BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the bible is scientifically correct

1. Con said there is evidence of traits becoming more or less common over time.Meaning evolution is a fact. But traits changing within a species does not mean the species is becoming a new species.For example the human eye color blue is becoming less common but we're still human. There is no evidence of evolution(species changing to different species. 2. Con says carbon dating disproves the Bible. But catbon dating is unreliable.Scientists admit it is.. 3. Con says how could there be a evening and a mourning on the first day since God did not make the sun until the fourth day.The reason is because God was speaking about time and not about the sun. 4Con says the Bible says that the sun circles the Earth.This is incorrect,The Bible says that the sun crosses the sky,not that it circules the planet. 5Con cannot blame the bible for what the church and people has done.The church is led by people ,and all people sin.
The youth should be more involved in Politics, the Community, and World Order.

You definitely have the upper hand. Your side is much easier to debate. However, I'm going to take a more artistic side and argue that individuals, should be just that, individuals. Humanity has been conforming to the establishment since it was put in place. I'm not saying we shouldn't have order, because we should, but we should encourage thinking outside of the box opposed to submitting to the general population. I think one can still be a good citizen and contribute to society without being involved with politics, world order, or volunteer work (and I say volunteer work because I think being involved with the community is a given unless somebody is mentally antisocial). Define what you mean by being more involved with the community.
Near is truly the successor of L

'YES MISTER PRESIDENT. NEAR IS DEAD. I WILL SEND MY NEW APPRENTICE INSTEAD THEN. SEND HIM IN AIRFORCE WON NOW!' [1]'Near wet him slef then went unconscious. When he came back he was also wet and sticky from wetting himself.' [2]'Also I have shinigami eyes and ears so i can hear peeps thoughts." She locked at near. "You just thinked about making a laddie out of lego and sexing it.' [3]'"I will have to use stealth instead" said L and jumped in the broken window screaming.' [4]Near was clearly a pretty rubbish detective, unlike L who was awesome, therefore he cannot be L's successor.Sources:1. http://www.fanfiction.net...2. http://www.fanfiction.net...3. http://www.fanfiction.net...4. http://www.fanfiction.net...
Near is truly the successor of L

'L looked at the death note sayu had stolen from misa. There was some rules in the front but he figured how it worked anyway because he was a genius and worked it out.' [1]'"But you came here. That proves that you are kira!!!!" L decryed' [2]As is clearly evidenced, L was a master detective. Near, on the other hand, fell short.'Near was sad because he wanted to sex nomi but was too young and also noone licked him.' [3]'Mello gut a bazuka out of pants and pointed it at Dark who punched it out of the air so it went in the sky and hit a bird harmless. Then Mello threw a punch of grenades but forgot the pins so nothing happened except one hit Near and he got a bruse and cryed for an hour.' [4]'"AKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK" Near wheezed bleeding alover his silk PJs. "Why... di.....d .... y...o.u......kill.....me and not like kill L.......first?"' [4]'He got near out of his prison. "Where are you taking me?" he wet his pants saying. "TO THE SARCFIS ROOM" The sacrifis room was very pretty and had nice wallpaper but now it was all ruined with blood and pain and dead peoples hands on the walls. Night drawwed a pentagon on her self with a tattoo pen and it became a portal to the shinigami land. Dark drank some of Nears blood and spat it out cos it was gross and it hit a book and magiced it into a.......... ANTI LIFE NOTE! "Let's get this bad boy tryed out!" Dark roared. He gived it to Night who writed on it....... "Near!" Near died.' [4]In conclusion, L was a lot cooler than Near, and therefore Near was not truly his successor. In fact, according to this unofficial source I'm using, Near died before L, while L was still the best detective in the world. Thus, Near never succeeded L as a successor, because he was dead.This fanfiction is completely reliable in all ways.Sources:1. http://www.fanfiction.net...2. http://www.fanfiction.net...;3. http://www.fanfiction.net...4. http://www.fanfiction.net...
Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy

The growing use of security camera in today"s society has lead to several privacy issues being raised. Nowadays, security cameras are found everywhere. It has affected people"s life style one way or another. Security camera can evoke negative emotions in people, make them feel like they are being constantly watched and controlled. Although, they are meant to help protect people from crime, there several issues concerning privacy, Thus 23% of people living in the U.S , believed that security cameras violated their right to privacy. As we know, technology has the potential for bad along with the good, total ban of security camera in public places is not a realistic option in today"s society. However, with adequate regulations, some of the consequences can be reduced.
Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy

