BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anime Rap Battle

Choose two anime characters. One for each verse. It can be any of the two.Really? I got out of bed and lost rest just to go ahead and prove you're not the best. Hold on. Let me get Enju to come and catch you when you fall to my metal. I got black bullets flying all around the battlefield. You have one up your @$$. Don't worry! I'll give you a pass. Boy I'll cast you to the depths of hell. Oh wait. I'll won't tell you how. You're so ugly, you beloong in the pound. Inzen Kouktei you rright into the ground.I'm finding out murderers so fast you must think I'm a sorcerer. Actually, I'm your torturer. While you sit at home, having a fit with your little slice of life, I get solve all the murders and have Chiaki that wants to be my wife. Let's just hope Monokuma doesn't cause you too much trauma. You're a fool; just a tool on the wall. I can use at any time to solve any crime. So please, go home. You're out of your league. I'm the ultimate hope. You should just hang yourself with rope.
People cannot have knowledge of the supernatural

I shall attempt to show how it is possible to have knowledge of the supernatural, if it exists. I do not undertake to prove the existence of the supernatural in general, or of any specific supernatural event or entity; nor do I attempt to show that one can prove any element of the supernatural to anyone else. If one has knowledge of a supernatural event or entitiy, it may be possible to prove to others; but that is outside the scope of this debate. I accept all the definitions given above, and add one more:Proof: evidence establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. I thank my opponent for this debate. -C.
People cannot have knowledge of the supernatural

Hello, this would be my first debate so I'm still a little fuzzy on the formalities. I apologize in advance for any mistakes. I'm using the definition of knowledge in the philosophical sense. Knowledge is defined as a justified, true belief. A supernatural event is defined as an event which transcends the laws of nature (i.e. physics, biology, mathematics, etc.). I aim to show that those who believe it is possible to have knowledge of the supernatural (miracles, spirits/demons, afterlife, etc.) are wrong. I hope to prove that they are mistaken and simply have faith in the supernatural-not knowledge of it. First round is for acceptance, definition of terms, and, if you like, a few sentences explaining what you hope to prove. Happy thinking!
The US should take away gay rights

"Same sex marriage is not natural" For your information, animals such as lions, deers and wolves have been spotted by scientists having gay sex. You believers believe that God created these animals. Therefore, it is completely natural. You don't choose who you love, it just happens. You choose who to marry, yes. But people should marry people who they love. And if a man loves a man, then that's that. "All these gay marriages are going to influence people and make it think it's alright" I live in a country where gay marriage has been legal for a long time. When I first found out as a kid, I didn't think "oh, it's legal to marry someone of the same gender, let me do it to!". No. You are born homosexual, or you are born heterosexual. Back when I found out it was legal, I had no idea that homophobic people existed, either. I never thought about marrying someone of the same gender, ever. It just _happens_. It's like, if you see a black person in the street, you're not gonna turn into a black person are you? "The US are going to turn into a homosexual nation" Nope. Most people in the world are heterosexual. This argument is invalid.
The US should take away gay rights

So let me ask you this. What would our founding fathers say about same sex marriage? Ill leave that question for you to answer. Same sex marriages is not natural. You can reproduce, and all these gay marriages are going to do is influence other people and make them think it is alright. So then were going to have a homosexual nation. No, not right. The hetrosexuals are going to be living in a homisexual nation. The US from the start was a hetrosexual nation. Another thing i would like to bring up is when you said that I proved you point by saying a majority of the nation voted in gay marriage right. Well, the nation never voted it in, the Supreme Court did. Before they made it legal Only 3 states had legalized gay marriages. Also the Supreme Court dies not have the right to make laws like that for all 50 states. States make their own laws when it comes to marriage. Also i never said that i didnt want God to turn away from just me. I said the nation. I am part of that nation, so i face the consequences too. You also said "Let's allow people to sleep with other's wives. Because the Bible says so. Let's allow men to beat their spouses when they disobey. Because the Bible says so. Let's put to death anyone who works on a Sunday. Because the Bible says so." Well, I dont know what bible you reading but the Bible say that thise first two things you said were wrong and sins. Also the last thing you said was a nation law not a law established by God. So you can argue all you want but if you are a believer God, creation, and the Bible all say same sex marrages are wrong. And if you are a non believer Evolution even proves that same sex marriages are not natural. Do male monkeys mate with male monkeys? No. Do female dogs mate with female dogs? No. Why? Because sexual relationships such as marriages are for a man and a women ONLY. The Bible and even evolution proves it.
The US should take away gay rights

