BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Our Lord And Savior Lucifer

Lucifer's sin was that of pride according the Bible. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
The Problem of Evil: The existence of unnecessary suffering makes a perfect God impossible.

Resolution and Burden of Proof As Pro, I will be affirming he resolution: The existence of unnecessary suffering makes a perfect God impossible. I bear the initial BoP in this debate to affirm the resolution. It is not necessary for Con to make a positive case affirming the opposite of the resolution, his BoP is to demonstrate that I have not met mine. Definitions Unnecessary suffering- the state or experience of one that endures pain, death, etc. that is not necessary. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com.../ Perfect God- The omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good supernatural being that is said to have created the Universe and has an interest in human affairs. It should be noted that for the sake of this debate, this God is subject to the laws of logic, ie He/She/It could not create a four sided triangle. From this point on, any mention of God, other than a mention that states that it is referring to a different definition, will be understood to mean the God described in this definition. Impossible- “incapable of being or of occurring” Also from Merriam-Webster online.Basis of the Pro Case The following syllogism is the argument that I will be defending in this debate: P1. If there exists unnecessary suffering in the world, a perfect God is incapable of being.P2. There exists unnecessary suffering in the word.C. Therefore, a perfect God is incapable of being. The argument is logically valid as the conclusion follows from the premises in the form: P1. If P, then Q.P2. P.C. Therefore, Q. If I can demonstrate the truth of the premises, then I have fulfilled my BoP. Rules1. No semantic or abusive arguments that take the debate away from it’s intended meaning. Such arguments shall not be counted.2. Drops shall count as concessions.3. No new arguments in the last round. Con may use the first round for acceptance, or he may make initial arguments against the syllogism. I look forward to an intellectually stimulating debate.
Something needs to be done about vote bombs

This website can be a lot of fun. Sure things can get heated and that's why there are points that can be lost or awarded based on rudeness. There are people, however (mostly teens) that think they are justified to be vigilantes and administer their own form of point awards with the use of vote bombs. This results in more vote bombs and votes that result trying to counter-act the vote bombs. Ultimately, this results in the entire voting system becoming useless. I would suggest a blocking mechanism to block known vote bombers from voting. Sure, the votes really aren't the reason why people debate. The votes and the reasons for votes, help debaters understand other people's though processes. It's a valuable tool that is being destroyed by vote bombers who think they have the right to act like bigger jerks then the ones they claim to be jerks.
Omniscience & Free Will

But the concept of God is based in magical and fantastical things, And can not be explained with logic. Therefore, Logic is not relevant. I know that you're speaking entirely hypothetically and you may or may not actually believe in God, But, Speaking entirely hypothetically, You can't bring logic into this. Your argument by definition has no evidence. You can't make an argument. You say "this is impossible. " I'm saying that the entire situation is impossible, So it makes no sense to go into that situation and say one specific part of it is impossible. If there can be a being with infinite power to see the future, You can't say that that's possible (within the situation) and say that free will isn't. You just can't make an argument.
Omniscience & Free Will

Here is my proposition once again:A God that is infallibly future omniscient by definition negates the possibility of free will; fatalism and free will cannot logically coexist. 1) I'm not saying a God is real2) I'm not saying God is infallibly future omniscient3) I'm not saying fatalism is true4) I'm not saying free will is true5) I'm not saying fatalism is being controlledI am saying that fatalism and free will cannot logically coexist and that a God who is infallibly future omniscient negates the possibility of free will for that reason. Free will requires an undetermined future that is derived from choices made by agents of free will; fatalism is incompatible with this. Your answer of "magic did it; God can do anything I want" is simply an argument from ignorance and a non sequitur. You have completely failed to address my proposition. All you have done is inject words, Change definitions and blame magic.
Omniscience & Free Will

"I didn't say that God necessarily is controlling what will happen. . . " Then who exactly is controlling what is happening? If it isn't God, Who could it possibly be? If no one controls everything that happens, Then it can not be predetermined, And free-will must be real. "In order to know the future, The future must be pre-determined in advance (fatalism). " Why is that true? Where does it say that, For the future to be known by a deity, That the future must already be determined? Going by all logic and scientific evidence, It should be impossible to completely predict the future. If God predicts the future with complete accuracy, He is already doing something fantastical and something that should be impossible. If he can do one impossible act, Predicting the future, Then who is to say he can not do another impossible act, I. E. Predicting the future without it being predetermined. "If the future is a result of multiple compounded free will choices originating from numerous agents, There is no way to have a pre-determined future. If the future is known, Then the choices made were not of free will; the choices made were always going to be made exactly the way they were and this was known in advance. " You are making the mistake of thinking logically. This is an illogical situation. There is a magical being that knows the future. His existence is against all logic. You can not use logic to prove or disprove anything.
Omniscience & Free Will

