BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Play Devil's Advocate--Again!

False Accusations What is my opponent going on about me breaking the rules? That is a completely absurd accusation as I have done nothing of the sort. "'My opponent can't do "I will lose this debate", "I will win this debate", or any debate that refers to breaking rules or contradictions made by either debater.' In the last round. The debate he chose was about making contradictions."It's hard to semantically pick apart this rule without sounding stupid. So I guess I'm going to sound like a moron today."My opponent can't do... any debate that refers to breaking rules or contradictions..."1. The debate I provided didn't "refer" to breaking rules or contradictions, it outright stated that the other person would contradict himself.2. I didn't "do" a debate that talks about contradictions, I simply provided text that upon being clicked takes you to a debate about contradictions. I don't see where I "do" anything.3. The debate I provided did not mention "...breaking rules or contradictions...". It's about person contradicting himself, not breaking contradictions.4. I never "chose" a debate about making contradictions. I was forced by an unnamed 3rd party to provide it. On With The DebateDo you hate debates that involve questions?Are you involved in a debate that involves questions?Can you say the alphabet backwards?Are you confident in your debating skills?Will you answer all the following questions with a "yes" or "no"?
Play Devil's Advocate--Again!

My opponent breaks one of the rules. I said "My opponent can't do "I will lose this debate", "I will win this debate", or any debate that refers to breaking rules or contradictions made by either debater. " In the last round. The debate he chose was about making contradictions. Therefore all points go to me. But, why the heck waste all of this space? Go ahead, try to ask your questions. Good luck!
Play Devil's Advocate--Again!

http://www.debate.org...All the rules Pro provided in the first round of the above debate apply to this one as well. I will be asking him 5 Y/N questions a round, he can either respond with "yes" OR "no". If he contradicts himself, then I win. Since I'm not allowed toa argue ths round, 9SpaceKing will not be able to provide any responses next round.
Play Devil's Advocate--Again!

Felt like doing this again for fun. RULES-My opponent must choose a debate he or she has done before (he or she has to cite the debate)-The debate cannot be a one-round debate-The debate my opponent chose cannot be against diarygirl4u2c, neither may it be against izbo10-My opponent must choose the opposing side he has argued-No rap battles, drawing contests, talent shows, or other "Debates" that involve skills other than debating-My opponent can't do "I will lose this debate", "I will win this debate", or any debate that refers to breaking rules or contradictions made by either debater.-My opponent must have either tied the debate with at least 1 vote on the debate, or won the debate with the opponent having only one forfeit or less-My opponent may define terms, however they must be either logical or at the very least arguable -My opponent must state the topic within round one and may post no arguments-My opponent can be super clever and force me to play devil's advocate as well if he or she wishes to :D-My opponent can't choose any debate concerning God/an omnipotent being's existence. I already did that last time.Good luck and have fun!
Play Devil's Advocate--Again!

xD As funny as that is, it doesn't actually work for a few reasons.But before we get into that, let's get into some other contradictions.First off, let's address these 2 questions:Q: Can you say the alphabet backwards?A: YesQ: Do you speak Russian? A: NoThe issue here is that Pro wouldn't be able to say the Russian alphabet backwards if he doesn't even speak Russian. Never was it implied that I was referring to the English alphabet. Also, the only reason somebody would assume I was is because that's the normal language he speaks. So there is a subjective bias to this. Objectively though, alphabet could be referring to any language.Q: Are you confident in your debating skills?A: YesQ: Do you think you will win all of your future debates?A: NoIf Pro were actually confident in his debating skills, then why would he doubt his ability to win his future debates? Granted, it is a minor contradiction. However it is still objectively one.Finally, on to the main event. Q: Will you answer no to this question?Here, my opponent uses sarcasm to cleverly answer this. Here's why this doesn't work.1. Sarcasm is implied, not objective. Pro just assumes we know he is implying sarcasm. However we don't actually know he is. The only evidence we have is a man making a dumb face. To me personally, he looks more confused than sarcastic2. Answering a sarcastic 'yes' does not mean you mean 'no'. It means not 'yes'. One could sarcastically say yes, but mean maybe. The meaning is never made clear, only the non-meaning.3. The question was asking about the actual answer, not the metaphorical answer. The meaning of the 'no' is irrelevant, only the actual use of it. Ignoring the implications of the yes and the no, the reality of the situation is Pro responded to the question with a Yes.So, I'm pretty sure I lost this for a few reasons.-Shameless semantics-Rule breaking-Last round arguments.Regardless, it was fun. Clever try there Pro.
Play Devil's Advocate--Again!