"All societies have laws based on what the majority of people believe are immoral". Haha, thank you for proving my argument. There were referendums(votes) in the US where the government asked people whether or not they would like to have gay marriage legalized. The majority said yes. As for your point about the church/bible... Let's allow people to sleep with other's wives. Because the Bible says so. Let's allow men to beat their spouses when they disobey. Because the Bible says so. Let's put to death anyone who works on a Sunday. Because the Bible says so. Sorry mate. But church and state are too different things and need to be separated. If you don't want God to turn away from you; then follow the teachings of the Bible. But leave non-believers alone, because that is also what the Bible says to do.
The US should take away gay rights

So, does that mean that we legalize suicide? There is a point where you just have to say "No" and same sex marriage is one of those things where it is too far in or out of the church. By legalizing same sex marriages we are imprinting that in our nation. Other nations are going to view us by our laws, our economy, etc. So far we look like a nation that allows gay marriages, abortions, etc. Were coming to a point where God is going to turn away from our nation. Were seeing what is happening to Israel. They completely turned away from all Gods morals and they are getting attacked by soo many different nations. The only difference between the US and Israel is Israel is Gods chosen nation. So if God turns his back to us we will be destroyed. All societies have laws that are based on what things those socieites believe are moral and what things they believe are immoral. For example, we have laws in the United States against women going topless in public and against men or women exposing their genitals in public. There are no reasons for these laws other than the fact that our society thinks that those actions are immoral. If same sex marriages should be illegal in the US, it is for this same reason. They should be illegal (you can argue) if the majority of people think that they are immoral. Some people argue that laws should not impose some people's morals on others, but the truth is that we do that with so many of our laws.
The US should take away gay rights

I would like to start reciting the pledge of allegance."I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." In the pledge it says that our nation is "Under God" meaning our morals should be Gods morals. So with that in mind the Holy Bible says that marriage is on between a man and a women. So there God who this country is under says that marriage is only between a man and a women.
The US should take away gay rights

Your above argument makes no sense. You did not give any reasoning to why gay marriage is "wrong, nasty, perverted, twisted and just plain disgusting". That being said, here is why I think that legalizing gay marriage is a good idea. 1. Equality. You were born liking women. Nothing wrong with that, right? Well, what about the people who were born liking men (or women liking women)? Why is it fair that they are not allowed to love the person that they love? They are not harming you in any way, all they are doing is loving each other. And if you think it's disgusting, fine, don't be gay. But leave others alone. 2. Love Love doesn't hurt anyone. Therefore it would be pointless to take away gay marriage. 3. Divorce Studies have shown that a relationship between a man and a man or a woman and a woman lasts way longer then a relationship between a man and a woman. 50% of non-gay couples end up in divorce, whereas there are very few gay divorces. 4. Tolerance Did you know that just 50 years ago, a black guy was not allowed to marry a white woman. Now, if you'd tell that to a child, they would think that it was stupid that there was that law. Now, in 50 years, go tell a child that a man was not allowed to marry another man, and they would think its stupid too. And don't give me that stupid answer; "But being gay isn't natural!!" For your information, scientists have spotted many animals both of the same gender showing signs of affection towards each other. In conclusion, you are inconsiderate of other people's feelings and you only care about yourself. You think that just because you're not gay, nobody can be gay.
I have a better political sense of humour than my opponent!

