BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
SLAYER is better than Behemoth.

SLAYER won the 2003 Metal Edge Readers' Choice Awards for "DVD of the year" with "War at the War Field." MTV stated, "their music was directly responsible for the rise of death metal" and ranked SLAYER as the "sixth greatest metal band of all time." Hanneman and King were among the top 10 in Guitar World's "100 greatest metal guitarists of all time" in 2004. Kerry and Jeff were also voted "Best Guitarist/Guitar Team" in Revolver's reader's poll. Dave Lombardo is a master percussionist and easily was also voted "Best Drummer" and the band entered the top five in the categories "Best Band Ever", "Best Live Band", "Album of the Year" (for Christ Illusion), and "Band of the Year". Dave has performed in several different styles of music such as, Grip Inc., Fant"mas, Philm, and Testament. Dave is among the top 5 drummers of all time in my opinion. Watching Dave perform is an amazing experience being that he makes his work look so easy. Dave's use of the double bass drum is and has always been a trademark of sorts for him and was labeled "the Godfather of double bass" by Drummerworld. This comes as an easy acheiment to Dave due to his percussion mastery and we can all count on him to deliver his 100% effort every single time he grabs the sticks!!! Tom Araya, lead vocalist, is surprisingly a special edition to SLAYER. Believe it or not, Tom is Catholic! Tom holds his Catholic beliefs high in his life and understands the misconceptions of SLAYER being a "Satanic" band. He does not involve his religious beliefs in his work with the band and knows how to execute his duty within SLAYER without religious biasness. He puts aside his religion for SLAYER and, the other members respect his religious position without question. This is an example of tolerant equality that everyone should pay attention to and learn from. Tom writes a lot of the lyrics we all know so well and, during the "Still Reining" DVD, Jeff states, "Tom just comes outta nowhere with some crazy lyrics." Any SLAYER fan can and will vouch for that and Tom's lyrics seem so ironic being that he's a devote Catholic. This mixture of ideas and backgrounds has proven an explosive reaction and SLAYER will go down in history as the one, and the only thrash metal SLAYER! Now, and finally, check out this video! This the best performance that SLAYER has ever delivered in my opinion!!! http://www.youtube.com... RAPTURE! ANGEL OF DEATH FLYING FREE!
SLAYER is better than Behemoth.

Behemoth have released 9 studio albums, and are due to release a 10th some time this year. That gives them a rough average of one album every two years versus Slayer's average output of one album every three years, which makes Behemoth slightly more prolific. Behemoth's 2009 album 'Evangelion' won Heavy Metal Album of the Year at the 2010 Polish Music awards and was number 2 in the 2009 Polish album charts. Behemoth play blackened death metal, which is a style that incorporates the lyrical content of black metal and the instrumentation and vocal style of death metal. Death metal is a very skill based style and, while I don't doubt that the members of Slayer are very talented, I would argue that simply by the very nature of the music they play, the members of Behemoth are more talented. As an attestation of Nergal's (the vocalist from Behemoth) talent, he was a judge on the Polish version of the television talent show 'The Voice', and the winner of that season was a member of his team.
SLAYER is better than Behemoth.

SLAYER has released 11 studio albums and, four of them are certified gold. Much to the surprise of us all, SLAYER has 5 Grammy nominations and winning 2 of them. That officially put SLAYER in the mainstream yet, they still and, always have always had very little public radio play. Kerry King, one of the two lead guitarist has his very own "Kerry King Signature" Marshall Amp head and he states, "that means a hell of a lot more to me than winning a Grammy".http://www.youtube.com... King and Jeff Hanneman both have signature guitars as well designed for the ultimate SLAYER experience! http://www.ultimate-guitar.com... http://www.youtube.com... Much more great SLAYER fact to be had in the coming rounds. http://www.youtube.com...
Abortion is wrong

