BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If God created everything then he created sin

I accept your challenge. So the question I am going to answer addresses something you never did in your original statement. The free will of humans. God created the Angels. Gabriel, Michael, Lucifer, and all the others. Aside from the corruption of Lucifer, the angels held a robotic and unquestioning loyalty to God. If God decreed it, the angels worshiped him as they carried out the order. Drones, without a will of their own. God created man because he wanted a creation that would love him freely, not like the drones (angels) he had created. He said to Adam and Eve that they may eat of any tree in the garden, even the tree of life, but if they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then they will die. So God essentially says that if they choose him, they live, if they choose the tree, they die. Now that sounds very horrible, yes. The fact of that matter is that apart from God, according to his texts, there can be no life, all will eventually die, or be separated in torment. Now the concept of sin or wrong doing was in God's mind, Sin was not made until Eve freely chose to take the fruit and eat. So that kind of spells out sin as a disobedience to the command of God. Now a problem I noticed in your post was when you mentioned the giving up of the virgin daughter. That was Lot when the angels were in his house. Job was the man who was tormented by Satan.
Bulbasaur is BETTER than Pikachu!

Alright, so I've done some research on bulbapedia, so I'm ready to conclude the anime role of Bulbasaur. Bulbasaur appears in over 350 episodes and is one of Ash's main Pok"mon. He is the star of 3 of the episodes in the first season, 2 in the second, and 2 in the third. Bulbasaur is also noted my bulbapedia as the most mature of Ash's group. The other Pok"mon look up to him as a leader/elder of some kind. I would also like to point out that the only reason he was called to Oak's lab was to resolve a dispute between the Grass and Water type Pok"mon. This may mean he comes back for more episodes, but I cannot say for certain.
Bulbasaur is BETTER than Pikachu!

I've finished my research and have some conclusions- Bulbasaur, when paired up with certain natures, has several IVs that make it really easy to get great stats, such as SP. ATK. He may not be a wall, but he can take some good hits from others. Bulbasaur also has moves that are high on PP and good hitters, such as Razor Leaf. He also has moves from the opposite side, the more status-oriented players use things like Poison and Sleep Powder. All these benefits show the competitive nature of Bulbasaur and it's evolutions. Also, Bulbasaur has a whole episode of the anime, and is a character in the whole first season.
Bulbasaur is BETTER than Pikachu!

Challenge accepted.Round 1 is for opening statements, so I'll just be saying what arguments my opponent should expect, which is: Design, Competetive Viability, and roles in the anime.[If you don't know what Bulbasaur or Pikachu is, Bulbasaur is the grass starter of Pokemon Red and Blue, the first generation of Pokemon. Pikachu's a starter in Pokemon Yellow, also gen 1.]
Bulbasaur is BETTER than Pikachu!

R1: Acceptance & Opening Statements R2: Rebuttals & Extra Statements/Sources R3: Final Rebuttals and Conclusions Good luck to you, sir! Bulbasaur is waay better than Pikachu. Firstly, Bulbasaur, (of the Kanto starters) is considered to be the "Hard Mode" of Pokemon. Pikachu is just a starter from one game. Sure, Pikachu may be the icon of Pokemon and the main character of the anime (practically), but Bulbasaurs have a much deeper meaning to their evolution and backgrounds.
Courtship is way better than dating!

To be clear, I agree that children can learn from their parents' mistakes. In order to do so, however, they need to experiment on their own. Otherwise, they'll remain subject to their parents' judgment. When I said you seem restricted, I was saying your depiction of Christianity seemed restricted, not your beliefs among topics. Calvinism makes sense for you due to your appreciation for Puritanism. That said, I hope you don't believe lust is totally depraved. Emotions are not intrinsically evil. They just exist. What's evil is when someone uses one's emotions to judge right from wrong. Everyone's emotions aren't the same, so that's not fair. Also, we don't choose our emotions. They're just naturally disposed upon us. Instead, we should think before we act. I hope your outlook on men improves as well. Every guy isn't the same. If you're worried about becoming heartbroken again, take it slow. You don't have to dive into promiscuity or intercourse right away. Another thing is to learn to use your words when expressing passion to your partner. That way, when you're frustrated, you don't overdo things. Foreplay is key to a happy love life anyway. Also, guarding your heart isn't something you build an impenetrable wall around. That leads to passive-aggressive, bipolar, black and white behavior. The point is to surround your heart with a fog, a blur. It's there, but its exact location is uncertain, and you relax in letting another find you while you find someone else. You take things slow, and eventually, your hearts gravitate towards one another. Sometimes, the slower you take things, the more you get to enjoy the details. Godspeed.
Courtship is way better than dating!