FINAL ROUNDAre you Asian?Yes.Do you speak Russian?No.Will you answer no to this question? .....Yes.You see, it was a trick question. However, I did not contradict myself! Why not? This answer was sarcasm. You see, I did answer it truthfully while still not contradicting myself. So, my answer is technically "Yeah, my answer was toally 'no' to this question." It's like you asking if I'm 1111 years old and I say the answer in such a lame-dumb way that you KNOW I'm using sarcasm, and that I can't possibly be telling the truth because everyone knows it's not the turth--I ain't 1111 years old. Thus, as a clever loophole around this trick question, I used sarcasm and said "yes", letting everyone know that I obviously was not answering "no" to that specific question. Plus, there was a picture to let you know it was sarcasm. :PDo you think you will win all of your future debate(s)?No.Are you committed to FSM?No. Thus, my opponent has failed. Even his true trick question failed to stump me. He broke a rule I stated in round one, so all points to me. Even if he didn't break a rule, he still failed to show how I contradicted myself. I win.
scientifically inexplicable stuff happens that appears supernatural but almost never to atheists

i wouldn't classify NDE's as miracles. sure i guess you technically fulfilled the debate requirement. it doesn't do much per the main gist of what's being debated, whether atheists have a similar basis to say they too have 'apparently supernatural' things happen to them. if it's just here and there as a springboard to christianity, i wouldn't say their basis is at all similar.
scientifically inexplicable stuff happens that appears supernatural but almost never to atheists

Pro's main claim is that scientifically inexplicable things happen to mostly Christians and theists, but that it almost never occurs to atheists. Pro then claims this: "perhaps i can take the youtube video to say that the miracles do occur, but as a path to christianity. it doesn't happen to others without some sort of connection to christianity." Again, i can bring up examples of supernatural things that have no connection to Christianity such as these Hindu near-death experiences: http://www.near-death.com... Same with Muslim near-death experiences: http://www.near-death.com... This isn't the point, Pro claimed "scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists", i gave evidence of 1 case to debunk that claim, therefore i have countered Pro's argument.
scientifically inexplicable stuff happens that appears supernatural but almost never to atheists

i don't ignore christian 'miracles'. i just dont see them them much, if at all after poking holes in them. con seems to suggest that many of the 'miracles' are to lead them to jesus. sure, as a christian, i would speculate that that is true. but this point does 't really have much to do with whether or not the 'miralces' occur or not. perhaps i can take the youtube video to say that the miracles od occur, but as a path to christianity. it doesn't happen to others without some sort of connection to christianity. con's contentions are mostly quibbles that do not connect very well to the main jist of the debate.
scientifically inexplicable stuff happens that appears supernatural but almost never to atheists

I will refute the claim that supernatural things occur to any people except atheists. Examples of these can be found in numerous sources such as Youtube. An atheist had an incurable disease, but was healed: There are several cases of this happening to atheists given that you do your research. The reason for it being that Christians receive more miracles is that you focus more on Christians and ignore the religious experiences that happen to atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, etc. which lead them to Jesus.
The Bible does not contain numerology.

I'd like to begin to address the first issue:Rebuttal 1:"Numerology, essentially, is the interpretation of numbers as a means of predicting the future."Actually Numerology means the following: "the branch of knowledge that deals with the occult significance of numbers."[1]again, we are speaking biblical numerology, I think God will make everything mean something significant even numbers, Bible as I said uses the number 7 more than 700 times, we are talking about this[2] Biblical numerology:"Biblical numerology refers to the interpretation, by some biblical scholars, of numerical values used in the Pentateuch and, consequently, the New Testament that they believe relate to symbolism, which imply quality or attributes, of the value rather than to an actual quantity."Yes the Bible does not teach paganism(OT at least), I extend my argument on the definition above, that numerology imply quality and attributes instead of just quantity.[1]https://www.google.com...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...Rebuttal 2:Basically in Pro's second point he is just saying that the Biblical numerology or how much the numbers mentioned in the Bible is a mere coincidence which is false, as I refuted the above, now I'd get to my points why does the Bible contain Numerology:1) Over 700 mentioning of number 7, now that is a lot, consider this "In the Book of Revelation, there are multiple examples, including 7 churches, 7 bowls, 7 seals, 7 trumpets, and 7 spirits." this is not a mere coincidence.2) God wants to value his word by putting meanings in every thing he says(Even though I do not believe that Bible fully is God's word, this is just for the sake of the debate).3)The Bible mentions Numerology! :Rev. 13:18 "18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."Rebuttal 3:Numerology is not a fiction, people are interpreting the Bible, that is it.
The Bible does not contain numerology.

