BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
religious rap battle

to describe sin, its a destructive force, an all consuming disease that forces you to get on your knees and beg for mercy please no doctor and no scientist has found cures for such as these then all of a sudden the healer of God makes it fall like trees After the fall of Adam, what every man sows, every man pays God can recreate the world in seven ways after he sets it in a blaze Though judgement comes, I fear not, so you can bring the fire and you can bring the flood salvation was predestined from the beginning, so I know that I'm protected by the blood I got enemies on all sides trying to cast curses on me with malevolent malice Holy Spirit keeps me balanced, God repays the evil man with his own chalice I don't care if you try to cast a spell with animal blood in a well The righteous fears nothing, praying God won't send you to hell I got the fire of God burning in me, even though the pain swells kindness is mandatory, so my enemies get hot burning coals I seek a passionate holy anointing with many spiritual oils don't think for one second God cannot send terrible boils I'm praying for my people, especially for forgiveness my sins are exposed in front of the judge and witness I can't judge my very own nature, to see if I'm in fitness yeah Jesus shed blood until the streets ran red and God's wrath was on his head just to show us that he's the true bread that we are fed, to take back the hurt we said I might not have always loved my own existence, but God still had all of the infinite persistence I'm a new being after my sins have faced remittance, now it's time for the blessed resistance
religious rap battle

this is just a rap battle. i rap my best, you rap yours. i am looking for fellow christians, atheists, or anyone on the religious spectrum to rap their world. i will start we be rockin the territory in this rap game, an Christ blessed us with the octane, the same name, who created the world in seven days, will change ya life, you"d be amazed, i just wanna make jams, to pack da clubs n stadiums, with people of all types, while makin da crowd hype, i got Christ in me, for the life of me, stand truly thankful for the sites I see, an sparks be ignitin, the minute we start writin, God placed me in this fightin, to speak an to enlighten, and I"m just that type-a, lyrical rhyme sniper, never a street fighter, but down for gettin hyper, im a beat junkie brother, known by the emcee"s, for rippin thru tracks like epidemic disease, and shout to J.C. cuz he reigns supreme, an party people out there know what I mean.
Humans are responsible for global warming

"As for humans being the cause of the "rise" in carbon emissions, that is entirely false, due to the fact that as fast as we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere, trees and other plant based life are effectively weeding out the extra CO2 because they need it to survive, thus eliminating the excess waste." My argument to this is that with the rising CO2 emissions, and with that comes more industrialization. The industrialization creates deforestation, this creates a larger problem for human based CO2 emissions. Also there is a limited amount of fossil fuels and it is believed we are going to be at the point of no return, we need to start using greener more effective ways of energy before this occurs. Your second statement about growing ocean levels, though the land is not sinking the ocean rises. And for the reefs there is an abundance amount of scientific proof that agrees with my argument. The reefs die because of the rise in sea temperature making the algae in the reefs work too fast and it cannot repair itself, which emits the toxins that bleach coral reefs, this has a direct tie to global warming. Swamps do produce methane just as cows do, but as population grows, swamps tend to be drained and used for housing and are slowly leaving the picture as a problem for global warming. Importance of rainforrests for the earth (because of global warming): http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Deforestation rates: http://rain-tree.com... Limited fossil fuels: https://www.ecotricity.co.uk... Sea Levels rising: http://climate.nasa.gov... Reefs: http://news.nationalgeographic.com... Bleaching: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov... Swamps draining: http://wwf.panda.org...
Humans are responsible for global warming

As for humans being the cause of the "rise" in carbon emissions, that is entirely false, due to the fact that as fast as we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere, trees and other plant based life are effectively weeding out the extra CO2 because they need it to survive, thus eliminating the excess waste. According to Murry Salby, " the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken. It""s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that""s the heavier carbon isotope ratio c13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter c12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gases that caused this relative decline. But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. The huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa - which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages. " Onto the next part of your argument, the rise of the oceans due to increased temperature and the melting of the polar ice caps. We are told sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Around 1990 it became obvious the local tide-gauge did not agree there was no evidence of 'sinking. ' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands. Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. I also see that you mentioned the fact that the reefs are dying because of global warming and the rise of CO2 in the oceans. The oceans are the Earth's largest carbon storage medium, so if the atmospheric CO2 increase were "natural", it would likely be coming from the oceans. But we know the CO2 increase is not coming from the oceans, because the pH of the oceans is dropping (a. k. a. ocean acidification). Now onto your final point, Methane from livestock. I agree that beef cattle release a ton of methane into the atmosphere, it's nowhere near the amount of Methane produced by bogs and swamps. Bogs and swamps produce Methane through the decomposition of biotic and abiotic matter, thus releasing the gas into the atmosphere. While I agree that cows are contributing to climate change, I don't hold them personally responsible for all of the Methane released into the air.
Humans are responsible for global warming