Pro's question is irrelevant. The fetus killed is not a good or bad person. Innocence is not a virtue. Innocence means you have not had the chance or exposure to bad things. The fetus killed could just as likely be a bad person than a good person. I bet if Hitler's mother wanted to have an abortion you would have been all for it knowing the future. Now, if you are for not killing humans no matter what, that is another matter entirely. I do not see a fetus as a person. We don't know anything about it besides its heritage, maybe its gender, and nothing more. What makes a person important is that other people see it as important and have emotional ties to them. If the mother wants to have an abortion, they obviously do not care about the child and don't want it. Even if they had the baby, they would be forcing it on other people, forcing those others to care about the unwanted child. Yes, the baby can be adopted and then it is wanted, but, we have so many unwanted babies already and not enough people who want to adopt. It would be cruel to either the baby one has, or another orphan if you give it up for adoption because either the child you made took a home away from another orphan, or your child won't have a home and will just grow up in foster care. The reason abortion is important is that women need to have the right to their bodies. The woman is more important than the child in this situation because she has people who she is important to, where as the child does not. The woman has built a life for herself, while the child is just a bunch of cells at this point. Pregnancy greatly changes the woman's body and life. It is costly, can lead to many health complications, and keep a woman from taking an opportunity that would improve her life permanently, like a promotion, new job, internship, schooling, and many other opportunities. Some say that it is the woman's fault she got pregnant and that she was irresponsible and should deal with consequences. It is not always the case that the woman did not take the proper precautions. If she was raped, it could have been the fault of the rapist. Some women are just naturally very fertile. My friend's mother got pregnant twice while on birth control and while using a condom. Even if the woman was irresponsible, should we force her to suffer the possibly extremely detrimental consequences of being pregnant for one mistake?
Abortion is wrong

Please excuse the mistype in my second paragraph. Obviously, "should" should have been "should not". Also, please notice that my opponent did little to nothing in rebutting any of my science evidence. Further, it seemed as if she did not even read my philosophical case. Nonetheless, I will point out the flaws in what she said and then add to my case. It is not that a civilized society should not allow a woman her rights to her body, as my opponent makes my statement seem. If she would read a little more carefully, she would have seen that: "The killing of innocent, unborn humans is one of those choices that should not be allowed", not the unjustified restricting of rights. So it is the killing that should not be allowed. Though with science it can not be proven if we need to respect innocent human life, science will tell us that the unborn are humans. If the unborn were not human, an abortion would require no more justification than getting a tooth pulled. But since the unborn are human, an abortion requires so much justification that an abortion can never truly be justified. Since my opponent claims to recognize the inherent worth and dignity of every person, I need not go into that realm of the dignity of innocent human life. Next, the readers will notice that my opponent tweaked my clearly worded point. She claims that I said that the unborn are fully developed human beings and then rambles on for a while about that. Never once did I say that the unborn are fully developed human beings and, in fact, further evidence is found in that I give a paragraph explanation as to why development does not matter. I encourage my opponent to read my stuff a little more closely. Her final paragraph has little weight to what my point is. A pregnancy may be as inconvenient as hell, but it does not justify the killing of an innocent human being. In her next response, I hope my opponent provides some science evidence that supports her claim that the unborn are not human. I also hope that she rereads my second round and actually respond to my philosophical argument rather that skip it as she has done.
Gulf war II was just

Well you can just extend all my points across as none were addressed. "5. In order to remove US presence in the middle east and decrease tensions, Gulf II is fought to remove the cause of the military presence. Specifically the US fought Gulf II to get our forces out of the region." No evidence of this first off, and secondly, this makes no logical sense. We all knew that we would have to maintain a presence in the Middle East for a long time if we were to start the Iraq War. Anyways, we won't have to have a presence in 5 years or so when the oil runs dry, and we'll be stuck in Iraq for longer than that. There was no legitimate reason to invade Iraq, and because of that, the invasion was unjust.
Gulf war II was just

Ultimately, I think this debate will degenerate to whether or not it is just to fight for resources. But to where we are now, these are the events as I see them: 1. US defines a relationship with Saudi Arabia (SA). The provide oil, we provide protection. 2. Saddam threatens SA. Gulf war I is fought and Iraq is pushed out of Kuwait. 3. No fly zones are instituted and a permanent military presence is established in the middle east. 4. Al Queda wants US out of SA. The SA government kicks OBL out of SA. Al Queda attacks US. 5. In order to remove US presence in the middle east and decrease tensions, Gulf II is fought to remove the cause of the military presence. Specifically the US fought Gulf II to get our forces out of the region.
Gulf war II was just

Gulf War II: Current war in Iraq Just: being what is merited (Merriam-Webster) So the statement for PRO says that the current war in Iraq was merited, or necessary. I vehemently disagree! In Iraq, more people die each month on average than Americans in 9/11. The death of 40000+ per year is not merited. We came in and took out the stabilizing force in Iraq, whether that was our objective or not, we screwed Iraq over, and that is not just, good, or merited. Opponent's case: "Gulf war II was a continuation of our policy to maintain strategic assets. In this case it was oil in SA." You know oil costs a whole lot more now than it did before. Anyways, oil being a SA does not justify the Iraq war, as it assumes that that policy was just in the first place. Finally, the policy itself may be just, but the means of doing so weren't, as the ends did not justify them.
Gulf war II was just