Up until last year I worked the evening shift and left work at times just after midnight. With all the crime we hear about on the news, most nights I could not help but hope that I make it home safe. Walking home in the middle of the night I would always feel a sense of relief staring straight into the camera placed in plain sight at the front of one of the apartment buildings. I always thought to myself, "If anything were to happen to me before I got home that night I am happy to know that at this particular time, this camera would show that I left work and was in route to my house". While I am aware that this camera would not prevent anyone from harming me those scary nights, it gave me a sense of security that if anything were to happen somehow authorities would have a better chance of figuring out what happened. Like me, many individuals do feel safe having public cameras around. In many instances where a crime is committed victims or family members of victims find closure or is grateful that the crime being committed was caught on tape which in turn could save many other individuals from the criminals. How many times have you heard anyone claim that their lives were ruined because they were caught on public camera shopping down the block or walking the dog in the middle of the night? Furthermore, we are not talking about unlawful or secretly placing cameras in private places but rather we are talking about public spaces were everyone knows and are aware that the camera exist.
Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy

It is one"s right to walk around public places without worrying that a security camera is recording you. On the subject that security camera deter crime ...well, the millions or so cameras in public places has not stopped crimes. Advocates for security camera argued that criminals are less likely to commit crimes if they know that they are being watched. Well not true, criminals will move to another area where there"s no camera to commit crimes. Ordinary, law abiding citizens are being filmed every second without their consent. People should not have their every move recorded when all they want to do, is go a mall or walk the street.
Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy

Security cameras in public spaces does not impede on the privacy of individuals. Besides, being in public already puts you on display for all to see. Hundreds of criminals have been caught as a result of a camera being placed in an elevator, at the street corner or even on university campus ground. This generation referred to as the social media generation, are constantly at the forth front of posting and sharing information for public display. Writer Sarah Leonard explains how individuals are constantly addicted to the sharing of information that she regards as being too private for display on social media. Shedding light upon the social media frenzy, Leonard stated, "While government lawyers have wracked their brains for justification to comb through our personal lives, the things we offer up voluntarily are more intimate still". Millions on new users are added to the face book family every week. Facebook and other social media has become the hub where every individual is a director of their reality series. A place where every activity is systematically reported, while others who want to remain informed can simply do so by the click of a mouse. Many no longer wait to be asked how the day went, but instead feel a constant need to divulge any information, even the information that qualify for the "no need to disclose" list. There is no doubt that every individual should be entitled to his or her own privacy, however, we should not allow our disapproval for public surveillance to overshadow efforts being made to maintain the security of the American people.
Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy

Security camera in public places are an invasion of privacy, feeling that your every move is being watched is not a good feeling. People should be free to travel or move a mall, street or a shop without being photograph or recorded. Being constantly watched is like being in jail and ordinary people are losing their freedom because of those security cameras. Another point to consider is, although law enforcement agencies claimed that only criminals should fear security cameras, one must keep in mind that some people have a fear of corrupt authorities who can use information obtain from security camera, in a twisted fashion to victimize others. Although, security cameras in high profile public places are a must, but the need to flood public places with cameras is not such a great idea, as it would cause more problems then it would solve.
Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy

There has been much debate as to whether public surveillance or the existence of cameras in public places is an invasion of privacy. A few have made reference to the fourth amendment and its protection against unreasonable searches as a key element to discourage such practice. Nevertheless a tsunami of public cameras has flooded out neighborhoods, primarily used as a means of enhanced security especially in areas where police officers are not able to be present. In a recent article posted on cbsnews.com titled "Surveillance cameras and the right to privacy", law enforcement officials assert that an increase in high-tech tools such as cameras was a big reason why violent crimes nationwide decreased in 2010. Citizens should demand their rights to privacy! This is a claim that, like me, many others concur. However should we sacrifice our need for safety and security simply to avoid being featured on public camera casually walking down the block?
Legalisation of Recreational Marijuana in New Zealand

The only problem is when you legalize marijuana you will begin to experience more drug induced accidents and deaths. Also, you will have to invest in regulating marijuana. If it is legal do you think the illegal manufacturers will just stop bringing in their supply? No, the will not just stop bringing in their supply. In fact they will lower their prices and the newly legitimate businesses will lowest their prices until marijuana is so cheap and accessible anyone regardless of age will be able to access it. That brings me to my next point. What will the legal age be to legally use marijuana? Maybe 18, maybe 21, or older, or younger? It will take awhile to get the age limit set. Also, unlike alcohol marijuana already has a large established illegal network everywhere. Right now minors can purchase it and when it is legalized it will be even easier for them to access the illegally imported supply. Overall, it will cause chaos, an increase in deaths, and a large headache. It is not necessarily impossible, in fact, it will happen at some point and that's okay. It is just important for the country to take their time and set up measures against the illegal supply before they legalize the drug.
Legalisation of Recreational Marijuana in New Zealand