I agree that carbon emissions have been rising before modern technology, but humans are the cause of it rising at such a rate as it is now. At this moment the best us (humans) can do to limit global warming we would still be at a two degree world temperature rise. This doesn't sound like much, but this large of a change can cause reefs to die (as they are already) and the ocean (water level) to rise and "swallow" coastal cities such as Florida, New York City, and parts of New Jersey. And this isn't just because of the CO2 emissions, but due to methane produced by beef cows that are used in so many foods, hamburgers, steaks, roast beef, etc.
Humans are responsible for global warming

It's been said that humans are responsible for "Global Warming" due to our carbon emissions and high atmospheric pollution rate. While I agree that we are polluting the atmosphere at an extremely high rate, I disagree that, our carbon emissions are to blame. According to Science Magazine, measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years), periods of natural global warming preceded global increases in CO2. Also, A 2005 study published in Nature found that "high temperatures - similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990 - occurred around AD 1000 to 1100" in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, any human produced CO2 is re absorbed by the oceans, trees and plants, preventing the CO2 from gathering in the atmosphere. I look forward to debating you, and good luck!!
Where did God come from? A dream, a lie, and an explanation

All you did was try to switch roles and pretend that your god exists and Greek gods are false. Bad idea. Why didn't you give "The following responses I give were if I was an atheist." in which you most certainly did not do? A. I agree we probably have God"s cause some guy decided to make up some story to explain the unexplainable at the time. In my opinion it could have happened something like Greek Mythology." And wow. You don't think that for a single solitary second of YOUR life that it could have happened with your unproved god in which you cannot prove, demonstrate or test in any way possible? Greek nothing. Don't invent excuses please. B. "I think God was invented for the incentive." Ah yes, the incentive to reign terror and deliberate horrific genocide, especially upon children as the bible implicitly states. And the bible's "incentive" is through its superior ego god complex and nothing else. That's all the bible is geared towards. "For me, God is that five dollars." Two faults right there. If there is to be worldwide peace 1. All religion is required to be abolished. 2. All wealth/ money is required to be abolished. And then you have another fault "The five dollars is essentially heaven." "When she dies does she get to go to heaven? If she gets to go to heaven will she be happy? And she"ll probably say "yes". And you say "Will you be able to choose and do anything you want while you are in heaven?" And she"ll say "yes." And so you are basically saying "you"ll have free will in heaven?" So you have free will in heaven and no one is being hurt, raped, so you can do anything you want and no one gets hurt. If god has that power in heaven, he must have that power on earth. So he"s chose not to set that condition/ toggle switch which means he"s a dick." Phil Ferguson "Everyone knows, that work is better when there is a reward at the end." Well that is 100% false. What if its slave labor as your god did absolutely nothing about? "If I was an atheist, I probably wouldn"t have any reason to do good deeds at all. At that point what"s the point in living?" And that's why I'm an atheist, why I have friends and loved ones, why I am happy, Its why you are miserable, why you have no friends and loved ones, why you believe in your god, are convinced that he exists for no reason at all and cannot prove he exists and is remarkably brainwashed unlike any other, and is stuck in a rut and very unhappy with how things are in his life.
Where did God come from? A dream, a lie, and an explanation

Sorry. Alright I"ll answer your questions. P.S. The following responses I give were if I was an atheist. A. I agree we probably have God"s cause some guy decided to make up some story to explain the unexplainable at the time. In my opinion it could have happened something like Greek Mythology. Some writer/poet wrote a ginormous book laying out everything about Greek Mythology. After it was "released" to the public people started taking it too literally, and actually started believing it. B. I think God was invented for the incentive. Ex. 1. Your mom says to do your chores. 2. Your mom says to do your chores and give you five dollars. For me, God is that five dollars. The five dollars is essentially heaven. It gives you something to work for and look forward to. Everyone knows, that work is better when there is a reward at the end. If I was an atheist, I probably wouldn"t have any reason to do good deeds at all. At that point what"s the point in living?
Where did God come from? A dream, a lie, and an explanation