"Your entire argument boils down to: The Iraqi people should not have self determination. I disagree." No it doesn't, I am saying that we set off a powder keg of ethnic conflict that only needed a spark to set it off. The result was very predictable, and we should not have done an action that we knew would cause this bad end. The PROs of invading Iraq are far outweighed by the CONs. Also, "I disagree" is not an adequate rebuttal to my arguments, so you just dropped them, so we can just extend them all across. I rest my case.
Gulf war II was just

"Your first sentence is inconsistent with your argument of ends justifying the means. Whether or not it worked, does not logically determine whether or not it was just." An ineffective policy achieves a bad end, and that is bad whether the ends justify the means or not,a bad end is always bad. It's not inconsistent. "Again, you can make that figure 20 million and it will still not be because of Allied forces." It's the fault of our government, we took away the stability, and created a situation that was the perfect storm for chaos, if we had not invaded, this would not have happened. If someone invaded the US, took out our government, and failed to restore order, all chaos would be the fault of the invaders. "Again this is their freedom to self rule. It is their choice to kill each other. It is not the Allied forces killing millions or forcing people to move out of Shiite or Sunni zones." It didn't happen until we came in and took out the stabilizing force that prevented civil war, we removed the dam holding back the conflict.
Gulf war II was just

Most of your points were previously addressed. "First, an ineffective policy is not just, so you fail on that point, second, you already dropped this point, third 1 million deaths is not "very [little] loss of life" as you put it. I see it worked "brilliantly though" I mean, it's only like the third longest war we've ever been in. I don't think you win this point." Your first sentence is inconsistent with your argument of ends justifying the means. Whether or not it worked, does not logically determine whether or not it was just. Again, you can make that figure 20 million and it will still not be because of Allied forces. "It was pretty obvious that that would happen, I mean it has only been going on for over 1000 years. It was gross negligence to invade the powder keg we call Iraq. That's not justice." Again this is their freedom to self rule. It is their choice to kill each other. It is not the Allied forces killing millions or forcing people to move out of Shiite or Sunni zones.
Gulf war II was just

"I am not arguing whether or not the policy is effective. I am arguing that it was just. The means you are referring to is war. War is the use of force to achieve political objectives. It worked brilliantly and with very [little] loss of life to both allied forces and the people of Iraq." First, an ineffective policy is not just, so you fail on that point, second, you already dropped this point, third 1 million deaths is not "very [little] loss of life" as you put it. I see it worked "brilliantly though" I mean, it's only like the third longest war we've ever been in. I don't think you win this point. "We did not 'know' we would have to be there for an extended period of time. It was anticipated that there wouldn't be sectarian violence. Thus the small force that was sent and the lack of planning after." It was pretty obvious that that would happen, I mean it has only been going on for over 1000 years. It was gross negligence to invade the powder keg we call Iraq. That's not justice. "The reason is as I posted above. Securing resources is the ultimate reason and the risk to those resources were Saddam. Saddam forced a US military presence on Saudi soil. This led to the chain of events that led to Al Queda attacking the two towers. Air and naval bases were established in the region after the first gulf war and the imposition of no fly zones." It is not a legitimate reason, see the (dropped) arguments I made in R2. Finally, extend all my R2 arguments across, they were dropped.
Gulf war II was just