Thanks for accepting the challenge! Nice to meet you! I didn't say that the God necessarily is controlling what will happen; whether or not the God is a controlling agent is irrelevant to the logic of this argument. There is no reason to think that just because they know what choices people will make people have no free will. I don't understand how you can reach that conclusion. In order to know the future, The future must be pre-determined in advance (fatalism). If the future is a result of multiple compounded free will choices originating from numerous agents, There is no way to have a pre-determined future. If the future is known, Then the choices made were not of free will; the choices made were always going to be made exactly the way they were and this was known in advance.
People can never be regarded as equals

People cannot under the law be regarded as equals, or treated as equals, in the sense that every single law and policy must apply to everyone in the same manner. You must prove that people should be treated as equals in a legal sense, in a political sense and in a social sense and should. No emotional pandering, this is an argument of pure reason, and wit I have tried to make the topic as broad as possible to give you(the competitor) as much creative leeway as possible, as such i expect that you use MOSTLY YOUR OWN WORDS AND ARGUMENTS, You are allowed to use external sources, but the bulk of the work must be your own. Round 1 is acceptance only, no argument shall be submitted in round 1 For the purposes of this argument i assume that the competitor is aware of the definition of the term equality in the context it has been presented, if not please indicate in the comment section and further details will be provided I eagerly await an opponent and hope that he/she has very good arguments which are interesting to consider. Good luck and may the best arguer win!
9/11 was not an "INSIDE JOB"

{Apologies, ATHOS. I'll steer clear next time.} 1. Has there been a significant increase in terrorist activity in the West since 911? 2. Are there any eye-witness accounts to rule out another possible turn of events? 3. Has America been majorly hurt, directly by the attacks, in any form other than emotionally? (The term 'emotional' extends to National Pride.) 4. Since America has stopped fighting wars actively, has there been any economic down-turns? 5. Is there any remote possibility, even if it requires disregarding the 'goodness' of the US government, that another turn of events occurred?
9/11 was not an "INSIDE JOB"

Con has taken the role of "Devil's Advocate" in this debate, and while it isn't necessarily a bad thing, I was hoping for a more passionate (with someone who actually believes it was a conspiracy as stated in the resolution) debate. I should have stated that as a requirement in R1. Regardless, I'll continue...Questions: //Note: questions are to be answered yes/no, and they are stated as such. Clarification can be provided in R4.// 1.) Has the U.S. economy improved due to the events of 9/11? 2.) Do you believe that there are (some) people in the Middle East that hate America, form terrorist organizations and are motivated to carry out attacks? 3.) Do you believe that (some) people in the Middle East may have-what they would consider- a good reason to hate America? 4.) Do you believe that (some) people in the Middle East should have no reason at all to hate America? 5.) Were the 'trained insurgents' members of the U.S military? 6.) Did employees of United Airlines and American Airlines have knowledge that the U.S. used trained insurgents dressed as terrorists, allowed them onto four planes and sent the four planes into different targets? 7.) Would you accept payment from the U.S. government to keep their involvment in 9/11 a secret and to willingly be a part of a hideous and dispicable endeavor? 8.) Is there an amount of money that you would consider to be unacceptable as payment from the U.S. government to keep their involvment in 9/11 a secret and to willingly be a part of a hideous and dispicable endeavor? 9.) Are the people that claim to have had family and friends aboard hi-jacked planes part of the conspiracy as well? 10.) Are there any other reasons America would attack its own people besides a bad economy?
9/11 was not an "INSIDE JOB"