Prisoners 12% Of people in prison in NZ alone are in prison because of drugs. This is costing the government millions of dollars per year. The government could have another 3 million dollars up their sleeve if these people were no longer in prison as their crime would no longer be illegal. Tax If Recreational Marijuana becomes legal then the government could earn a lot of money on tax. If Marijuana is highly taxed then all of the extra money that we earn from these taxes could go to important things such as education. And that would benefit everyone. Health effects Marijuana is not actually as addicting as alcohol and tobacco.and it also promotes brain cell productivity. overall it would make New Zealand a happier and more free country.
Cartoons promote future crimes

Umm.. I'm not going to make a lot of new points because you didn't write your new arguments. Well, first, like what I said a little kid will not kill a person by a cartoon. (I'm gonna be more specific.) Even some of my friends see a bit violent cartoons. But did they kill a person or do something bad? No.. They are like ordinary people. If you're not retarded, you won't do that. A lot of cartoons are made in Japan. But that doesn't mean that most of the crime is caused there. Right? Well also all the cartoons are not bad. Some cartoons contain educational things. For example, take a look at here. http://archive.middevonstar.co.uk... This news article says that cartoon warns a car crimes. Like breaking somebody's car window or something like that. This is the end. I hope you will be here for next round.
Cartoons promote future crimes

Hi, I finally accepted your challenge. Here are my reasons. Like you said a lot of people nowdays watch cartoons. And some of popular cartoons like Inuyasha contains some violent scenes. And a lot of kids those kinds of cartoons. But according to your opinion, there would be a lot of crimes going on. Then if that happens, the government will not allow or restrict cartoon rules. I think it's very unusual to cause crime by watching cartoons. Also, people who watches cartoons are mostly kids. Have you ever seen a little kid causing big problem by cartoon? Well, let's think that it's possible for kids to cause crime. Violent scenes are mostly in cartoon that are rated high like R. Don't you think a kid parent's will not allow kids to watch cartoon that are like R. Wouldn't they? So these are the reasons why I think this way.
The use of mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship is authorized by the Bible

I accept my opponent's conditions. Now, the one thing that my opponent failed to do is provide a definition of the term 'mechanical instrument', so I shall suggest one myself. I suggest that we use the exact same definition that was used in the link that he provided, which reads as follows: "Any material man-made contrivance from which music is produced, as an organ, harp, violin, piano or flute." Bearing this definition in mind, my argument is very simple. Psalm 150 reads as follows: "Praise the Lord! Praise God in his temple; praise him in his mighty heaven. Praise him for his strength; praise him for his greatness. Praise him with trumpet blasts; praise him with harps and lyres. Praise him with tambourines and dancing; praise him with stringed instruments and flutes. Praise him with with loud cymbals; praise him with crashing cymbals. Let everything that breathes praise the Lord. Praise the Lord!" As we are agreeing to accept the Bible as the sole standard of authority in this debate, I think that the above passage settles the matter rather unambiguously.
The use of mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship is authorized by the Bible

My honorable opponent believes., teaches, and practices the above proposition. I neither believe, teach, nor practice it. Hence the issue between us. It is evident that both of us cannot be right. If he is right, I am wrong; if I am right, he is wrong. Since somebody is wrong it is fitting and proper that we should come together and endeavor to find out who it is. The standard of Authority in this debate is, as the proposition states, the Bible. The burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of my opponent. It is his responsibility to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the Bible authorizes,sanctions, justifies, and legally warrants the use of such mechanical instrument in Christian worship. He must show by scriptural proof, clear reasoning, and logical deduction that the word of God undeniably substantiates the proposition which he affirms. The only responsibility devolving upon me is the refutation of the arguments which he makes by showing they do not prove the point under discussion. They might prove something else; they might be beautiful and interesting dissertations, but if they do not prove this one thing, viz., that the Bible teaches Christians to use instrumental music in the worship of God, they go for naught and the proposition falls. Of course if I should offer counter arguments, which I shall, the burden of proof shifts to my shoulders. But should I completely fail to establish the proof ofsuch counter arguments, my failure would not lessen the work cut out for him. He still would be obligated to prove beyond any possibility of a shadow of a doubt that the Bible authorizes the use of mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship.[1] Each round my opponent may ask up to 2 questions and i will try my best to answer it. The same goes for me, I will ask up to 2 questions and my opponent will try to answer it clearly and biblically. First round is acceptance and in this round my opponent will post his first affirmative Good luck to both of us. [1] http://www.trchurchofchrist.com...
The use of mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship is authorized by the Bible