"I vehemently disagree! In Iraq, more people die each month on average than Americans in 9/11. The death of 40000+ per year is not merited. We came in and took out the stabilizing force in Iraq, whether that was our objective or not, we screwed Iraq over, and that is not just, good, or merited." The deaths you mention are the result of sectarian violence, not the war. It is not Americans that are dividing up the country and creating security problems, it is the people of Iraq. "You know oil costs a whole lot more now than it did before. Anyways, oil being a SA does not justify the Iraq war, as it assumes that that policy was just in the first place. Finally, the policy itself may be just, but the means of doing so weren't, as the ends did not justify them." I am not arguing whether or not the policy is effective. I am arguing that it was just. The means you are referring to is war. War is the use of force to achieve political objectives. It worked brilliantly and with very loss of life to both allied forces and the people of Iraq. "No evidence of this first off, and secondly, this makes no logical sense. We all knew that we would have to maintain a presence in the Middle East for a long time if we were to start the Iraq War. Anyways, we won't have to have a presence in 5 years or so when the oil runs dry, and we'll be stuck in Iraq for longer than that. There was no legitimate reason to invade Iraq, and because of that, the invasion was unjust." We did not 'know' we would have to be there for an extended period of time. It was anticipated that there wouldn't be sectarian violence. Thus the small force that was sent and the lack of planning after. The reason is as I posted above. Securing resources is the ultimate reason and the risk to those resources were Saddam. Saddam forced a US military presence on Saudi soil. This led to the chain of events that led to Al Queda attacking the two towers. Air and naval bases were established in the region after the first gulf war and the imposition of no fly zones.
Abortion of any form should be illegal. Change my mind.

I don't have to change your mind it isn't any of your business, And a fetus is nOT a human being it basically is a parasite, Answer me this if you hopped in a time machine and went back to 1850s America abortion was legal everywhere lots of people performed them and it wasnt even a moral issue. . If that society more based on bible virtue than todays society had no problem with it why do you, Its was basically areaction to the womens sufferage movment and was created to keep women in their place
Creationism vs big-bang/evolution Pro for bb/e Con for creation

First off: I extend all arguments. Second off: you are very rude for saying because yoh are bored you refuse to contribute to the argument. Finally on with the rest. Wow ok. You want to know why we do not believe in an omnipotent sky daddy? Because we do not want to believe in a 2000 year old book that has not been updated AT ALL. Only translations have been made. Were is your burden of proof? Because I have looked all over your arguments and found none. To further on: I have told you numerous times that a scientific THEORY is something that is testable, that is observable. We do not believe in God because he is not testable, not observable and therefor voilates the definition of theory. You cant even call relegions THEORIES because they do not even meet that standard. You continue to ask: "If we evolved without god then how can we decide right from wrong?" I want to cuss at you badly but for the sake of manners you are lucky. To answer this: We know right from wrong by survival instincts. We do what is generally beneficial to society and that is considered "Right." We do what generally bad for society like killing someone as "Bad." If it is beneficial to you alone then that is considered good in oppinion. If it is bad for you and you alone it is generally considered bad in oppinion. Thats how. I could go on all say about this phsycology feild but I have more to day about your God. Your religious creation story relies heavily if not entirely on the existence of a God. Prove god is not logical = creation story obsolete. This is a test argument and I want to see how this baby works: Argument A001: topic : God. P1:God is considered omnipotent and is all powerful. P2:God makes another god more powerful than himself and cannot get rid of him voilating the definition of omnipotent. C1:God can not exist and is not omnipotent. Omnibenevolent God is not plausible: P1: Gods judgements are said to be Omnibenevolent: P2: An all powerfull and uncorrupted god would rid of evil on sight. C2: God does not do this and therefor is not "Omnibenevolent.". A god that can know all is not plausible: P1: God is said to know the future past and present. P2:God is said to have given us free will. C3: God knows all our decisions and actions and therefor free will is nonexistent. Complete conclusion: God is not logical, God does not exist, God is not omnibenevolent, God is not omnipotent, God can not know all. End of argument A001: topic : God. Hopefully this works out. End of argument.
Creationism vs big-bang/evolution Pro for bb/e Con for creation

I am getting really bored of this argument so I am going to say you have won. It is pointless to debate this since there is no way that you will change my views and I don't think that I can change yours. Until there is further proof of the big bang and evolution they will remain theories to me. They probably happened but we don't know. I agree with you that the big bang and evolution are likely to have happened but I think that if they did happen it was because God made them happen. Throughout the entire argument you have not given any good reasons for why the big bang happened or how life started. You have given me reasons but they don't seem any more realistic than God Why would you rather believe in these theories that have been invented by men less than 200 years ago than in a God that millions of people have worshiped for thousands of years? I used to be an atheist in elementary school but then I realized that atheism offers absolutely no benefits. Even if god isn't real Christianity gives people a moral code to follow and hope for an eternal life. Oh and speaking of the moral code, if we evolved from animals and there is no god, how do we know right from wrong? I admit it your theories are just as likely as mine. It all comes down to what you would rather believe. Maybe someday we will have the answers but until then no one can know for sure whether or not there was a god that created the earth until they die. Thank You for debating with me :) I hope that someday you will see that God love's you.