BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Kazoo kid the Illuminati Lord? (reincarnation)

first I would like the debate to be nice and civil and no swearing pleas so I will show my evedince why I belive he is not the illuminati lord.I would like to say that he is not the illuminaty lord but anything but that he may be evil but he is far more evil than what you imagined you thought of him as the illuminati lord. no he is much worse than anything you could have imagined.I would think he is the devil (in disguise as a being) but the devil does not have a physical body and is a spirit so that rules that out but I did stumble upon the book of revelations king james version which speaks about a beast where i will qoute ¨11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 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.¨ It mentions a mark but maybe it is not a physical mark because it said a mark on thier foreheads like on there heads OR in there minds maybe the mark is dancing and it says both the ¨rich and the poor¨ will recive the mark the thing is you do not know the economic background of the kids dancing with him. it also says it will have the voice of a dragon maybe its exagerating because the book is writen by john who is ancient may not know what a kazoo sounds like or maybye kazoos sound like dragons (WE NEVER KNOW). this concludes my debate I belive Kazoo kid is the beast of revalation
Is Kazoo kid the Illuminati Lord? (reincarnation)

my argument in 13 font so you can read it better also it is amazing. I belive the other kids were lesser beasts or demons or the worshipers of him which it states in revalations ¨that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.¨I belive that he is the beast of revalation no the illuminati lord and those other kids who were dancing were his worshipers and the rest of us who do not worship him will be killed also since revalations talk abou a mark maybe there are two marks the mark on the head which makes you only think about dancing and the mark on the arm you hold kazoos in your hand which is right next to your armfor my next turn I will post my first debate in font 13 so it is easier to read sorry for giving you a migrane
Fatal Bible Flaws

(taken from The Secular Web)DT 6:5, MT 22:37, MK 12:30, LK 10:27 Love God. DT 6:13, PS 33:8, 34:9, 111:10, 115:13, 128:1, 147:11, PR 8:13, 16:6, 19:23, 22:4, IS 8:13, LK 12:5, 1PE 2:17 Fear God. 1JN 4:18 There is no fear in love.PR 30:5 Every word of God proves true. 1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22, JE 4:10, EZ 14:9 God deceives some of the prophets. JE 8:8 The scribes (copyists, editors, teachers) falsify the word. 2TH 2:11-12 God deceives the wicked (to be able to condemn them). (Note: Not every word of God can prove true if God deceives anyone at all; teaching from the Bible cannot be trusted if the scribes falsify the word. In other words, the first reference is mutually exclusive with the other three. Thus, the Bible cannot be the perfect work of a perfect, all-powerful and loving God since one or more of the above references is obviously untrue. Note also: Some versions use the word "persuade" rather than "deceives." The context makes clear, however, that deception is involved.)EZ 20:25 God says that he intentionally gave out bad laws. (This means that God-given laws or commandments are sometimes suspect.)LK 1:26-38 The angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the throne of David, that he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and that his kingdom will never end. (None of this took place nor can it now be fulfilled.)MT 16:28, MK 9:1, LK 9:27 Jesus says that some of his listeners will not taste death before he comes again in his kingdom. This was said almost 2000 years ago. (Note: This passage and many others indicate that Jesus was to come again in a relatively short period of time and not just "quickly" as present day Biblicists assert. All of his listeners are now dead, yet Jesus has not come again in his kingdom. All of the alleged words of Jesus put forth in the Bible are therefore suspect.)MK 16:17-18 A believer can handle snakes or drink poison and not experience any harm. (Note: Many unfortunate believers have died as a result of handling snakes and/or drinking poison; this kind of assertion negates the Bible as a useful guidebook for life. It should also be noted that the oldest manuscripts of Mark end at MK 16:8; as the footnotes to The New Oxford Annotated Bible put it, verses 9-20 cannot have been part of the original text of Mark.)Indeed since these are true Fatal Bible Flaws, the bible is unreadable. So that brings this debate to the RULES: Prove that the bible IS READABLE, UNDERSTANDABLE by thus countering the fatal flaws as correctly listed above. There will be more fatal flaws/ mistakes in the bible as it is supposed to be perfect, and so is its god, Sorry they ain't, in which you as a debater would be required to counter as well. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to participate in the voting process.
Warning !....

