BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Canadian Music Battle

Its OK, I'll stick with three. Thanks anyway :) --------------------------------------------------------------- They teach us how to talk, they'll teach us how to walk They'll teach us how to dance just like this They'll teach us how to dress in nothin' but the best It's all about success Why do we fill our heads With these things that all make no sense We're no different from the rest We're all just tryin' to shake this mess And I don't wanna look inside myself cause Then I'll have to change somethin' else and I don't want to live, like someone else I'm Happy in my skin, bein' myself Let's dance Lets Dance--Hawk Nelson --------------------------------------------------- But I don't tend to worry 'bout the things that other people say And I'm learning that I wouldn't want it any other way Call me crazy but it really doesn't matter All that matters to me is she Life in a Nutshell--Barenaked Ladies --------------------------------------------------- From outside the open window How the faithful was gathered to sing As the tears swelled up inside me Still down in a mournful rain. And all sands of time stood still As the procession climbed the hill And off in the distance it's a mother run away The father turned to say Somebody shine a light, show me the way Take me through the night to the break of day. Won't you shine a light so I can see, Lift up these chains of darkness and set me free. Shine A Light--The Band ----------------------------------------------------
Canadian Music Battle

IMO, this music video is hilarious. If you have a few extra minutes, check it out. ---> ----------------------------------------------- http://www.youtube.com... The sky is blue, the grass is brown My head is buried inside this helmet The ever present threat of parasites So take my hand, let's get these motors running! So you drive red (you drive red) And I'll drive black (I'll drive black) (We'll see who's machine was recently serviced) We'll cut these rows of Goodyears like a knife We don't fear These machines "Hey, It's Your Funeral Mama" - Alexisonfire Source: Lyric booklet from the CD "Watch Out!" ----------------------------------------------- Cut up and bruised It's a long way home Snow storming and driving alone You shouldn't have kept this to yourself But there's no need to worry, you've got your health So it goes. So It Goes - The Black Lungs Source: Lyric booklet from the CD "Send Flowers" ----------------------------------------------- I awoke, only to find my lungs empty Through the night, so it seems I'm not breathing And now my dreams, are nothing like they were meant to be And I'm breaking down, I think I'm breaking down Sleeping Sickness - City And Colour Source: Lyric booklet from the CD "Bring Me Your Love" ----------------------------------------------- rougeagent, if you want you can post six songs instead of three since you missed R1
Canadian Music Battle

OK, my resolution: My choices of Canadian music quotes will be better than CON's. haha :P ----------------------------------------------- If there's a goal that everyone remembers, it was back in ol' 72 We all squeezed the stick and we all pulled the trigger And all I remember was sittin' beside you Fireworks - The Tragically Hip Source: I transcribed them myself by listening to the song ----------------------------------------------- Every living thing Pushed into the ring Fight it out to wow the crowd Guess you thought You could just watch No one's getting out Without stadium love Stadium Love - Metric Source: Lyric booklet from the CD "Fantasies" ----------------------------------------------- We are descendants of the free We are the soldiers of the Cause We shouted out the same decree To hold the truth above the law Those were the nights to remember, now they're the nights to forget We sang from May to December and we danced while the city slept The Resistance - Sam Roberts Source: Lyric booklet from the CD "Chemical City" ----------------------------------------------- Alright I'm done, I look forward to rougeagent's response.
Shikamaru can beat Naruto

Hahahaha Thanks for the Challenge "Naruto" is called Naruto because Naruto should be one of the strongest. Unlike Shikamaru "a sideline character" who can only use shadows Naruto has the Kyuubi, rasengan, rasenshuriken and shadow clones so I'm wasting my time arguing with you. Who's crazy enough to pick a fight with Naruto with Shikamaru.
The Doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus was an Addition to Christianity c. 80-100 C.E.

That's quite alright. You are permitted to give rebuttals of my original arguments from Rounds 2 and 3, but there can be no counter rebuttals of Round 4. On with the show.Let me pull this all together for the readers of voters of this debate. 1) Jesus never claimed to be God because:A. In the earliest Gospels, there are several verses where Jesus says He is not God.B. Jesus sins in the earliest Gospel, Mark, a very clear statement that He is not God. C. There is no claims at all to divinity in the Synoptic Gospels which are the earliest accounts of Jesus.D. John is a metaphorical, fabricated, and LATE account of Jesus' life filled with contradictions, inaccuracies, and unauthentic words of Jesus2) The earliest apostles did not claim divinity for Jesus because:A. Mark and the early Q Gospel that makes up much of Matthew and Luke did not claim divinity for Jesus.B. Pauline literature, including early creeds in Philippians and Corinthians tell of a non-divine Jesus, but instead a heavenly being, perhaps an angelic figure.C. The claimed Petrine epistles of 1 and 2 Peter that contain evidence of Jesus' divinity are not written by the illiterate and uneducated Peter, but instead by a later author around 90 AD. Gives more credibility to a late divine understanding of Jesus.3) The Divinity of Jesus is and was incompatible with Judaism in the first century or today because:A. The Divinity of Jesus is incompatible with the Shema creed of unity for JewsB. The verbal forms pertaining to God in both the Old Testament and much of the New Testament is singular.C. A virgin born Messiah is an impossibility. To be of the Davidic lineage, your father must be of the Davidic lineage. To not have a father is to not have Davidic lineage and negate your eligibility as Messiah4) The New Testament, primarily, does not proclaim the divinity of Jesus because:A. Matthew portrays Jesus as a physical man: the Messiah, who was not to be an incarnation of God, but a simple human being. Matthew also does not portray Jesus as God.B. Luke-Acts portrays Jesus as a human being exalted to be the "Son of God," which is a title of respect, not a claim to divinity.C. Mark portrays Jesus as the Son of Man, which was shown as a human being and differentiated from God.D. Hebrews also portrays Jesus as a created and exalted human being.E. Paul portrays Jesus as an angelic being, not God.Let me pull this all together into a simple statement to close:The earliest apostles and the accounts that we have of them do not show Jesus as divine nor record claims that He was. Instead, portrayal of His divinity as written in the Nicene Creed and John 1 was an evolved tradition from around the turn of the 2nd Century as seen in Petrine epistles and John's Gospels and epistles. I hope this was an interesting and healthy debate for my opponent and the voters. Peace be with you.
The Doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus was an Addition to Christianity c. 80-100 C.E.

