BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
messi better than ronaldo

You HAVE got a couple of things right friend. Argentina expect Messi to score and Ronaldo does score goals. Well, so does Messi. But in this case, we will have to talk about consistency. Sure both Messi and Ronaldo are consistent, but these days, you are not watching Messi score quite often against the so-called "well known" teams. And before I argue further, I would like you to not bring in someone like Cruyff and Maradonna as the player's skill and situations surrounding the game are different now compared to then. It would thus be better if players were compared with other existing players like your example about Neymar da Silva and Higuain. So moving on, Who said that Ronaldo doesn't " go for the ball, creates plays and also assits and scores"? You cannot always say that a guy who doesn't trick guys much are not good enough. Benzema tricks fairly well but, he is not the best striker in the world because he misses many goals simply because he meets the pole quite often. FCB and RMA have their own differences. FCB's strength is going solo and assisting when needed. RMA's strength is passing when necessary and assisting when needed. What would any football buff or player agree more? Going solo with odds stacked horribly against you or passing beautifully, assing and scoring? According to you, Messi goes for the ball. Who said Ronaldo doesn't?
messi better than ronaldo

oh yes indeed, I have seen that Ronaldo goal and it is indeed very good, and yes I have not seen Messi score something like that, but also I have never seen Ronaldo dribble trough half a team, and taking the keeper out, the only person that has done that is Maradona and you might want to call Messi a copycat but we will have to call Ronaldo a Hugo Sanchez copy cat too because he did that kind of goals, and you said that FBC depends a lot of Messi right, well let me tell yea that in the UCL final of 2015 when they won against juventus the star was Neymar because he was the one who scored the Goals, and also in the epic comeback, Messi did scored goals but that awesome free kick was from Neymar, and the problem of Argentina is that they throw all the charge to Messi, and football is a sport of 11 not 1 and that they expect Messi to do all and he can't, if you see the Argentina games you will se that Higuain disappears and has clear goal chances, so do not blame it on Messi, and they were good players in FBC before messi, the forwards were great before him, and you say RM does not depend of Ronaldo, well in the 2nd leg vs Juventus Ronaldo had to score in order for RM to barely pass, and in the last year he scored a hat trick vs Bayern and vs Atletico so he did almost everything, they need him, also I will tell you that most legends agree that Messi is better, and Ronaldo is only a forward, he only scores goals, Messi goes for the ball, creates plays and also assits and scores, that is pure football, that for me is better than having more goals , to me is better having 2 awesome goals than 20 penalty goals, true football fans aprecciate that more, you see Johan Cruyff was not a big trophy guy but his style and how he shaped modern football is what makes him one of the best of all times, something Roanldo deeply lacks
Pedophilia is not wrong

1. Yes, you need a mind that wishes to hurt a child. The conscious mind can maybe refrain from acting upon the whims of the body and the subconscious mind but that doesn't change the fact that subconsciously a pedophile desires something that is harmful to children. Something that subconsciously makes one desire an action and/or experience that will damage children goes against both society and nature where children are held in the highest regard. This lends itself to pedophilia being wrong. It goes against the natural order. It is destructive on a subconscious level.In response to your "Premise B" the difference here is that sex with an attractive woman is not psychologically damaging to the woman. I'm not talking about sexual abuse, don't strawman me. If a pedophile has sex with a child under any circumstances the child will be damaged either physically or emotionally. It's an inevitability. However, sex with a woman will not damage the woman under most circumstances. Therein lies the difference.2. The argument about sexual preference spiraled out of the realm of relative. The point is, if you're attracted to children it isn't right. It is a preference that is unnatural and harmful. I'm sure there are plenty of pedophiles who want to do more than just have sex with children, that doesn't make it better it actually makes it worse.I want to keep this conclusion short so I'll wrap up.* Pedophilia fits the definition of wrong and immoral - my opponent didn't even refute this assertion I made* Sex with children is always damaging* Pedophiles desire sex with children and therefore indirectly desire hurting them* Pedophilia is lewd and immoral* Pedophilia is wrongI think I have made a strong case as to why pedophilia is indeed wrong.Thank you.
Pedophilia is not wrong

