BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
bible presuppose sense, therfore its false

The order is Kritik, then Case. First, it is clear the pro does not understand the alternative. The alternative isn't to lie to oneself. It never advocated for entrance into Christianity, if that was the idea the pro was trying to suggest. The alternative was to look at the Bible not in the perspective of a textbook, but as something to believe. Second, the alternative is responding to the pro's claims by changing the grounds of the claims, the inherent presumptions of the claims. Thus the alternative solves the pro's claims. Aside from that, the pro has completely conceded the majority of the Kritik. The pro has conceded that the 1AC was a rant against Christianity, unwarranted on account of not deeply understanding what he was criticizing. The pro has conceded the majority of the impact, and the Uniqueness as well. Therefore the Kritik should be evaluated as is at the end of the debate. Case Even if the pro tries to clarify what his 1AC is saying, it still doesn't follow much of a clear flow. Even under his clarification, there are key flaws: 1) Since when did Christians ever say senses were not real? This not only is stupid, this further cements the Kritik's (might I add, conceded) link. 2) What does it mean to "presuppose sense"? This has no relevance to the majority of the pro's argument. 3) The pro assumes we are in a dream when we read the Bible. I don't need to elaborate on how stupid this argument is. The pro's second point doesn't sufficiently respond to my own point, that the Bible's creators most likely were not dreaming when they made the Bible. It asks if the makers of the Bible are "bible or advanced aliens." There is ample evidence that the makers of the Bible were men. Thus they have conceded that not only the voters did not make the Bible, but the makers of the Bible were not dreaming. This takes out what appears to be the pro's internal link. The pro's third point questions my 4th point, which I shall gladly explain. It says that the pro's claims are not supported at all by any statistics of any kind, it's a rant basically. I also used this 4th point as a segway to my Kritik. Nowhere did I say that there is no evidence senses exist. The pro's 5th point simply doesn't relate to this entire debate. It's adding useless fluff. 6th, yes, that is correct. a wise man chooses to BELIEVE, which I have said in my Alternative to be DISTINCTLY different from a textbook, thus cannot be held up to the same standards (not necessarily of lower quality, just different). This the pro has also conceded. 7th, claims of the Bible are clear. That is just not true, at all. 1200 pages of Bible cannot be abridged to 1 or 2 sentences. The pro has also conceded that the title doesn't really relate to the rest of the argument. At this point, not only is the pro's internal link gone (the voters did not make the bible, and the makers of the bible didn't dream), but the main thesis of the pro's argument is gone. It is clear the con should win-- whether it be from the massively conceded Kritik, or just how shredded the Pro's case is.
bible presuppose sense, therfore its false

im saying, if you are a christian denying senses are real, and then saying the bible is real when it presupposes sense.. is inherently flawed, how could you tell if the Words are not from your own mind while you are in a dream is it true that men created the bible or was it advanced aliens? there is no evidence that senses exist? i dont understand your fourth point the bible is written to have some substance, the fool is easily fooled a wise man choose's to believe in talking snakes witihout evidence any day of the week.. the claims of the bible are clear.. no need to read it how is your alternate countering my claim in any way.. lying to yourself is an option that isnt going anywhere, i feel like being tricked into believing santa was enough..
Death Battle: Midna vs Fi

Con has not even made an argument, he's just saying "This is true, vote me". I have shown that his opening statements are false, and I said a reason why Midna would win.Con wants a source, so I give him a source: https://www.google.com...So there's my source for the Fused Shadows. There's 0 reason why Con would win. I'm the only one who actually made an argument, while Con is just... well... I wouldn't say nit picky, since he's just making few statements. Anyways, if Con really wants to win, he should maybe stop being lazy, and say why Fi is superior, not just say how I'm flawed, then failing instantly.Con has 2 more tries to say why Fi is stronger than Midna, and not just be lazy and say I'm flawed. I think I'm never getting a serious debate relating to video games, am I?
Death Battle: Midna vs Fi

Oh god. I wanted a serious video game debate. Will my wish not be granted?Anyways, I'll respond to Con's remarks, then say why I believe Midna would win.Rebuttal:"Vote Con because the concept for this debate, and introduction are plagiarized from ScrewAttack's Death Battles series." 1) Just because a YouTube channel makes battles between fictional characters, that doesn't mean people can debate on who would win. 2) AnimationRewind does another version of Death Battle, and lots of people are okay with this. Con must give a reason why it's wrong to make a debate based off of Death Battle."Also vote Con because Pro is a confirmed communist." This is a clear ad homonem attack. 1) How am I communist? 2) How is this even relevant? All this is is just an attack on me.Argument:Since it doesn't seem like Con really wants to debate, I'll simply say this: Midna has ancient artifacts known as the Fused Shadows, which destroys things probably none of Fi's abilities would've been able to destroy, such as the force field around Hyrule Castle in Twilight Princess.
Death Battle: Midna vs Fi