I believe that photo-radar cameras used to take pictures of drivers as a way of lay enforcement should be illegal. As a citizen of Arizona, our state recently tried to use these cameras set up in various areas to try to catch speeders. For about two years we had these cameras up and as of this last year they were taken down. I will explain why. They are ineffective! What happens when they set up these cameras is that people know where they are. They may be speeding, but if they know a camera is coming up they will slow down just for the camera and then speed back up. Sure, it may catch people every now and then, but then what? What happens once they take your picture of you speeding and your drivers license? Well, they send you a letter. That's it. Many people I know have disregarded these letters and gotten away just okay. But say on the slim chance an officer of the law delivers this letter to you, how does he prove it was you driving the vehicle? He can't! I let friends or family borrow my car all the time. It would be absurd to punish someone if they were not the one driving. I propose that these cameras be illegal because of their ineffectiveness.
Warning !....

....oncoming vehicles about stationary mobile accident prevention units, (speed cameras) should not be against the law. Today I was listening to a live (UK) radio phone-in show (BBC Radio 2) debating about the successful conviction of a motorist after being caught flashing oncoming drivers which was adjudged as an attempt to warn them of a stationary mobile speed camera. He was charged and convicted of obstructing a certain WPC whilst on the course of her duties. Various analogies were put forward by listeners in support of and against the action, but due to time restraints of the show nothing was settled, so let's try and settle it now. My position as Pro is pretty straight forward, I will debate the practice of flashing oncoming drivers when they are heading towards a stationary Mobile speed camera should not be against the law, thus not merit a conviction. From the outset (Round one) Con will debate the action does merit a conviction. As this debate is based purely on personal opinion, no party shall carry a burden of proof. Thank you in advance to my opponent for their participation.
Existence of God(s)

First off, I would like to confirm my opponents suspicions of me being new to this site and thank him for laying the ground rules. I also agree to not using any condescending remarks. That being said I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that no claim has been made. I in fact do no believe that god(s) exist, however I never asserted that one or many do not exist. My opponent should certainly recognize that disbelief is not a claim. As to the matter of there being no evidence of god(s), This is something I can elaborate further upon. My opponents profile displays his belief to be that of a Pentecostal Christian, and I will therefore structure my outline of the lack of evidence towards his beliefs in particular. 1) BIBLICAL CONTRADICTION The bible, the collection of books allegedly inspired by God, is filled with a plethora of contradictions concerning creation, history, morality, and the nature of God himself. Due to the fact that it would take many more characters than available to list them all, here are a few links listing the hundreds of contradictions contained within the bible: http://www.atheists.org... http://www.thinkatheist.com... http://www.infidels.org... If the bible was in fact inspired by God, then why is it filled with an overwhelming amount of contradictory information? 2) ARGUMENT FROM NON-BELIEF 1.God is omniscient. 2.God is omnipotent. 3.God wants everyone to believe in him. 4.Since God is omniscient, he knows exactly what demonstration would convince any given person that he exists. 5.Since God is omnipotent, he is capable of performing this demonstration. 6.Since God wants everyone to believe in him, he wants to perform this demonstration. 7.However, atheists manifestly exist. 8.Therefore, the god described by the first three conditions does not exist. If there is a God and wanted everyone to believe in him, then why would he rely solely on ancient manuscripts full of error and inconsistencies of which we only have copies of copies of translations of copies? There seems to be a lack of communication between this alleged God and humanity. 3) THE PROBLEM OF EVIL 1. God is omnipotent. 2. God is omnibenevolent. 3. God is omniscient. 4. Evil exists. My opponent will most likely posit that there is a reason for evil and that the bigger picture is beyond human understanding. The question is, Why is that the case? The very fact that people are suffering all over the world, is one that begs the question, why would God allow this? An equally important question is why would anyone worship someone who would allow such atrocities to occur? 4) WHERE IS YOUR DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE? Putting aside the fact that many "accounts" from the bible (including the account of creation) have proven to be false, there is no evidence that any god exists. What reason does my opponent have for putting faith into something demonstrable?
Existence of God(s)

I intend on upholding the belief in my God, to the fullest extent, and will fight tooth an nail to win this debate. With that being said, I would like to clarrify that according to what my opponent has said, in order to win this debate I must be able to justify my belief, even though HE seems to find it undemonstrable and absurd. Keep in mind that just because he believes this to be so, does not make his belief a matter of fact, and I, in no way, agree with him. His job in this debate will be to construct an argument that supports his claim, as well as coming up with effective rebuttals to my arguments. Seeing that he did not set rules for this debate(probably due to the fact that he's new to DDO) I will take the liberty of doing so myself. 1st round-acceptance 2nd round-Arguments 3rd round-rebuttals 4th round-rebuttals 5th round-rebuttals, no new arguments Please, let's both agree to defer from the use of SILLY/ABSURD semantic tactics. Also, seeing as how my opponent made the claim, and is the instigator of this debate, the burden of proof lies with him. http://en.wikipedia.org... Thanx to my opponent for this interesting topic. Let the mental jousting begin :) http://www.quickmeme.com... For comic relief^, not meant to insult my opponent.
Existence of God(s)