I appreciate your feedback. First, I agree that yes, its wise for parents to teach their children, but I still think it would be wise even more to heed to the parents counsel so that they may not make any same mistakes they're parents may have made before in their past. Nature is something can be talked about as well, I agree with that. But it would appear that your not seeing how children can actually look at what they're parents say and not do the things they did. That's common sense. Not exactly sure how you visualize my beliefs as restricted concerning this topic, but its not.. Its more of being aware and taking precaution. I'm not sure if your referring me to holding to catholic beliefs, because I reassure you that I do not. Calvinism and Puritanism is more of my beliefs (Reformed Christian. I do not know if your familiar with either of these. Again, love is not something you feel off of.. Its that the cause that's just as you said, "lust". Lust: Noun: Very strong sexual desire. Verb: Have a very strong sexual desire for someone. https://www.google.com... lust. So lust in basic terms literally means that you covet someone for selfish gratifications, pleasures and satisfaction from the other person. I'm sorry, but that is not love. That is being used. Sex is meant for marriage, not to be toyed around with for whenever you feel like it. Also, I appreciate the concern about my doings, but I m going to follow with the Biblical way. I see no point in dating when all that is going to happen is heart-breaks. And no, it does not matter what kind of guy it is, any guy will be a guy. They all bear some form a relation. So to say one i bad and the other is nice... they both bear the same in some form or fashion. With last thoughts of this topic, dating does not teach the person to guard and protect they're heart, whereas courtship does.. Dating does not usually revolve of leading to marriage whereas courtship does.. Thank you for taking the time to have this debate with me. Good job with your feedback too! God bless.
Courtship is way better than dating!

To be clear, I understand and sympathize with what you're saying (and you can see on my profile that I'm conservative). However, relationships are an experimental endeavor, and parents don't know everything about human nature. Yes, they should pass down the experience and knowledge they have to their children, but the fact is that personalities are more psychologically diverse than the mere two people who are our parents. What would hurt is children entering a relationship of uncertainty where they're unaware of their partner's satisfaction. It would also hurt for children to miss out on opportunities just because their parents are playing it safe with what they're familiar with. It's possible for better forms of chemistry to exist aside from what parents anticipate. Furthermore, grandchildren deserve the best possible scenario in their own household as well. To be clear, I'm not saying parents must butt out of the situation entirely either. If parents find someone who they believe is in their child's best interest, it's fine to make suggestions. It's also fine to associate suggestions with inherited estate. After all, parents want to make sure that their estate is preserved and honored. However, the relationship is ultimately their children's, so children have to make the decision to commit. Regarding intimacy, I'm not disagreeing with you there over libertine hedonism, but that doesn't mean society should dismiss intimacy in general. Love is partially about lust, and it would be a shame for someone to live in a relationship where lust isn't satisfied. Furthermore, when lust goes unsatisfied, it tempts partners to cheat. I'm not denying the value of marriage here, but there are plenty of intimate activities partners can do aside from intercourse if they insist on abstaining to avoid the risk of bearing children before they're ready. I'm not a Bible expert, but it sounds like your parents are a little overprotective. They should have immersed you in culture and assimilated you into society a little deeper. That way, you would be familiar with the rules of engagement and could become independent. That said, you're not alone. There are tons of parents today who have neglected their responsibilities in raising kids. Instead, they've simply dumped kids into rugged individualism, expecting them to totally learn from experience. I am not supporting that here. What I'm saying is experience is part of life, not all of it.
Courtship is way better than dating!

Thanks for your thoughts and inputs.. But I'd have to say parents know things better than children do. They see things clearer then youngsters do. And I think parents would know what's best for their children. I'm not saying that if the parents found someone that the child wouldn't have a choice to decide to marry the one they chose for him/her.. It's like this who better than your parents knows you best? Of course you may have friends, but they cannot know you for how your parents know you because your parents bore you not your friends.. And so what your telling me is if you have children you'd want them to be hurt from the "dating" relationship just so they can get experience? Are you kidding me? ... Emotions should come with marriage, not before marriage. The main goal of courtship is to study the other person ... And then lead to marriage.. But a person should be sure that they are courting to marriage otherwise there's really no point in courting at all cause then I'd be just like dating.. And also, fornication should be a definite no no for anyone who's in a relationship.. Anything relating to physical contact or sex was meant for marriage, but in today's society has abused sex and the other physical contact... It became a game basically.. And look what it's doing to all those people who thought they were in "love".. That's why emotions should be guarded and waited to be released until marriage.. And parents have every right to cling to their children.. They bore em for crying out loud.. Yes, the children need to grow up and be taught how to live and what not but their parents are there to teach them what marriage is supposed to look like especially of they're Christians.. Yes, parents have to let go when they finally get married and leave, but while they're still living at home it only makes it right for the parents to be involved with them regardless of how old you are.. Example, I'm 20 and still live at home with my family and am waiting to be married.. And will stay home until I am married.. If I don't marry then I stu and help my parents make a living.. In the Bible that's exactly how it was ... And I wanna live exactly how the Bible shows the way to live.. What do you think?
Courtship is way better than dating!