1. My opponent has completely strawmanned my argument. His philosophy analogy is nothing like the argument I put forward. In nature children cannot have sex. People desiring to have sex with children are therefore desiring something that cannot be naturally given to them nor can they obtain it by force. Children cannot naturally desire sex before their natural time and therefore cannot reciprocate the pedophile's feelings. You oversimplified my arguments in order to try and strawman them.While the premise is that pedophilia is merely unnatural, it goes beyond that. It requires a mind that wants to do something damaging to an innocent child. It requires a mind that desires something unnatural and unobtainable without crossing the line into the realms of abuse, molestation or even rape. Because of these things that always accompany the condition of pedophilia I must continue to argue that pedophilia is wrong.2. Since my opponent thinks my previous definition of immoral is tied too heavily to the values of society let's take this definition in its stead.immoral - sexually dissolute; profligate or promiscuous [1]As I've stated before, the natural course of things is that sex is used for reproduction. Children cannot reproduce. Therefore, desiring sex with children is a desire that is fed only by the need for sexual pleasure which in this case, fits the bill for the definition of immoral. The word "wrong" as used in the resolution is a word associated with the terms "right and wrong" when being used for moral judgement. When something is "wrong" in this case, that means that the topic labeled as such is not moral or immoral. Pedophilia fits this definition of immoral and is therefore wrong.3. "even accepted sexual preferences are strictly sexual and can therefore not be based on anything other than lust and lewdness."This is simply not true. My sexual preference is heterosexual, meaning I like women. But that doesn't just mean I want to have sex with women, it means am willing and want a romantic intimate relationship with women as well. Sexual preference goes beyond just sex. I would never have a romantic and intimate relationship with a man because I am not homosexual but this is something derived from an emotional perspective and not a sexual one.Since children are not capable of desiring or participating in romantic and intimate relationships we have to assume again that either the pedophile merely wants to engage in sexual intercourse with the child or that they want a relationship with them, something they cannot obtain.Again, we see the pedophile desiring something from the child that the child cannot ever produce. This want is either derived from something solely sexual or something unnatural in the mind of the pedophile.Recap:* Pedophilia is unnatural* Pedophiles cannot obtain what they desire from children without damaging them or going outside of what both society and nature intends* Sexual preferences go beyond just sex in most cases but cannot go beyond sex in the case of pedophiles* Pedophilia meets multiple definitions of immoral and is therefore wrong[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Pedophilia is not wrong

My opponent's argument is basically this: feeling the sexual urge of a pedophile is not wrong, only the actions that come of this feeling are wrong. However, pedophilia is wrong because it is unnatural. In human society people are ready to reproduce and have sex around the age of 18, in nature humans reach this point around 15 or 16. Your definition of a pedophile means that they are attracted to people who have not yet reached this stage of development. immoral - not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics; lascivious [1] Pedophilia is immoral because it goes against both the accepted behavior in both nature and society and because it is lascivious meaning it is based completely in lust and lewdness. A grown man cannot have a relationship with a child because the child has not developed enough to have a relationship. The man does not want anything emotional from the child, it's purely sexual which then fits it into the definition of immoral AKA wrong. Also, pedophilia is a "sexual orientation" that can never be acted upon. Children are not ready for sexual actions or relations. Whenever children are subjected to sex before they're ready it damages them. Like I said before, any such relationship would have to be purely sexual which would cause damage to the subject every time. In this way, pedophilia is wrong. There is no way to act upon it without being unacceptable in both nature and society. It is damaging to the subject of the feeling every time. How can such a feeling not be wrong when it only causes immorality and destruction? Pedophilia - the feeling not the action - fits the definition of immoral and is therefore wrong. Nothing good or right comes from the feeling of pedophilia. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Pedophilia is not wrong

That's not what I was trying to say. I was saying that outside the consequences from society thinking pedophilia is wrong, pedophilia isn't wrong. Children and pedophiles can be negatively affected by their environments from being labeled as "victims of pedophilia" or "pedophiles". Pedophilia is then wrong in the context that it makes society harm the ones involved. I'm not taking this into consideration in the debate, since I'm not willing to assume that pedophilia is wrong from he sole reason that society does think it is, and would argue that society is wrong in having that assumed negative view of pedophilia. Main argument: Pedophiles are probably more likely to sexually assault children than others. I would not say that makes pedophilia wrong, it's the sexual assault that's wrong. As a pedophile you can still choose not to sexually assault children just as someone who isn't a pedophile has the choice to not sexually assault anyone else. Assuming that deceiving someone while prioritizing their own benefit before someone else's is wrong, it's probably wrong to act pedophilia out even when the prepubertal child claims to not be against it, since most of them aren't yet intelligent enough to always decide what's good and what isn't for themselves. Then they can easily become victims of that kind of deception from the pedophile. Then it's once again not the pedophilia that is wrong, it's the "deceiving someone while prioritizing their own benefit before someone else's". My point with this is that pedophilia isn't about what pedophiles usually do or don't do. It's about having that sexual preference, and only that. Having a certain sexual orientation can lead to dramatic consequences, but the connection to the dramatic consequences aren't forced by the fact that they have that certain sexual preference. So far I have argued why reasons I could think others have a negative view of pedophilia, isn't adequate. I still have to argue why pedophilia itself isn't wrong. Stripping down pedophilia to the definition I provided makes it a certain sexual preference. The differences in how wrong different sexual preferences are, can't be attributed to any other than forced effects from having that sexual preference (Also assuming that the definition of "wrong" isn't influenced by deontological ethics), which I'd say it's sound to assume that there are none. I illustrated reasons for that earlier in this text.
Pedophilia is not wrong