=======Resolution======='The events of 9/11 was not a conspiracy perpetrated by the United States Government or any of its agencies, including the C.I.A. (Central Intelligence Agency).'Definitions: 9/11 = The events that occured on september 11 2001. The attacks on the World Trade Center, The Pentagon and flight 93 that crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Conspiracy = Plan to commit illegal actRound 2 I would like to thank Con for accepting.On september 11 2001, 19 terrorists hi-jacked 4 passenger jets. The hi-jackers flew 2 of the planes, A/A flight 11 and U/A flight 175 into each of the towers of the World Trade Center. The Towers fell within 2 hours. One of the hi-jacked planes A/A flight 77 was also flown into the pentagon. The other hi-jacked plane U/A flight 93 was intended to be flown into the United States Capitol Building, instead it crashed near Shanksville, Pennslyvania. The hi-jackers were from a militant islamist group known as Al-Qaeda. Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure. The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m. after burning for 56 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of United Airlines Flight 175.The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m. after burning for 102 minutes.When the North Tower collapsed, debris fell on the nearby 7 World Trade Center building (7 WTC), damaging it and starting fires. These fires burned for hours, compromising the building's structural integrity, and 7 WTC collapsed at 5:21 p.m.The Pentagon sustained major damage. Nearly 3,000 people died in the attacks, including 227 civilians aboard the hi-jacked planes, along with the hi-jackers.http://en.wikipedia.org....http://en.wikipedia.org...
9/11 was not an "INSIDE JOB"

=======Resolution======='The events of 9/11 was not a conspiracy perpetrated by the United States Government or any of its agencies, including the C.I.A. (Central Intelligence Agency).'Definitions: 9/11 = The events that occured on september 11 2001. The attacks on the World Trade Center, The Pentagon and flight 93 that crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Conspiracy = Plan to commit illegal act together: a secret plan or agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive act. Perpetrate = Do something wrong: to commit or be responsible for something, usually something criminal or morally wrong. United States Government = The executive and legislative and judicial branches of the federal government of the United States. Rules: 1.) 1st round is for acceptance. 2.) R2 will be for arguments as to what Pro and Con believes happened to cause the events on 9/11. 3.) R3 will be for asking questions concerning the arguments presented. Only questions requiring a 'YES' or 'NO' are permitted. 4.) R4 will be for answering each other's questions, and explaining Yes' and No's. 5.) R5 will be for conclusion/rebuttals. 6.) To the best of their ability my opponent has to be specific with the conspiracy theory he/she is arguing. e.g,... what type of tactics were used, how the United States Government did it, who or what other organizations were involved. 7.) YouTube videos or any other video links are not permitted. //Note to voters: Voters are urged to vote according to which 9/11 scenario (Pro's or Con's) was more likely to occur based on the way it was presented.//
9/11 was not an "INSIDE JOB"

Not necessarily means that the trained insurgents could have come from government and nongovernmental organizations. E.g. Any nation looking to secure ties with a large military force such as the US would happily supply the man-power, for a price. Now, on with my case. Since my opposition has neglected the opportunity to debate or argue any responses, (Perhaps it is best to fix this for next time) I must neglect the few obvious disputes that demand a response from Pro in order tone debated. Aside from that, the opposition cannot refute that since America has attempted to stop wars, it's economy has crashed on multiple occasions. Additionally, during WW2 and the Cold War, the US prospered under the military development that boosted its economy. That is indisputable. Therefore, the US can utilise wars for economic growth, and after a lack of wars, it isn't impossible to rule out American growth as the motive behind starting a war. Moreover, America has started a war using misleading evidence before. The Vietnam war was started by the destruction of a boat that didn't exist. When this was found to be a fraud, the US government was forced to start any new wars using real threats. Or at least threats that seemed real enough to the general population. And as for those who can say that the government had no hand in the crime, the only ones who can say that are those who have access to every American file, uncensorred. The only one who has that direct privilege is the President. Interestingly, this new president, perhaps driven by guilt upon blaming another nation for a war that his predecessor began, has all but ended the war in the middle-east. I'm not asserting that this is the only truth possible, like my opponent. All I'm stating is that, to quote the clichï¿½, everything is not as it seems.
Stairway vs Taurus. Led Zep should pay something in the Stairway lawsuit.