But no matter. My opponent has not disputed my suggested definition of 'mechanical instruments' and I think that all the other terms in the resolution are sufficiently obvious not to require explicit definition. Now, my opponent starts by acknowledging that while playing instruments was authorised in the Old Testament, this tells us nothing about what God wants today. This is an interesting use of logic, especially given 1 Samuel 15:29, which says, "The Lord is the Eternal One of Israel. He does not lie or change his mind. He is not a human being, so he does change his mind. " If, according to the Bible, God does not change his mind, or lie, and if musical instruments were acceptable to him in the past, then they must still be acceptable to him now. But that is a relatively minor point. My opponent's central argument seems to be as follows: 1. God's law initially authorised the use of musical instruments. 2. The law was abolished as a result of Christ's death. (To use his exact words, 'to follow the law is to contradict Christ, who died to remove it. ') 3. We have no reason therefore to believe that the use of instruments is authorised now. Now this argument is incredibly weak. For a start, I do not accept 2, and I might articulate why I believe this to be false in future rounds. But notice that I don't have to, since 3 does not follow from 1 and 2 anyway. If it is the case that musical instruments are not authorised, then it therefore follows that they are against God's law. This follows by definition of what it means for something to be authorised. But if there is no law - if it is abolished and we no longer need to follow it, as my opponent claims, then it cannot not be permissible for Christians not to worship God with musical instruments. In short, claiming that musical instruments are not authorised necessarily implies a law which is explicitly not authorising the instruments. Since my opponent thinks that no law now exists, we therefore cannot accept the possibility that musical instruments are not authorised. I therefore claim that we have solid grounds to believe that musical instruments are authorised by the Bible. I showed this to be the case in my first argument, and my opponent has so far failed to produce a convincing argument to counter it.
The use of mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship is authorized by the Bible

My opponent said that i have failed to provide a definition of a term when he is the one who should be defining it(because he is the Pro). He has also failed to define the other terms in this debate. Now onto the debate. PSALM 150Does psalm 150 prove Instrumental music in christian worship? the Old Testament truly did authorize playing instruments as musical praise to God. But this tells us nothing about what God wants today. Today we(christians) follow the New Testament. Hebrews 7:12 - The law was changed. Hebrews 7:18 - The law was annulled. Hebrews 10:9,10 - The first covenant was taken away by Jesus, so He could establish the second covenant. Galatians 3:24,25 - The law was a tutor to bring us to Christ. We are no longer under that tutor. Galatians 4:21; 5:1-4 - Those who desire to be under the law are entangled in a yoke of bondage, Christ profits them nothing, they are severed from Christ and fallen from grace. Galatians 5:18 - We are not under the law. Galatians 2:4,5 - Those who believe we should follow the law are false brethren to whom we should not submit even for an hour. Romans 7:1-7 - We are dead to the law (v4), and discharged from the law (v6). To follow it today would be like a woman whose husband dies, then she remarries; but she still obeys the will of her dead husband instead of her living husband! Colossians 2:14,16 - Christ blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which were against us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross. No man should judge us on the basis of its commands. To follow the law is to contradict Christ, who died to remove it! If we seek to follow part of the law, then we are bound to keep the whole thing. Either all of it is binding, or none of it is binding. Consider some examples of Old Testament practices. On what Scriptural basis may we practice some. but leave off the others? 1) Seventh-day sabbath (including the death penalty)2) Animal sacrifices3) Levitical priesthood4) Circumcision5) Holy days6) *Roast lamb (in the Lord's supper? )7) *Incense8) *Infant membership9) *Dancing10) *Instrumental music(mechanical instruments) If you reject any of these practices for today, how can you accept instruments? If you accept instruments, how can you reject any of the others? If you accept any of it, you are bound to accept the rest, and then you are fallen from grace, etc. Note the items marked with an asterisk (*). No New Testament passage expressly says that any of these are not included today. Hence, if we can have instruments because they are nowhere specifically forbidden today, then we may also practice all these other items for the same reason. From this I scripturally conclude that psalm 150 DOES NOT ambiguosly prove that the use of mechanical instruments in christian worship is authorized in the Bible.