Introduction:The Legend of Zelda... a great game series where the chosen hero, Link, stops the evil Ganon from conquering Hyrule. Of course, this would not have been possible without his companions. Midna, the Twilight Princess, and Fi, the Spirit of the Goddess Sword.We will be analyzing their strength, speed, durability, abilities, and equipment to decide which one would win... a Death Battle!Rules:1. No trolling of any sort (Like saying Fi's a spirit, therefore cannot die).2. This fight will take place in a 100ft x 100ft x 75 ft arena, so no homefield advantage.3. Attacks from Hyrule Warriors will be valid. However, mechanics from Hyrule Warriors (Such as the Weak Point gauge and Focus Spirit) won't be present.4. As I've said in the Introduction, we will be debating on these stats:Strength: How strong the character is.Speed: How fast the character is.Durability: How much damage the character can take.Abilities: Teleportation, projectiles, etc.Equipment: Any armor, weapons, etc, that the character has.5. A powerful stat is worth more than a weaker stat (High strength makes up for low defense). If necissary, the voters can weigh the stats.My opponent will choose their character Round 1, and they'll give arguments Round 2.And now it's time for a Death Battle!
Sin does not exist because there is no proven god that exists and the bible is fraudulent

"This is a debate not a YouTube fight. You're supposed to explain WHY it's bonkers. What specifically is incorrect about it? " OK we're done. Don't even bother responding. That was fully explained in RD's 1, 2, 3. And it was 100% backed upped by professionals from The Atheist Experience in RD3, Who pointed out the why' as to there is no sin without a god which was explained unto YOU in which you did not pay any attention to. If you cannot pay any attention to evidence whatsoever in which you offered no counter, In which christians can't pay any attention to ---any--- evidence whatsoever, Because their dear lard, Oh sorry lord, Cannot handle a butt greasing, That's not my problem, That's yours. If you do not understand what is being stated to you, Then you can say "I don't know" which is a proper thing to say. But to continue as you are with your ridiculous argument, It doesn't wash especially against professionals who 100% know A LOT better than you. Your arrogance shows like a burnt out blankity blank big black blank hole. Awe well gee, "You're supposed to say WHY its bonkers. What specifically is incorrect about it? " Hypocrite. Bye.
Sin does not exist because there is no proven god that exists and the bible is fraudulent

"your argument is bonkers and doesn't prove anything because its an invented excuse" This is a debate not a YouTube fight. You're supposed to explain WHY it's bonkers. What specifically is incorrect about it? "You cannot have sin without a god. And since no god has ever been demonstrated, There's no sin. Its really not that hard to understand rather than all the fiberoptics you are inventing. "Yes I understand your position - it's stated in the title. Do you understand my position? "So evil and sin are two different things. That's step 1. Step 2 is you cannot have sin without a god. Step 3 is since no god has been demonstrated, Tested or asserted and then declared, There is no sin, But there is evil. "So. . . Your argument is exactly the same but now you're making an exception for "evil". Got it. --- Alright you wanna play hardball, I'm game. I can tell you're well versed in religious debates, But how good are you at philosophy? Argument 2: I posit that any abstract concept which has a tangible and measurable impact on society is real. Society is built on abstract concepts. Abstraction is what separates us from the beasts. Other examples of abstract concepts: Math Game Theory Atheism e = mc^2 Beauty Philosophy Morality Would you claim that these concepts also don't exist? I repeat, If "sin" exists independently from God, Then your premise is faulty.
Sin does not exist because there is no proven god that exists and the bible is fraudulent

Oh please. You didn't attack one god damned thing in RD 1. All you did was invent your own argument which doesn't work. So you know what? I decided to add a few things in RD 2. You know what? I'm going to add one more thing in RD3. If you don't like it, That's tough because your argument is bonkers and doesn't prove anything because its an invented excuse. Oh darn. I found it without too much trouble. Tracie Harris and Jenn Peeples, They do know one helluva lot better than you. Sorry. https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=1UtgI3qvwz0&t=2929s - The phone call starts at the 44:30 mark. But if you wish to cut to the chase, You can jump right into it at the 48:30 mark. You cannot have sin without a god. And since no god has ever been demonstrated, There's no sin. Its really not that hard to understand rather than all the fiberoptics you are inventing. "You also implied that religion was most likely created by powerful ancestors in order to control the population. Again, I recognize and have internalized your point, But it does nothing to defend your premise. " Oh absolutely it does. Christianity invented this god and this god does not exist. No one has ever demonstrated, Tested and then asserted and then once that's done declared that this god exists. They also invented this supposed sin that goes along with it. And since this invented god does not exist, This invented sin does not exist also. The two go hand in hand. Did you know that 2 + 2 = 4? Or not? "You don't beleive in God The concept of sin exists in your universe Well gee, Religion has been around since the first neanderthals could create fire. And you have no idea, None, As to what I 100% know and can prove. But strange, You have yet to prove anything. So evil and sin are two different things. That's step 1. Step 2 is you cannot have sin without a god. Step 3 is since no god has been demonstrated, Tested or asserted and then declared, There is no sin, But there is evil.
Sin does not exist because there is no proven god that exists and the bible is fraudulent