This is how this debate works: The game takes place on the battleground that is Youtube. In order to win, each side must present the best political humour videos on the internet. They 1. Firstly, lay claim to a channel e.g.. JibJab with a channel link. 2. Then post 2 videos from that website which has political humour. 3. Over the 3 rounds the users are judges on the funniest videos. The funniest are scored all the marks in voting bar conduct. Now for some rules: 1. You can't post a link of videos (i.e. Video 1 of 3) and take it as 1 video submission. 2. You can only lay claim to 1 channel a round. You must post 2 videos from that channel or automatically forfeit conduct. 3. There is no debating as such, only saying if you think the video doesn't encompass political humour. Other than that it's straightforward claim channel, give link and post 2 videos. That's all. 4. You can only post youtube channel's. If you have difficulties with them contact me. 5. You can't claim a channel twice. 6. You can't claim a channel then re-produce the same video's because that channel uses them as well. 7. No videos can be declared 'inappropriate'. 8. You can use a channel which uses content from TV (e.g. family guy, south park) or other web shows, as long as it's from the same channel. Now to start: I claim use of the channel JibJab : http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Abel Would Have Killed Cain

6) Of course killing animal sacrifices now isn't required, but that's because Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice (John 3:16). I never said that killing another human was moral, in fact it's immoral. You bring up irrelevant points to the discussion, but as for the killings of other nations, it's not murder. Lets look at the Hebrew: Deut. 20:17-18 "...in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy [charam] them""the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites""as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God." It was necessary, but it cannot be said that it was good or evil. Compare with Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder [ratsach]" Obviously there are differences. Just the fact that Cain asked "Am I my brother's keeper? " shows his lack of concern for Abel. Conclusion : Based on God's unchanging nature, he would never accept Cain's selfish desires over Abel's faith (Hebrews 11). My case stands.
Abel Would Have Killed Cain

"What makes this "moral"? Why would God want man to destroy a part of His creation? Why would this please God? 1) Without answers to such questions, my argument stands: "What makes the butchering of animals different on a moral basis from the butchering of humans in the eyes of God is unexplained." My conclusion also stands that the morality in the Bible is completely arbitrary." God wanted animal sacrifices so that man's sin could be forgiven, but more importantly, he wanted to teach the value of life. It's important and moral for people to realize that their actions have a consequence and very often cost life. Humans have a higher calling and can advance to a higher level than animals, thus human life is more valuable than animals. 2) I think it's not the commandment itself, but the attitude behind it. The evil in his deeds was his lack of love and hatred for his brother because his offering was accepted. Lets read 1 John 3:10-15 "10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, 12 not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother"s righteous. 13 Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. 15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." The Torah is actually rooted in love and compassion, not in commandments. What pleased God was not the fact that Abel killed animals, but that he recognized his own sinfulness and was willing to accept the consequences of his actions, sacrifice an animal, and repent of his ways whereas Cain was not. No contradiction is found. 3) I addressed in 2# in full context 4) What i mean is that Abel even though did not physically belong to the Messiah's bloodline (Abel was replaced by Seth Gen. 4:25), he was essentially heir to the spiritual blessings to come (Hebrews 11). 5) i mean that no matter what happens, Cain will always choose to do evil, not that God is preventing him from doing good. Just as some people will willingly never accept that Jesus is Lord. Conclusion: The Bible gives very good explanations as to why Abel would not have killed Cain based on his nature.
Abel Would Have Killed Cain

I will explain the significance of each occurrence in the narrative. Before that, i would point out that in Gen. 3:21 says "21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them." This possibly implies that animals could then be killed for God's purposes. Now philosophically and scientifically, it can be argued that our environment and nature shapes who we are as individuals as well as our free-will. If Abel and Cain's choices were fixated then it is essentially impossible to completely alter the course of the future. Gen. 4:2-12 2 "And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:" This narrative may explain the origin of animal sacrifices. According to the Torah, animal sacrifices were made to atone for sin. The reason for God rejecting Cain's offering may've been simply because he refused to sacrifice the life of animals to atone for his sin. 5 "But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. 6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." Notice God tells Cain that if he does what is good then he will be accepted just as Abel, but Cain clearly refuses. 8 "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. 9 And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? 10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. 11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; 12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." 1 John 3:12 explains why Cain murdered Abel: v. 12 "We must not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and killed his brother. And why did he kill him? Because Cain had been doing what was evil, and his brother had been doing what was righteous." Conclusion: It is divinely instituted that Abel belonged to the righteous bloodline of the Messiah, thus this serves as typology of the sacrifice given by Christ. Cain was destined to commit this murder and Abel was destined to die in this moment because he held to his righteousness.
Abel Would Have Killed Cain