There's a couple problems with your argument. One, it assumes that parents know best which isn't necessarily the case. Heck, if previous parents were courted, then they're likely naive of the playing field out there. Furthermore, just because parents have a certain model partner in mind doesn't mean they know their children's chemistry or compatibility. Two, it disallows children from experiencing and learning things on their own which is part of growing up. Also, emotions are important, and if people aren't allowed to be experimentally intimate with one another, that can spell disaster after they're committed. Parents need to learn to let go, and if anything, they should be preparing their children so they can be let go. Courtship relieves parents from spending quality time, energy, and attention with their children in teaching them about human nature.
Courtship is way better than dating!

Thank you for deciding to take on my debate. I hope this is educational for you and others that may read our debate because you ask to explain the difference and what not. Courtship: is basically the dad helping the daughter find a husband and/or the guy who desires more than just a short term relationship speak to the father beforehand to get to know the girl he desires to me with. The dad should have say so regardless of which way the situation happens. But in the long run, the purpose of courtship is for the young man to pursue and get to know the girl with the accountability of her family and Friends very socially and physically (meaning to be around) involved at all times. This helps eliminate sexual temptations, holding hands, kissing and anything of physical contact between the two courting. Once the father sees fit for the two may give his blessing at any moment for the man to take his daughter into marriage. (Note: courtship usually only happens if it's truly Bible based). It does not say in the Bible that there has to be courtship, however there are many indications to show that it backs up courtship.) Dating: is basically the daughter choosing the guy she wants to go out with, have fun, be romanced, get emotionally attached, her promises made, affectionally too touchy towards each other, no accountability and chances are she may end up being used for sexual pleasures and then tossed away. This form of relationship usually just leaves you heart broken, emotionally broken and leaves you feeling empty and unwanted.. But it's a cycle with dating.. It's like having a boy you or a girl you relationship.. Play with each others hearts for a little while get what you want and then leave for another and back to another routine.. The fathers usually don't like the person as well as the mothers.. But unfortunately the children don't care what they're parents think and don't take advice and what happens? They get hurt ... So I stand with courtship and the beliefs in it as being Biblically right because the shows that the daughter never left home unless it was through marriage and that the fathers chose the husbands to marry their daughters. Dating is just overrated and basically a practice of divorce. It's really rare that dating couples marry. What do you think about this? Now that you see my view. :) (A lot of people don't agree with this though). If you don't like this and consider it wrong, please explain why. Thank you. Il wait for your response.
Courtship is way better than dating!

Hello. And thank you for taking this opportunity to discuss this topic with me. Rules: 1. Be polite 2. Be respectful 3. Be patient If you accept my debate, great! Looking forward to it. So to start off. I believe that God has ordained another way of relationships and that's the courting process. Which should lead to marriage, while dating is 95% a short term relationship that breaks off eventually. So I believe the courtship process is excellently better than dating!
Rap Battle 2

Actually i don't do that to my sisterBut i know you've been riding Bell like a twisterI bet dawson might want to join in toHe has enough for both of you to chewoh my god do i have to keep goingits about time you stopped blowingthose creepy guys from downtownyou do it so much you might drownSo why don't you go and think about thisSo then you can go back down your mamas abyss
A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter c

It all comes down to simply this. Education can still be taught equally without all the newest technology just as it was before the technology existed. For instance, how would a student from a "third world country" know three languages when an American student with all the technology can barely speak one? No one ever set in stone that technology is the only way to learn therefore while a standardized education may seem impossible, it is not. It is very possible to learn the same curriculum across a nation, even if it has to be taught with different tools.
A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter c

There are some underdeveloped nations where they are still in enigma to spend their money on their basic needs. In this situation how can we expect them to wax their money on education? In these conditions nation can not leave people as such with no knowledge in education. Only solution is developed countries can rise funds on those small countries. But this cannot happen pragmatically in all countries. So as of now these underdeveloped countries should examine their capacity and can just frame a curriculum till they strengthen their basic needs.
A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter c