My opponenet has gracefully danced around my argument without answering it directly. I'll repeat my argument so he can try again. Either there is a God and the concept of sin exists, Or there is not a god, And the concept of sin still exists. The concept of Sin exists regardless of God, refuting your claim that sin does not exist because God does not exist. The premise of your assumption is faulty. You claimed that not-abrahamic religions don't teach sin. That's true. Most of them teach Karma though - with a similar ideology to prevent bad behavior. How on earth does that relate to what I said? You also implied that religion was most likely created by powerful ancestors in order to control the population. Again, I recognize and have internalized your point, But it does nothing to defend your premise. ---Just for good measure, I'll rephrase my argument based on these two assumptions: You don't beleive in God The concept of sin exists in your universe So we see that "sin" arose in an athiest universe without God. Therefore, "sin" can exist without god. Therefore, You can't claim that Sin only exists if God exists. I tell you what. I know you are dying to break out that bible smacking stick of yours. Defend your premise and we can open up the debate to discussions of things like scripture and God.
Sin does not exist because there is no proven god that exists and the bible is fraudulent

Here's another way of looking at it. . . Do you think that Buddhists, Hindu's, Native American Indian Tribes before the white man christian brethren sweaty pig nearly wiped them out, Gaia Mother Earth, The Inca, The Aborigines etc etc etc do you think they practiced or taught/ teach "sin"? How can they when they don't even know what "sin" is? Religion is usually invented to explain the unexplained, But not always. Then from there you have power and then comes fear and then comes control. Its usually in that order, But not always. You would certainly have to invent some type of a deity along the way. This way you can have power. And of course its probably going to go to your head. Since this is true, Corruption lays in wait. This is where the sinning bit starts to come alive. So really, Where, How and why was it invented? You've got to have a god in order for sinning to take place.
Sin does not exist because there is no proven god that exists and the bible is fraudulent

Wow, And I thought Christians were preachy! Cool it man the debate hasn't event started yet. "Sin does not exist"I propose that the concept of "sin" exists regardless of whether or not god exists. Here is my rationale:Imagine two universes called:Universe (A)thiestUniverse (B)eleiverUniverse A is an atheist universe. There is no divine presence, But primitive humans invented the idea of gods and sin anyway. The result: Exactly what we see now. No change. This is exactly what we would expect. Universe B is a universe where God exists. People align there beliefs with their religion, And invent the concept of sin. The result: Exactly what we see now. No change. This is exactly what we would expect. In both universes humans invent the concept of Sin. Both Christians and atheists agree that the universe would look exactly like it does today if their argument were true. Therefore it makes no difference whether or not god exists; the concept of sin would have been invented and believed either way. The concept of sin exists independently from God, And therefore your premise is faulty.
Sin does not exist because there is no proven god that exists and the bible is fraudulent

Something you can trust on is that I don't get mad, Angry, Have the need for wrath, Vengeance, Rage, Fury and especially I don't get jealous unlike you obviously do as well as your god in which you cannot even prove exists. But yeah we were having fun especially me in degrading, Humiliating, And dehumanizing you because you do not know your subject matter at all. You guess, Just like all supposed christians. Oh don't worry your crying boo hoo hooing on your soggy shirt none, There's no such a thing as a christian. So you are out of gooey lard for any type of an argument because you cannot even prove your god even exists. Oh guess what? I didn't read past your first sentence in your most recent RD. Not needed. I've constantly added to my arguments in RD's 2 & 3 in which you have not countered. So I win this debate. Bye.
Sin does not exist because there is no proven god that exists and the bible is fraudulent

Aww c'mon Eden don't be mad. We were having fun! I understand you wanted to have a religious debate, Not a philosophical debate, But you need to be ready to defend your premise from all sides. I tell you what, Let's finish this debate like gentleman. I won't attack your character, And you agree not to attack mine. We simply state our points and let the judges decide. How's that sound? ---My opponent has focused on WHY God does not exist. I have pointed out that it doesn't matter if God exists, Because sin exists either way. My position is that Sin, As an abstract concept, Has a real and lasting impact on society, And therefore it exists whether or not God is real. ---"it was 100% backed upped by professionals from The Atheist Experience in RD3"I actually tried to watch this video, But the link is broken. Please reupload the link and I will watch.
Are arranged marriages stronger than those based on love