I accept. "When not taking the effect of how our society views that sexual preference into consideration, neither the pedophile or those who share the pedophile's surroundings will be negatively affected by pedophilia itself in any other way than sexual preferences accepted by society are." This was a little unclear but from what I understand you're trying to say is that pedophilia is not wrong outside of society thinking that it is. Correct me if I'm wrong on that assumption.
Pedophilia is not wrong

Definition: The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) defines pedophilia as a "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age. My claim: When not taking the effect of how our society views that sexual preference into consideration, neither the pedophile or those who share the pedophile's surroundings will be negatively affected by pedophilia itself in any other way than sexual preferences accepted by society are. You can use whatever definition of "wrong" and "negative" you had before the debate as long as it doesn't cover a duty of not being a pedophile. Can't really have this debate before deontological ethics otherwise (which you can feel free to challenge me in). Round 1 is for acceptance. Round 2 is for presenting main arguments. Round 3 is for disputing each others main arguments. Round 4 is for conclusions and responses to round 3.
The Bible teaches that water baptism is unto - to obtain - the forgiveness of sins

First of all though not related to the specific topic at hand I will address your assertion that the KJV is an "accurate" translation. Though I do not contend that it is inaccurate I do find it funny that such a translation is held above say the NIV. The KJV was translated from the Latin translations not the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic text of the Bible. So the KJV is actually a translation - of a translation. Where as the NIV was translated from the oldest known original text and manuscripts and therefore is a direct translation unlike the KJV. Plus there are the motives behind why the KJV was even brought about in the first place which was not for noble reasons. That does not necessarily take away from the KJV but should be regarded. Are you saying that baptism is the only requirement for the forgiveness of sins or that it is 'in addition to'? If so what are the other requirements for the forgiveness of sins? What happens if one has not the time nor the ability to get baptised? I accept all you definitions but not your assertion on what is or is not an accurate translation of God's Word. I personally prefer the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic version myself, of which I will be using.
The Bible teaches that water baptism is unto - to obtain - the forgiveness of sins

I'll try again, since the last two negative disputants did not post a reply. First round is acceptance, but I shall go ahead and define the proposition. The Bible: The 66 books of the common version and an accurate translation thereof. I prefer the KJV and ASV (1901). Teaches: Conveys the concept by direct command, approved example, or a necessary and proper inference. Water baptism: Immersion in water Unto: In view, with reference to, an as-yet unreached end The forgivenss of sins: The remission of all past transgressions of God's law. Each person is permitted the ask three questions per round, and his peer is to answer the questions in his next reply.
What you don't know, won't hurt you --- it's ok to lie

I see that my opponent has forfeited the round. I will now briefly sum up. Although the onus lies with the proponent (initiator), one must keep in mind the general rule that everything is allowed and permissible and ok unless there is a rule (legal or moral or otherwise) against it. Thus, in a debate like this, there is something of a reversal of onus. I said that lying is ok under certain circumstances simply because there is no reason why it shouldn't be ok. My opponent then claimed that lying is NEVER ok and gave some reasoning and a specific example. I then showed (so I hope at least) that the reasoning is not applicable to this debate ("they don't know they've been lied to"). In addition I have addressed my opponent's specific example (friend in the basement) and demonstrated that this is in fact a good example of when a person not only could but in fact SHOULD tell a lie. Given all this, and my opponent's forfeiture of the last round, I now submit that I have successfully demonstrated that lying is ok as long as it's not intended to hurt a person and it's not likely to hurt a person ("reasonable foreseeability"). I have also presented a number of examples in which lying is either beneficial or has neutral consequences. My opponent has, in my submission, failed to refute those. I therefore now respectfully submit that my proposition deserves the voters' preference. Thank you
What you don't know, won't hurt you --- it's ok to lie

Lying is not permissible under any circumstances. I first draw my statement from deontological ethics, which states that lies undermine the trust in society. I further state that lying is not popular amongst the people. The Bush presidency has been caught lying multiple times and has the lowest approval rating among the American people. Second, how can one draw the line between white lies and lies that harm people? If you do not tell someone that they have a nice haircut, and they do not, how can you tell the ramifications of this? A relationship, however superficial, could be destroyed by this. To use a famous example, say you're hiding a friend in your basement, and a man comes to your door with a gun and asks if your friend is there. Under your justification, you should lie to them, because you're protecting your friend. But, if the man comes back and finds your friend in your basement, what's to stop him from killing you and your friend? Also, how can you determine what is and is not reasonably forseeable? For the reason mentioned above, how can anyone make a lie?
What you don't know, won't hurt you --- it's ok to lie