That would be true if Page had actually heard Taurus, but it is very unlikely. The songs were made in the 70's, a time where in order to have even heard Taurus so early on, Led Zeppelin would have had to hear it in a festival of some sort or music gathering. In the court hearings, evidence surfaced that they could have crossed paths with Taurus, but there was never a time when Led Zeppelin actually attended a show of theirs. Also, the court named Led Zeppelin innocent. Jimmy Page stated that they had written the song "Stairway to Heaven" a long time before they put it on a record. You are right though, the jury didn't get to hear Taurus's song because it was not protected under federal copywrite law at the time, but they were given the sheet music. I think it is noble of you to stand up for copy write issues with artists, but I honestly think it happens to little to make it a major concern. Mostly, musicians don't give a crap and don't sue and just let bygones be bygones. But the issue still stands that the court case between Zeppelin and Taurus was not quite fair. I think you are right on that. But to be honest, with all the evidence in that case, I think Led Zeppelin was just making music and nothing else.
Stairway vs Taurus. Led Zep should pay something in the Stairway lawsuit.

Good argument, but as a musician myself, I am going to have to disagree with you, and I'll tell you why... Every song that has been written shares a similarity to another song that has already been written. Since there are a finite number of tones our ears can distinguish, and since it only takes a few notes that are in common to make two songs sound similar, don't you think that the possibilities start to become limited in order to make 100% originality? Let's put this into perspective: There are approximately 79 billion combinations you can make with 8 notes over 12 intervals (based off the octave system used in the U.S.). That may sound like a lot of possibilities, but let's put that into perspective again: Say, if 100 songwriters wrote one new melody each per second, that would mean that all possibly melodies would be exhausted in only 248 years...Not much time at all. What I am getting at here, is that there are most definitely going to be very similar tunes out there, and that is okay. Originality doesn't come from having a similar riff, or even an almost exactly similar riff, originality comes from so many other things. Consider the lyrics of the two songs, and how different they are and what they mean. Also, consider the use of the instruments and how the players of those instruments interpreted the different melodies. And of course, Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" doesn't sound like Taurus all the way through, not by a long shot. I think in this case, Taurus has band members who are ignorant to the fact of what music is and how it is used throughout the ages, or perhaps they are just looking for money, I don't know. The fact of the matter is, it just doesn't matter if there are similarities. Now, if I was present for when the first tune was ever played on an instrument or whistled, and then some other cave man bloke came along and started whistling something similar, then it would be an issue, but in today's day and age where music has been recycled again and again, it simply isn't necessary.
Stairway vs Taurus. Led Zep should pay something in the Stairway lawsuit.

Zep is great. But they have a long history of borrowing and sometimes just stealing music and reworking it to great effect. Examples include: Dazed and Confused, Bring it on home, Whole Lotta Love (You Need Love - Willie Dixon; You Need Lovin - Small Faces), The Lemon Song (The Killing Floor - Howlin Wolf), Bring it on home (Willie Dixon). Attribution came later for several cases after a law suit. So the pattern is clear. I think Stairway to heaven is clearly a completely different song than Taurus. But the sound of the first part is just too similar to believe it didn't influence them. Also, it is not credible that Zep was not familiar with Taurus. They opened for Spirit and covered another of their songs. I think they should give a partial writing credit and pay something?
Stairway vs Taurus. Led Zep should pay something in the Stairway lawsuit.

Okay yeah you are right, Led Zeppelin has a tendency to steal bits and pieces from others songs. But as you said "They could have done something like that for Randy California and paid very little money" I would disagree. Taurus was asking for the royalties, which would cost Led Zeppelin millions of dollars. I guess the point I am trying to make is that I know Led Zeppelin could be guilty of stealing that beginning riff...There is definitely that possibility. But what I am suggesting, and a lot of people might disagree with this, is that it just doesn't matter. The music is different, they are about completely different things, and they use different styles. It is such a small thing to be concerned about. If I were Taurus I would be absolutely ecstatic that Jimmy Page and his band of genius's thought my opening riff was so good that they would want to use it in their smash hit. I agree with you, if Taurus had just asked for some credit such as putting their name next to Led Zeppelins as a co composer, that would have been ideal, and I think Led Zeppelin very well might have accepted that (if they were guilty of stealing that is, we can't be sure), but unfortunately Taurus wanted money, and a lot of it! That makes it difficult, it brings tension between the two bands, and it makes the music not about the art, but about the money, and that is just nonsense. I hope you'd agree with that if you are a musician. If somebody stole a beginning riff off of my song, I would never sue them for all the money that song was worth, I would never do that in a million years. The music is just to good and to wonderful to do something like that. No, I would like you suggested, simply ask for credit on the song composition.