Not all love marriages have happy endings. Sometimes discord arises even in love marriages. In the west girls who are fat find it difficult to find suitable dates. There is pressure on the women to conform to conventional male ideas of beauty where women have to be tall and slim with hourglass figures. These kinds of attitudes and perspectives have not only created the kinds of conditions but are also responsible for women suffering a lot of pain and rejection. arranged marriages offer more protection, security to the women. There is not much pressure on the women to look like models. Parents employ maturity and wise judgment when choosing suitable spouses for their children. Sometimes it helps to rely on another person's opinion and experience when selecting one's partner, especially when the people marrying are young and need guidance and advice in marrying a suitable person.
Are arranged marriages stronger than those based on love

You should think that if this problems will arise between sweethearts they will fight it because i said that "love is a psychical process which smooths the touching points between them" so even if they will have many many intersecting points which dissect their relationship i think that they will find an exit from that labyrinth while the arranged pair will not do this just because they are arranged. Even if occasions like this,like any will exist between sweethearts they will surpass them while the arranged pairs will stuck stupidly on it and will not be able to go straight ahead just because they are not ready. You say love fades but i think that was not love but just a passion. Real "lovers" really don't think about contradictions they may change substantially for their love... The arranged marriages have their abilities limited they are just like surrogates making children just friends while lovers show their feelings their love and their children seeing it will also be normal people marrying not at someone for whom their parented pointed or whom they think will give them enough money but for someone who will love him or her. The real feelings are the real marriage and real population growing naturally. And as last example i should add you a fact of science, lovers are the heterozygotes in many cases meaning that their children will be stronger and having less probability of having a genetic disease, love is a miracle which helps build stable and healthy family so the marriage based on love is also truthfully the only thing which can defend humanity from developing genetic polymorphisms
Are arranged marriages stronger than those based on love

good arguments :) , but u mentioned about religious conflicts in their way of thinking. u gave an example that lets say one of them is christian and another one is strict atheist. alright, don't u think such occasions can be between sweethearts ? don't u think a Muslim guy falls in love with buddhist girl and marry her? and afterwards they broke up because of religious contradictions. today arranged marriages are common throughout the world including central asia. u know, the love fades away after marriage and only the marriage remains.
Are arranged marriages stronger than those based on love

For a first time, for arranged marriages there are many opportunities but there also may be many problems including that there may be many varieties in mental thoughts, social incompatibilities. For example one of them maybe a Christian but another is strict atheist and their opinions about one point like religion may not touch. But points like this are surrounding us from everywhere and find a person which can take the conformation which he or she will like is very very hard. The only decision is love, a psychical process which maintains smoothness between people so that that places of touch in opinions are not making conflicts. Conflicts which are uncontrollable and the marriage may end even when not started normally are made between the people which dont know each other well . But in the marriages based on love this problems are evaded just because this marriages provide the basic information about partner and in result they will be prepared for some problems. So marriages based on love are stable and provide a good family to population which includes in it basically normally grown children which will know how to build a good family later
Are arranged marriages stronger than those based on love

I think that arranged marriages are worse variant for everyone because family which is built by this way will be just a drama or a something like a theatre with everything going with order but this order is just the mask of madness showing insaneness of the process just because this family will have no variety in life. Every day of their marriage will look like a small circle which ends fast after riding it up and also life will become uninteresting and the pair will meet many difficulties
pc is objectively better than almost all consoles

That is true, but, consoles you build from scrach, like a PC, You can put as much ram as ou can and whatever it is called for the frame rate (not a technician.) and you can even possibly get more games, but you have to pay. although you can sometimes put the disk into computers, the coumputer would mess up the controls. However, if you build a console from scratch, It would be way harder than building a PC. There are meore benifits. You don't get ads on the TV or whatever you use for the console. You can chat ingame with your freinds. And you can even seld freind requests and chat and such that way. Also, sorry about my grammar, I don't grammar right. the only way you can talk to people on PC is through discord, skype or something else. On console, you can just make a party (on PS4) and get your mic and chat that way. (idk what you do On XBOX)
Rap Battle

It's been a while since I unleashed the crocodile, Y'all gonna think I'm senile While I put this b"tch in my file Of those whom my raps put on trial "Ya lol? " B*tch, Take this L, Go crawl back into your shell, Because disaster this'll spell, After my rhymes send you to Hell This little dipsh*t's Dick twitch-ing at me, Little useless prick, I'll give you a penile fracture with one swift kick Little assfuck, You just got lightening-struck, 'Cause you rhymes suck, My d*ck? You're too pitiful to suck.