Here we go, I do not believe that a god exists because I have no logical reason to do so. There is nothing that proves the existence of god and therefore in order to believe in one, faith is a requirement. I challenge you to deliver a logical argument as to why you believe it is not absurd to believe in something that is not demonstrable. Simple definition of a monotheistic God: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. Please note: If you wish to redefine God to something tailored more specifically to your beliefs, please feel free to do so.
Existence of God(s)

Gratitude to my opponent for allowing time in his schedule for his response. I am completely sympathetic to his being pressed for time as I too am in the midst of preparing for mid-terms. To address the matter of bias from the sources I presented in the previous round, it is in fact irrelevant to this debate where the "sources" originate from because the links provided are merely criticism of the actual source (the bible) in which the contradictions occur. My opponent does indeed have a point on the matter of the plethora of contradictions provided. Apropos to my opponents time constraint and the number of characters available, I will be succinct and provide only three for him to address; however, due to the fact that my opponent has yet to assume a position concerning his specific beliefs, it is impossible to know which will apply as contradictions as the context of the bible has been translated in a seemingly illimitable number of ways (hence the great number of denominations [see link for listing]) http://en.wikipedia.org... The contradictions will be specific to one topic as revealed below: BIBLICAL CONTRADICTION (MORALITY OF GOD) 1) The same God who forbade killing, stealing, adultery, and slavery, commanded robbery, rape, infanticide, and slavery: Zechariah 14:2 The Lord will gather all of the nations together. They will fight against Jerusalem. They'll capture the city. Its houses will be robbed. Its women will be raped. Half of the people will be taken away as prisoners. But the rest of them won't be taken. Isaiah 13:16 Their babies will be smashed to pieces right in front of their eyes. Their houses will be robbed. Their wives will be raped. 2) The loving and merciful God's decision to destroy all of humanity excluding Noah and his kin, becoming the greatest mass murderer of all time: Gen 6:11-13 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 3) The all merciful God condemns those who don't see things his way, to a lake of fire for all of eternity. Rev 20:15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. ARGUMENT FROM NON-BELIEF As my opponent reiterated, my challenge was, "I challenge you to deliver a logical argument as to why you believe it is not absurd to believe in something that is not demonstrable." Thus far, he has only claimed to believe because of a personal experience and has brought forth no demonstration of the "sufficient evidence" his God has provided him with. As far as personal experience not being relevant to others who have not experienced the same, why is it then that one would believe in the personal accounts of the bible? Furthermore, what logic is there in attempting to convince someone that a belief is rational based on an unexplained personal experience? An additional thank you to my opponent who is fitting this debate into his busy schedule. Good luck on the mid-terms.
MW2 pwns Halo

One thing about it is that well obviously both games are very different and similar in different ways one of the main differences in that MW 2 is ALWAYS first-person shooter and UC 2 is third person/first depending on what mode your on. Another difference is the game play. MW 2 is mainly a bout fast reflexes and quick thinking. UC 2 [this is from a youtube vids perspective] is more about stealth and finding cover. Both games are over the top with graphics. :]
MW2 pwns Halo

well.. for one it has the most cinimatic story's from what i have played.. Its the only shooter game that had a storymode worth playing more then once for me. The online also pwns for the fact you can do all of the platforming and actions you could do in story.. the maps are well made and there are percs.. (in this case they are called boosters) that you pick before a match (2 of them). Im going to asume that you have at least seen gameplay of uncharted 2 and know how seemless the transition from shooting to climbing and manuvering the terrain is. It works out great.
Resolved: Tell others that the water will be shut off.