ResolutionAbel Would Have Killed CainBackgroundWatching the movie Noah got me thinking about some of the Genesis stories, most of which are exceedingly brief. The story of Cain and Abel occurs over the course of 16 verses in Genesis 4 (. https://www.biblegateway.com...); essentially, God looked upon Abel's offering with favor and not Cain's, which drove Cain to kill Abel. The question I ask in this debate is "what if God looked upon Cain's offering with favor instead of Abel's? Would Abel have killed Cain? " I believe the answer is easily yes. This debate is impossible to accept. If you would like to argue CON, please PM me or leave a comment. RulesThis debate is a "no scoring" debate with the exception of conduct - forfeits, flaming, seriously sidetracking the debate, plagiarism, and cheating the character limit are some examples . If you wish to leave an opinion about which position you found to be more convincing (i. e. an RFD), offer constructive criticism, and/or simply discuss the matter, there is a forum topic set up for this specific purpose here: (. http://www.debate.org...) The core, undebatable hypothetical assumption for this resolution is that God looked upon Cain's offering with favor and not Abel's. Given that this resolution is a hypothetical, burden of proof (BoP) is shared. Both PRO/CON must present a convincing hypothetical case for their respective positions given that God looked upon Cain's offering with favor and not Abel's.
Christians are brainwashed

Please refrain from bringing up the sizes of penises in a Formal debate. You make a claim with no source with Matt I have come to the conclusion that you refuse to have a proper debate I will refrain in the future from debating with people who bring up the sizes of penises in formal debates. In this debate I do not need to prove the existence of a deity I only need to prove christians are not brainwashed morons and rebut your "points" regardless I hve given points and wld hve mre bt 500 wrds bye
Christians are brainwashed

So the uneducated W0LV3NBANE can't use the Internet. You need to remove the capital letters and spaces from my link because debate. Org is a broken pile of trash. Oh, And Matt Dillahunty butt kicks any droppings from the laughable Christian sites you spew out. Yah. Still winning. If I claimed to have a pet unicorn you'd expect me to provide evidence. Being a Christian doesn't give you a magic pass - where's your arguments? I can only conclude that W0LV3NBANE has a tiny penis and no friends!
Christians are brainwashed

Your source doesn't work. I haven't needed to give a argument because I am Con. All I need to do is Disprove your points. Regardless, Since I can't fit anything into this, Here are some sources https://www. Premierchristianity. Com/Blog/4-reasons-why-Christians-believe-the-Bible-is-God-s-Word https://www. Str. Org/articles/christianity-as-the-best-explanation#. XEnhOFxKjIU I wnted more but 500 wrds "Go back to your sand pit. " I don't like sand. It's rough, Coarse. . . And it gets into everything. . .
Christians are brainwashed

If you cannot defend your arse of a god (or gods) in 500 characters then tough. You have no hope of winning just like every idiot who has come before you. I outwitted you as you walked into my cunning trap of cunning. Ha. I also win on sources - https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=liX1F0_xqmg Watch it and learn. W0LV3NBANE has given us no arguments --ZERO-- "cannot be proved" That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Go back to your sand pit.
Christians are brainwashed

Why do you only allow 500 characters I have more to say. 1. " Nobody has proved that the bible is true. EVER. " Regardless of your insulting demeanor, You are almost correct, As in order for us to prove something we need to understand it. However, A fathomless God beyond human comprehension cannot be proved or disproved. However If you deny the POSSIBILITY of a deity you are more closed minded then the "kindergartners" you mentioned. 2 is the same point as 1 but whining change word count thanks
Christians are brainwashed

My arguments are as follows: 1. Nobody has ever proved that the Bible is true. EVER. You have to be dumb or still in kindergarten to believe it. 2. The Christians on here constantly vote for their dumb side even though it has been kicked and kicked. Backwardseden has constantly outwitted each and every one of you however how many debates has he won? That's because losers such as Dsjpk5 with no friends votes him down. Boo Rules Dsjpk5 is disqualified from any voting procedures for this debate