Counterpoint 1: Numerology, essentially, is the interpretation of numbers as a means of predicting the future. If this is really accurate, then there must be a deity giving us numbers so we can interpret the numbers. There is nothing, however, in the Bible that says God wants us to interpret the numbers we see or that He gives them to us. Therefore, numerology is not monotheistic or scientifically probable at all. If it is neither, then it must be pagan. And as I stated earlier, the Bible condemns all things pagan, and the Bible does not teach polytheism of any kind and therefore has no numerology. Counterpoint 2: As for the number of times six and seven are used? That was inevitable because the Bible is hundreds and hundreds of pages long. Also, God telling the Israelites to walk around Jericho once for each day of the week it had been was probably intended to strengthen their faith, because it makes God look like an idiot to any atheists does it not? Counterpoint 3: "Archaeological confirmation... is in no way related to this matter." Yes it is, just in a way you did not understand. Allow me to explain it: if the Bible can be confirmed by archaeology, then it is less likely to be fictional. If it is fictional, that makes it more likely to contain numerology. But since the Bible is fact, it is less likely to contain numerology because if you yourself were writing nonfiction, would it not be more difficult to work numerology into the writing than if you were writing fiction?
The Bible does not contain numerology.

We are talking about Biblical numerology, which is contained the Biblical verses I've quoted and shown the interpretation as per number, the link you have provided talks about numerology in general, Chinese numerology, Abjad numerology,etc, therefore Biblical numerology is in no relations to paganistic or other numerology depending on their set belief.This is not my interpretation, It is the interpretation of scholars, still outside archaeological confirmation(which in no way related to this matter) number 7 is used more than 700 times in the Bible, clearly number 7 represents a significant meaning shown from set of verses, number 7 alone is used over 50 times in Book of Revelation, when the group went around the city of Jericho 7 times on the seventh day, this clearly numerological, same applies to number 6, I have not shown anything related to the sabbath, I have no idea what are you talking about.
The Bible does not contain numerology.

Point one: The Bible actually condemns all thing pagan. If you read this article carefully, you will see that numerology has plenty of pagan aspects to it. http://en.wikipedia.org... Point two: as for your interpretation of seven, these are Biblical events with archaeological confirmation behind them. Therefore, it was God's will alone that any one number was used soporific much in the Bible. The same logic can be applied to most of your interpretations of six. As for the sabbath-related portion of your argument, there were six categorical things God created in Genesis and in six days, then He rested on day seven. Nothing numerological about that. Back to you, Con.
The Bible does not contain numerology.

Before I go into my argument I'd like to ask Pro where does the Bible condemn numerology, I will prove that there is numerology in the Bible and many people have similar or same interpretation of the numbers, I will show It clearly God willing in my argument:Number 7:Many Bible verses show that numbers or especially number 7 has a great meaning and number 7 is used in many verses as such:Revelation 4:5 "From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God, "Revelation 1:4 "John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, "Matthew 18:21-22 "Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven. " Genesis 5:31 "Thus all the days of Lamech were 777 years, and he died."Joshua 6:15 "On the seventh day, they got up at daybreak and marched around the city seven times in the same manner, except that on that day they circled the city seven times."From the following Bible verses we can see number 7 is significant and used in alot of Bible verses I have just cited a few, now the interpretation of number 7 in the Bible, here are several sources and the interpretation of number 7 :"The Number Seven, the numerical symbol of Fullness, Completion, and Perfection" [1]"Seven is the number of completeness and perfection (both physical and spiritual)." [2]"Spiritual perfection and fullness or completion." [3]"Seven - Refers to the number of God, divine perfection or completeness. " [4]As seen from these interpretation we can see that number 7 shows perfection or completion.[1]http://www.biblewheel.com...[2]http://www.biblestudy.org...[3] http://www.agapebiblestudy.com...[4]http://christianity.about.com...Another Number I would like to show is number 6:Number 6:Let us see some verses on number 6:Exodus 20:9 "9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work,"Exodus 20:11 "11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth"Judges 12:7 "7 And Jephthah judged Israel six years. Then died Jephthah the Gileadite, and was buried in one of the cities of Gilead." Numbers 35:6 "The cities that you give to the Levites shall be the six cities of refuge,"Interpretation of Number 6:"The number of man. " [5]"six represents both man and rebellion."[6][5]http://christianity.about.com...[6]http://www.agapebiblestudy.com...We conclude that there is indeed numerology in the Bible, this is just a sample, I await Pro's response and thanks!
THBT society N (which I will define in my 1st speech) should be put into place