Logical-Master, thank you for taking this topic in a playful spirit. Your verse puts me to shame and raises expectations for your reasoning. So let's get to it. You would have Amy keep quiet because (1) nobody will believe a ten-year-old and (2) she lacks resources to convince others. Having declared her effort futile, you encourage Amy to (3) sell the water, albeit cheaply, and in doing so (4) teach her neighbors a lesson about being prepared. Let's take your second point first. If Amy had the resources to convince others, then they would believe her. Thus, your point (2) is a restatement of (1) and you've put forward only the one reason why she should keep quiet; namely, lack of credibility. You assert that people will not believe a ten-year-old, perhaps not even someone as senior as your 18 years. Now I understand what you believe, Logical-Master. Perhaps in the next round you could tell why you believe it. In the interim, let me step outside the aforementioned playful spirit to cite a reason why we must listen to children, especially when they appear sincere. Ours is a scary world of child abuse, neglect, bullying, and abandonment. The practice of dismissing an alert from a child is no longer an option. Don't get me wrong; telling neighbors about a water shortage is not in the same league as reporting abuse -- but then that is not my point. Rather, these unsavory realities have raised public awareness such that a child likely would be heard. If Amy will speak sincerely, others will hear clearly. To go further, even if people do not believe Amy directly, though it would seem they must, even then she could alert those who would in turn be believed. Perhaps she has an 18-year-old brother. Or that nice lady who lives kitty-corner. Or teaming up with Ann they can find strength in numbers as they plead a case to their mothers. OK, so Amy and Ann will be believed. Their lack of credibility was the foundation four your points (3) and (4), which thus fall like a house of cards. But let's examine the merits of these points anyway. Your point (3) is, essentially, to sell the water and stash the cash. Perhaps I am a bit harsh; sell it, but cheaply. Why? I suspect, Logical-Master, that you sense Amy would be taking advantage of others and so are hedging that fact with false altruism. Be consistent with your point (4) and allow her to leverage the principle of supply-and-demand to drive up prices. Sure she wants a bicycle, but you've made her an entrepreneur. In other words, Logical-Master, your third and fourth points are not consistent. Finally, it sounds like you would have Amy stick it to any boy-scout drop-out neighbors who just weren't prepared. The last vestige of altruism has been lost and your Amy is revealed to be an incredible, but otherwise aggressively entrepreneurial youngster. Well, when it comes to water, no wonder "evian" spelled backwards is "naive".
Resolved: Tell others that the water will be shut off.

I will present the resolution in terms of a predicament. First, in verse. ~~~ Thirsty Thinking ~~~ Amy learns that the water will be shut off all this day. It's hot, sweaty, and humid too and bound to stay that way. Amy is 10 and friends with Ann both saving for new bikes. They could keep mum and sell cool drinks with regular price hikes. Or should they spread the news to all to fill reserve containers? To make profits or be prophets, earn praise or retainers? OK, doggerel perhaps, but original and on-point. Perhaps you prefer plain prose. On a hot, humid day, ten-year-old Amy learns that the local water supply will be shut off in the neighborhood all afternoon. Amy and her best friend Ann are saving money for new bicycles. Amy knows that if she keeps the information to herself and stores enough water, she can sell it this afternoon to thirsty neighbors and workers. For round 1 reasoning, consider the guidance of Kant and Mill. If we should strive to always treat others equally and fairly (Kant), then Amy should tell everyone since they have a right to know. If we should do whatever produces the most happiness for the most people, as Mill might suggest, then Amy should tell everyone since they should not have to pay. In either case, Amy should tell others.
Health is useful in school from grade 7-12

Well, thanks for accepting, and with that weird wording, I shall commence thee debate before us thus hour! 1: The parents don"t teach it. Health is necessary. We all know that we should be taught what to do to make ourselves healthy and stay that way. We can"t rely on parents to tell kids about everything, to make sure that all the kids stay healthy. We can"t ensure that a) what the parents is saying is correct and actually healthy and b) we can"t be sure if the parents are even telling them anything! So, to ensure that these kids stay healthy, AND stay safe, we must have the teachers, who are certified and knowledge-filled in this topic, to teach the kids the RIGHT thing to do in a certain situation. Now to bring it back to the resolution: The health class in grades to 7-12 are helpful because they teach things that parents might not accurately teach or might not teach at all. 2: Critical time period part 1: Puberty. This age from grade 7-12 (ages 12-18 usually) is a critical part in kid"s growing- puberty. In fact, girls start hitting puberty at around 12-13 and boys at around 12-14 {1}! So, this covers the grade 7,8, and 9 range. Kids HAVE to know what is going on with them. I mean seriously, all those changes with your body, you have to be informed properly, or else you will get very confused. This is also an emotional stage in life, so we have to have teachers that ensure to you that you are NOT the only one going through this. 3: Critical time period part 2: Sexual Education. I hate to bring this awkward section up, but it is crucial. Kids usually start being sexually active at age 15 {2}. That places right in the grade 9-10. Kids have to be educated on what to do and how to do things healthfully. Imagine what can happen if you aren"t educated properly. Sexually transmitted diseases. Accidental births. The unimaginable can unfortunately happen to someone who doesn;t get a proper education, and this proper education happens in schools. Short, I know but thanks anyways. REFERENCES: {1} http://kidshealth.org... {2} http://pop.org...