Right off the bat, I"m extremely p**sed off at you. "My title"? Was it so hard for you to do something like actually READ? Was that so hard? This is NOT my title. Its not my article. I gave proper credit as to where the article came from. Now did it ever occur to you that you are very biased because no one, not one person has ever even come close to proving that YOUR god even exists? So why on earth should the article make any attempt(s) to prove that this god does exist? There"s no way to test for this god. There"s no way to decale this god exists. There"s no way to demonstrate that this god exists. There no nothing. "So therefore I will try to prove to you that God exists and doesn"t come from a "a dream, a lie, and an explanation"." Um no you will try to disprove the article. And if you don"t, then this debate will be over. Or do you want me to be really mean to you and degrade you and humiliate you as you rightly deserve? Your choice? You cannot just ignore, completely ignore what someone has put forth to you, in which case was done in RD1 and then you do a complete turnabout and you expect your opponent to say "hey I"m gonna follow you now". WRONG. That"s not how debates work. "Here"s why God has to exist." Btw, there is no reason, not one reason why god has to exist.
Where did God come from? A dream, a lie, and an explanation

Your title is very biased, as it doesn"t suggest GOD may actually exist. So therefore I will try to prove to you that God exists and doesn"t come from a "a dream, a lie, and an explanation". Here"s why God has to exist. Our universe is so complex it all couldn"t have just been contingent. The universe had to have a start. So what is it? Yeah I know the Big Bang, but how did that tiny point get there. How did it just suddenly explode? Why does the universe act so orderly? Why does the universe have to be ruled by rules/math. There"s nothing stopping the universe being in complete disarray. The number of hours in a day stays the same, so does the speed of light and sound. "How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?" God exists b cause he"s shown himself to us. Jesus. Don"t argue on this as literally every historian including myself agrees Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary, was a real person who lived 2,000+ years ago. The crusifiction is also factually true agreed upon by again every historian. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Here are some more reasons. While you atheists laugh at creationism, it really makes more sense than any other theory out there. It"s easier to believe that a God exists than to believe a theory (The Big Bang) that doesn"t explain how, when, the point of everything got there. And how it just exploded. One last thing. What about the Saints? Sure you can refute a lot of them. But what about St. Padre Pio. My own grandmother (who"s still alive) went to one of his masses while visiting India and saw him levitate while blessing the Eucharist. He even got stigmata the same wounds Jesus got while on the cross, while sleeping. And he was quite recent, 1968 was when he died. So I think God came from ACTUALLY BEING A REAL SUPERNATURAL DIETY.
The Bohm Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics Is Probably False

Introduction In this debate, I show why we should reject Bohm mechanics completely. Support For Bohm Mechanics In The Scientific Community Physicist Sean Carrol has presented a graph which shows how little support Bohm mechanics has in the scientific community compared to other interpretations (such as the Copenhagen interpretation)[1]: As we can see, the Bohm interpretation has such little support that it shows up as 0% on the graph. This doesn't mean the interpretation is incorrect (that would be an Ad Populum fallacy), but it does show that my opponent has an uphill battle. It's hard to argue for an interpretation that is widely regarded as unfavorable by experts in the field. Now, perhaps a scientists "favorite" interpretation is one that they do not find true. However, I find that highly unlikely My Argument P1: If Bohm mechanics is true, then there are non-local hidden variables P2: There are not non-local hidden variables C: Therefore, Bohm mechanics is not true--- The argument is clearly valid Modus Tollens[2]. The question that remains pertains to whether the premises are true or not. Defense Of P1Bohm's theory is a hidden variable theory which requires non-local hidden variables:"The Hidden-Variable Theory of David Bohm: ....Hidden-variables theories, with their underlying determinism, must be non-local..."[3]This premise is not controversial. Defense of P2 Tests of Leggett's inequalities by Zeilinger in 2007 falsified a broad range of non-local hidden variables and naive realistic pictures [4][5]. "Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism."[4] Of course, that doesn't mean that all non-local naive realistic pictures were refuted. This still leaves the ball park open for Bohm mechanics in regards to what we call "loopholes". Unfortunately, as recent as last year, all loop holes were closed[6]. "No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results." - Xiao-song Ma, Johannes Kofler, Angie Qarry, Nuray Tetik, Thomas Scheidl, Rupert Ursin, Sven Ramelow, Thomas Herbst, Lothar Ratschbacher, Alessandro Fedrizzi, Thomas Jennewein, Anton Zeilinger[6] Obviously, non-local hidden variables theories like Bohm's entail naive realism[7].ConclusionThe conclusion follows necessarily. SummaryI showed that non-local hidden variables have been falsified by modern experiments. Since Bohm's interpretation is a hidden variable theory; it should be rejected. The resolution has been affirmed. I will leave you with a quote from Physicist Victor Stenger:"Now, after a series of percise experiments, the issue has been decided: the Copenhagan interpretation of Quantum Mechanics has been convincingly confirmed, while the most important class of hidden variables have been ruled out." - Victor Stenger[8]Sources[1] http://www.preposterousuniverse.com... [2] http://www.philosophy-index.com...[3] http://www.counterbalance.org...[4] http://physicsworld.com...[5] http://www.quantumphil.org...[6] http://arxiv.org...[7] http://plato.stanford.edu...[8] http://www.colorado.edu...
Youth Should run the nation

