet seen a Christian parent storm a school because the teacher was doing his or her job. References 1.http://dictionary.reference.com...
can religion and science coexist

When a body undergoes death, all blood flow to the brain is stopped within a short period of time, and after that time, the brain no longer functions; therefore, the person permanently loses consciousness. No evidences of a soul have ever or likely will ever be found. The EarthThe Bible teaches that the Earth is around 6,000 years old [2]. However, ice core samples taken from the Arctic consist of layers (representing years similar to the rings of a tree) representing many, many more winter/summer cycles than that. For example, one sample had 420,000 years represented in it [3]! If the Earth is only 6,000 years old, how could these cores have formed? There would need to be at least 70 winter/summer cycles in each year of Earth's existence. Continental DriftFossils of the same species of organism have been found spanning multiple continents, pointing to the fact that the continents were once combined into one supercontinent (Pangaea) [4]. At the current rate of continental drift, approximately 2 cm per annum [5], the continents would need millions of years to spread from Pangaea to the array of continents we know today [6]. A 6,000 year old Earth could not provide that time period. Evolution of ManFossil records show that modern man was not, in fact, created within 7 days of the creation of the Earth. Instead, science puts the estimate for the evolution of modern man at about 12,000 years ago [7], which is far after the creation of the Earth from both a Christian's and a scientist's perspective. The Great FloodThere are no evidences for a global flood at any time period, especially the time period specified in the Bible. There are no evidence of disruption in ice cores, no evidence of catastrophe in ring samples from trees over 10,000 years old, and such a flood would have completely broken up the polar caps, leaving no room for them to reform in the ~6,000 years the Bible allots them [8]. I look forward to your response. References[1] . http://theness.com...[2] . http://creation.com...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://hypertextbook.com...[5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] . http://www.talkorigins.org...
There's no perfect political ideology

Political Ideology: A certain set of ethical ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class and/or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order.Perfect: Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.Round one is acceptance and opening statementRound two and three are arguments Round four is counter argumentsRound five is conclusionRequirements: Good spelling, grammar, punctuation, vocabularly, etc. At least three arguments in rounds two and three At least six counter arguments in round four At least twelve arguments in round five Preferably one ending statement No recycling or reusing previously used arguments Example(s) of the perfect political ideology(ies) Citations, links, references, resources, etc. Opening Statement: America has flip-flopped between Liberal and Conservative values for over 200+ years and ironically enough America has been at war for 200+ years!Plus, Conservatism and Liberalism constantly get redifined generation-to-generation and place-to-place.
April PFD Topic

Since my opponent forfeited the round, he loses, and is disqualified from any further rounds I will continue for the enjoyment and learning experience of the audience. For my opponent's first argument, he said that people are in need of organs. OF COURSE! It is common knowledge that the world has a severe organ shortage, with more people dying each day. But we can't use financial incentives to solve those shortages. Nowhere in the argument has my opponent sated that financial incentives will go anywhere near to solving our organ shortage, which is the whole idea of this topic. This leads to my argument of alternatives, such as organ printers, which can produce more organs, risk free. Argument 2: Making organ donations taboo costs lives Again, this has nothing to do with financial incentives. Organ donation is allowed and encouraged. My opponent says that organ donations were not as frightening as people thought However, this is not the concern. however people precept the process of donating organs, it has nothing to do with financial incentives. My opponent has not proved any point through this argument Argument 3: Organ snot donated are wasted True, people should donate organs. But how will we encourage these peopled do so? Not through financial incentives for sure, because my opponent did not even mention anything related to it in this argument. This only emphasises that our society needs more organs. Financial incentives will not help at all, because, as I stated in my own contentions, legalizing it will actually dismiss altruistic donors, leaving the world with a even greater organ shortage.
April PFD Topic

The resolution is, "Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation." The rules are standard NFL PFD rules, and can be read in the [1]link below for any-one unfamiliar with the rules. The format is obviously adapted to this site's layout. Round 1 is for acceptance and clarification Round 2 is for constructive speeches, and constructive speeches alone. (No attacks made here) Round 3 is for attacking your opponent's case. Nothing else. Round 4 is for refutation of attacks made, and extensions Round 5 is for voters. That said, here's to a fun debate http://www.nflonline.org...