It is well known that we do not always tell the truth. In fact, one might argue that we are morally and socially obliged to lie at times. "Do you like my new haircut?", she asks. "Do I have a big nose?", he wonders. (not a reference to Pinoccio, no pun intended!) "I'm sorry, I won't have a relationship with you. You're nice and all but I'm just not prepared for commitment at this point" (as opposed to "I think you're ugly") These are but some examples of lies that are in fact intended to make things easier for another person. But I intend to go further. My claim is that it is ok to lie even for selfish reasons, as long as there will not be any detriment to another person or persons. An example might be lying to avoid punishment. Or lying to one's partner after cheating on them. No, I'm not suggesting it's ok to cheat on one's partner. I'm saying it's ok to lie to your family, your friends, parents, your teacher, your boss, the police, and the community at large (just look at politicians, they do it best). Let's lie till we're blue in the face! It's ok to lie because what THEY don't know won't hurt them! nb... the question is objective. I don't want to go into an argument that the person being lied to would be very upset and never trust us again if they found out we lied. What they DON'T KNOW won't hurt them. We are to be good liars, our "victims" are to never find out. WARNING: this is NOT intended to be a debate about semantics. I am happy to clarify my position (if it is to any extent unclear) in the comments section if requested to do so. Short-form RESOLUTION: "There is nothing wrong with lying as long as the lie is not intended to hurt another person and it is not reasonably foreseeable that the lie will hurt another person"
Profile Pic Rap Battle

A purple circle! This easy and cheesy. And it's too bad my opponent leaves and flees me. Obi-Wan taught me well, and I would try my best. But this purple doughnut has no skill, it's time to put his a** to rest. When I stepped in this battle I thought you well rounded. But it seems to me with force powers, you will easily get pounded. Legend of the universe, chosen one of the galaxy. You think that you can best me, what a fallacy.
There is no specific date to verify the birth of Jesus Christ.

It seems as if your not understanding this debate topic. Again, through extensive research, I have not been able to verify an exact or specific date of birth of "Jesus Christ." When you say, "I will tell u again the year Jesus was Born was 6 BC", I expect your backing that claim up with any source of absolute certainty and not an opinion. And then you say "6 BC, is a year like for example". Well, which is it Dale G? Is the year 6BC a fact or, is it an "example?" Now, in response to your question of, " Me quote a question? to u Jason would u believe me when I tell u I was born on the 4th of October 1986,And that I am 26 years of age." my answer would be "no". If I am to verify your date of birth Dale G, I will need more than your word. A government issued birth certificate, drivers license, photo identification card and or up to a finger print analysis would be required to verify your identity with absolute certainty. Now, in response to your statement of " Me Quote well I have given u History prove and Evidence of the date and year of the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ it is just up to u Jason to believe what I have said in Round 1." Well Dale, I disagree with you in that you claim to have provided proof and evidence of the date "Jesus Christ" was born. Everything you provided here is 100% speculation and cannot be verified as fact. Again Dale G, there is no specific date to verify the birth of "Jesus Christ." There are many sources found on the internet that agree to the fact that there are no historical documents or scriptures that verify this issue with absolute certainty. To outline one source, I recommend your starting here, in section 2.1, http://en.wikipedia.org...
There is no specific date to verify the birth of Jesus Christ.

I will tell u again the year Jesus was Born was 6 BC, 6 BC, is a year like for example,' the year for my birth date is 1986, / Me quote a question? to u Jason would u believe me when I tell u I was born on the 4th of October 1986, And that I am 26 years of age. I will let u answer that question? of mind / Me Quote well I have given u History prove and Evidence of the date and year of the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ it is just up to u Jason to believe what I have said in Round 1. / Me Quote Jason how do u know? the Birth of Jesus more then speculation?
There is no specific date to verify the birth of Jesus Christ.

After extensive research into the birth of "Jesus Christ", I have yet to find an exact date as in, month, day and year. There are several different scenarios behind verifying this but, they are nothing more than speculation and cannot be verified with absolute certainty. This fact punches a massive hole in the Christian holidays, "Christmas", "Good Friday", and "Easter." Without an exact date of birth to start with, how can these holidays be justified? And, as of today, there is no historical evidence for the exact day, month and year of the birth of Jesus. Again, this brings the entire Christian religion into question and this topic should have more attention.