The community passes around all food, and water, and living space equally to all members of the community, and every law has to be made so that everybody is equal, then is passed to the referendum stage, where the community anonymously votes on the bill, which if majority is reached, will become law. Everybody has to be equal, and all forms of diversity are eliminated to create pure equality. Everybody takes a pill that numbs down on feelings, and everybody gets a spouse (which is completely random), and has exactly two children. All luxuries are had by everybody, and free trade is not allowed, and I'm sure that everyone can see that this would be an aweful society to live in. There are some particuallary troubling parts of this-"all forms of diversity are eliminated to create pure equality." This means that the society would eleminate ethnic diversity as well. Were talking straght up racial cleasing.everybody gets a spouse (which is completely random)Marriages, arranged by the government. Does anyone else see the problem here?free speech is banned.I hope you realize that what allows your to spout your authoritarian nonsense in the first place is free speech.Everybody takes a pill that numbs down on feelings,I feel like you have taken this society from a dystopian novel.Back to you Pro.
THBT society N (which I will define in my 1st speech) should be put into place

Rules: 1st round is acceptance, definitions (Prop only), and what Society N is (Prop only). In the 5th round you're not allowed to bring up new points. Failure to abide by these rules counts as automatic win. Forfeiture is allowed. Society N: The community passes around all food, and water, and living space equally to all members of the community, and every law has to be made so that everybody is equal, then is passed to the referendum stage, where the community anonymously votes on the bill, which if majority is reached, will become law. Everybody has to be equal, and all forms of diversity are eliminated to create pure equality. Everybody takes a pill that numbs down on feelings, and everybody gets a spouse (which is completely random), and has exactly two children. All luxuries are had by everybody, and free trade is not allowed, and free speech is banned. Definitions: Diversity: Standing out compared to other people Equality: Elimination of diversity Spouse: Wife/Husband Referendum: Election to vote on a decision, or law
Reading traditional story books is better than reading technological books.

Yes... I would take the risk... If it's for the good and the progression of humanity, then why not? You see, anything can kill, and everything will be gone. You, me, the earth, and even the universe has it's end. Would you let a simple problem stop the process of innovation? As Leo Valdez have said in the book "The House Of Hades", everything broken is fixable by time. I believe that when the time comes, we will know longer fear the possibility of being harmed by technology, and I also believe that one day, traditional books will hurt more than e-books. If you fear death brought by technology, are you willing to stop progress?
Reading traditional story books is better than reading technological books.

The PAST it is!!! But of course, Batman would be no match against the goddess of wisdom in battle. Haha. (I'm kinda afraid of you now) Moving on... In the topic of modernizing, all can see clearly that my opponent has won the argument. And there is no point for me to rebut on that. Moving to the topic about Health. Modern gadgets has been proven to give out radiation signals that can be harmful to the users. A person could die just by reading and using a technological book. While traditional books emits.... well, absolutely nothing. Hence is better for the health of the users. Would you as human beings give a disease that would kill the person you love slowly or would provide reading materials that are not only safe and knowledgeable to the hands of your love ones?
Reading traditional story books is better than reading technological books.

Thank you for your warm welcome, and don't worry, since I'm really nervous about debating against Batman himself. Moving on... When the Sumerians have invented the first alphabet in Mesopotamia, mankind has depended on stones for literature. When the Egyptians needed somewhere to write which is light and mobile, they invented the papyrus, the first ever paper. When the Greeks needed somewhere to write their playwrights, different laws of science, and economic statistics, they used scrolls. The Chinese learned to use wood blocks to copy writings, their influences used wood as well. But now, I believe that the time has come to progress... You are saying that it is pleasing to the eye to see a library filled with books, I agree, It's a nice view and it helps boost self esteem, but if that's your defense, then it's not really "reading" the books that matter, but "showcasing" them. You are defining traditional books as "collectibles" and not as "literature materials" Also, I do not agree with what you say about books being used by the children of your children, since in terms of preservation, books are pretty... fragile. In the technological books' side though, we are sure that it will improve at a constant pace, so I'm confident to say that these kind of books will be the first choice of the future generation. Normally, I would end my opening debate with a question: "Are you ready to face the future, or are you still condemned to the past?"
Reading traditional story books is better than reading technological books.

Not a problem at all. I believe that everyone has a voice, old or young. And age doesn't define a person. If i'm not as good as expected, apologies. Moving along with the debate. My first point is reading traditional books help to reader to appreciate the that they have more. Hence, creating a sentimental value for the readers. Secondly is, reading traditional books gives a certain satisfaction for the readers when they buy books that they are really interested about. It would also give satisfaction to have a library of books in our own home for us to showcase after reading them. Lastly, the books that we have read can be used for our children and their children, the future generation. Therefore, reading books not only is good for us, it can also benefit other people.