Hi it is quiet obvious that old people have a lot of experience and it is very much believed that everything is learnt with experience and hence the nation is led by the old lot of the nation which i strongly oppose because old people are very much their to support the nation and it is acceptable but when it comes to making decision the decision making ability holds good in the youth because anything and everything which is an hindrance to the growth of the nation is very much noticed by the youth as they go out on a daily basis and they very well know what happens in our day to day lives whereas old people sit back home doing nothing which would hardly give them any knowledge Mr X who is old and a politician sits back home in front of a tv waiting for assistant to come and give news about the state on a daily basis who does nothing apart from coming out during elections would know more about the state or Mr y who goes out everyday and looks at the daily life who knows what we are lacking in what we are good at and everything and yes this is an easy way to measure the requirement of the nations strength and weakness which will ideally lead to improvement in those particular sectors
Youth Should run the nation

I don't think it should be a matter of age. A good leader is a good leader, but on balance people no longer in their youth (let's say people 28+) have more life experience and therefore have a better idea of how to run the nation. Sure, it's pretty much a craps shoot no matter what you do, but let's at least stack the odds in our favor and hand the reigns over to those who have most likely been through these things before. There's not much else I can say this round because you haven't really laid out a hard argument here... or use any punctuation whatsoever (which is actually pretty impressive), so I'll pass the ball off to you for now.
Children in the US should be exposed and encouraged to eat insects

In conclusion, the pro will explain why con failed to win this debate. Pro covered the nutritional value of insects, con conceded that these were true. Pro pointed out that population strain necessitates the use of efficient food production. Con responded by saying that because many Americans are obese, they do not need nutritious food. Con has fallen back on everything except the social stigma against insects. They claim that it is immoral (no sources on this or reason why) and can hurt their mental health (again no sources or logic as to why this would be true). Con also claims that taking generations to invoke change is too long. The topic of this debate was never to make Americans eat insects in one generation. The topic is that "Children in the US should be exposed and encouraged to eat insects" [sic]. Under that topic, the cons argument has proved inconsequential and does not mean anything in this debate. The final argument that the con has been pushing is that Americans in general will not be keen on consuming insects. This is why we are pushing children to do it. Then the multiple generation build-up to acceptance begins. This was never stated to be a quick and easy solution but rather a necessity to provide for the population of the future. I thank the Con for engaging in this debate, it has been educational and allowed me to discover even more about this topic.
Children in the US should be exposed and encouraged to eat insects

To put insects into children's food, whether visible or not, is the same thing as putting meat in a vegetarian, it may not be illegal, but it is highly immoral. It can actually hurt the child's mental health after discovering what was placed into his lunch, or dinner. And to fail for several generations is a very long time, if you would realize, by then it would be reasonable for people to eat such foods due to perhaps new technology or very serious overpopulation, including the US. Who knows? Perhaps you are right about that one, but as you had clarified, "Several generations", not immediately. As much as insects are not banned from consumption, I must once again say that there are many people who are still unwillingly to try it. Imagine if the US government do allow teachers to teach the students on eating insects, but ironically the teacher himself/herself doesn't dare, so what about the students? I decided to check the store MarxFoods that you referred to. What I found was this video of the company's staff trying their own insect foods. While they managed to pull themselves to eat it, their expressions are nonetheless disgusted, and quite laughable. For that, thanks for it. Clearly, this debate is now not about it's high nutritional value, but instead the mentality of the American people for or against having insects as foods part of their diet.