All very good points but, if the above stated developing countries used the money from the non necessities, they would be more likely to come up closer to an international standard of education. We can expect schools from under developed states to compete with average schools because in all reality they will be doing so in their post-educational lives. We can expect them to do so because that is the point of this debate, a national standard.
A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter c

In a big nation like India we cannot expect every state with equal development. As development varies literacy also varies. We cannot expect much efficient schools in places like Bihar, Orissa, and etc where in places like Tamil Nadu we have plenty of schools, even now a days government schools are competing with the private schools and convent schools in all aspects. In this situation how can we expect schools from under developed states to compete with schools in developing states if same curriculum is followed all over the nation?. students will feel that the subjects are obfuscating and they abhor the subjects in small schools. so i conclude that a crew should be framed in a nation with a representative for all teachers from each states and should review the levels of schools, students, teachers and opportunities given in each school and then a curriculum should be framed so that the students are tractable with the subjects, schools and teachers.
A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter c

What good does it do to have all of a nation on one level when that level may not be up to par to compete on a global standard? The lowest literacy rate of a country can also be the highest failure. What this hypothetical nation needs to do IS standardize curriculum but it needs to hold its standards to the curriculum of the worlds top scoring nations instead of standardizing by different states, regions, or colonies. I would like to take a moment to thank the challenger for beginning a very pertinent debate.
A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter c

Streams available around us are plethoric so students at this contemporary world are interested in choosing any of those streams during there collage. Before entering the collage students should know answers from some following basic questions. the questions are what the stream is about? Do they like the subjects? Does this stream can offer the job they are dreaming about? Nation should teach basics of all the streams before entering their collage. But it cannot do for all the streams that are available because there are plenty of streams available to study. So the nation's higher educational curriculum should be pliable and should have plenty of options which should provide them basics for their further studies so that students will not be in a situation where they feel that they have't entered a stream they thought.
Abortion

First of all if it is wrong to kill anything with a heartbeat, as the article states, then is it murder when we kill vegetables that would still have a heartbeat and still be alive were we not to pull the plug? That is legal. Not to mention that Con never refuted my Roe vs Wade argument since abortion is really a legal issue, and the Supreme Court says that it is unconstitutional to outlaw abortion. As for the health risks, I have made it clear that pregnancy is a much more dangerous option psychologically and physically. As for "no unwanted children," I have also shown that while they are not "unwanted" necessarily, the number of children not adopted far outweighs the number that are, and there is no good reason we should add to that number. I am not going to even watch the video. Con has not provided any evidence that has not been refuted. She has refused to refute some of my arguments. Clearly Con has just kept asserting the same arguments over and over even when they has been refuted.
Harry Potter is Better Than Twilight!

Why is twilight better 1- the writing is better 2- the actors/actresses who film the movie are talented 3- bella is a role model (she teaches people to hold on to their friendships and stuff and keep their secrets) 4-it has a PLOT!! 5-the scenes in the movies are exciting 6- the effects are amazing 7-a story about a vampire,werewolf, and mortal beats a swinging wand boy and his enemy the beast 8- the actors and actresses are attached to their character and love them 9-the characters are not all good or all evil 10-the evil people are villians for a reason like the newborn army in eclipse who almost killed the whole city of seattle or the volturi (they are not evil evil they have some good in them) 11-the characters in twilight are nice and have a great personality and they are hot and cool too (they are lovable for that) 12-the cover of the books are drawn beautifully 13-the posters of the movie looks verrrry cool 14- creative and great ideas of the vampire form 15- you can make your own stories out of the chapters of twilight (you can make stories out of harry potter too but twilight turns out better than harry potter) 16- the phrase twi-hard is cool 17-the mashup name renesmee is so creative 18- Meyer made the werewolves and vampire unite even though they are enemies to each other 19-the book is an international bestseller and an award winning book too (chosen by book critiques) 20-there are lessons you can learn from twilight (the thing u can learn from harry potter is how to do a spell on your friend so he can help u) 21-the emotions are deep in twilight and is a wide imaginative world (unlike wand boy) 22- she replaces small simple words to long big words for people to be more educated not use simple words everyone can understand 23-twilight has a theme of a mystical and imaginative world 24- twilight is read by a massive audience 25-the fight scenes are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo amazing and you feel the fight by someway 26-the twilight quotes are really nice written and you feel the creativity in them 27-Meyer left clues for you to know the identity of each and every character