Now that I have an opponent, let's get down to the details and rules for this debate. 1) DefinitionsThe "Divinity of Jesus" described from here on comes from John 1:1 and the Nicene Creed. When the term "divinity," "divine," etc. are used, this is what is being specifically described in a simplified vernacular.John 1:1"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."Nicene Creed on Christology:"one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;Any other position, be it adoptionism, docetism, etc. can be referred to as "proto-divinity" or "non-orthodox." Similar terms are perfectly acceptable as well."Orthodoxy" is not an acceptable academic term as it is the topic of the debate as to whether it IS original orthodoxy or not. Proto-Orthodoxy is an acceptable term.2) Pro PositionAs Pro, I will be arguing for these 5 points to back up the thesis of the debate title:A) Jesus never claimed divinity for HimselfB) The earliest apostles did not claim divinity for JesusC) Divinity is incompatible with Judaism in the first century or todayD) The New Testament, primarily, does not proclaim the divinity of JesusE) The Divinity of Jesus was gradually introduced to Christianity3) Con PositionAs the antithesis of Pro, Con will be arguing the opposite:A) Jesus claimed divinity for HimselfB) The earliest apostles claimed Jesus was divineC) Divinity is compatible with Judaism in the first century and todayD) The New Testament claims divinity for Jesus (This is not to say every New Testament work must have explicit Christological treatise, but it should be the primary view)E) The Divinity of Jesus has always, from its conception, been part of Christianity4) Rounds and their usage This is a 5-Round debate. Round one is acceptanceRound two is only argument pertaining to issues A and B in the section aboveRound three is only arguments pertaining to issues C and D in the section aboveRound four is exclusively rebuttals, no new argumentsRound five is concluding statements5) Ground rules and conducti) Usage of Jesus' name, and all pronouns pertaining to Him, should be capitalized as a sign of respect for the Christian traditionii) No personal attacks. Period. This includes discussion of one's salvation or eternal destination. Personal religious affiliation is a non-issue. Referring to each other as "Conservative" or "Liberal" as a descriptor is acceptable, but not as an insult.iii) All interactions should be in accord with the teachings of James 3Good luck to my opponent! I doubt we will have many issues here.
God Exists

Thank you for accepting. The Telelogical Argument: 1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design. 2. The universe resembles human artifacts. 3. Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design. 4. But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts. 5. Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.(CARM) The Kalam Cosmological Argument: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 2.1. An actual infinite cannot exist. 2.2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite. 2.3. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events. 3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.(Iron Chariots) The Ontological Argument: 1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined). 2. God exists as an idea in the mind. 3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. 4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist). 5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.) 6. Therefore, God exists.(Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) The Moral Argument: 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. 3. Therefore, God exists.(Patheos) Obviously, God must exist. http://carm.org... http://wiki.ironchariots.org... http://www.iep.utm.edu... http://www.patheos.com...
is there an alternative for prison

Though I understand where you are coming from, you have overlooked some of my claims. I would also like to say that it is not the government's job to provide jobs and this new system for prisons would reduce the cost of the military, thus benefiting the nation as a whole. Furthermore, I did not say to make them suffer for years and years. I said to kill the murderers and rapists because they took a life and should have theirs taken. I also believe that prison sentences should be shortened. Punish them, make them never want to commit a crime again, and release them after a couple of years. Prison would be more effective and would be more about the reform of prisoners than punishment. Prison would also be cheaper. Look at pictures of Andersonville. They built their own huts and everything. All the prison needed were armed guards and a method of feeding the prisoners two to three times a day. In addition, I noticed a contradiction. At first, you were calling them heartless criminals and now you are calling them people who can change. It is like your view of convicts changed within the course of a couple of days. Vote for me because my methods provide cheaper prisons, reduce expenditures, and reform prisoners at the same time.
is there an alternative for prison

So what you are saying is that you would rather give prisoners the right to a job before you would offer it to a citizen who has done no wrong? you would rather them be homeless and jobless all because you have a problem with them living a good life? And yes everyone can change. Your profile says you are a Christian. if you really are a Christian you would know that God knows everyone can change. I'm not saying that everyone who goes to jail will change but I am saying that some will. What if God were to watch you screw up time after time and he said "oh they don't deserve to live a good life. I'm going to take their home away from them and make them suffer for years and years."? if you don't want God doing that to you why do it to others? GIVE JOBS TO THE CIVILIAN NOT THE PRISONERS!
is there an alternative for prison

Refutal 1. Why would you want to raise the cost of the military by paying employees 2. Prisoners harming people with the weapons is unlikely because of the security of the military buildings would make it almost impossible to steal a gun. Furthermore, the ammo and guns are manufactured seperately. 3. Having prisoners put in a concentration camp does not mean that they die. It means that they have to do hard work in bad conditions. 4. Killing the murderers and rapists mean that the government no longer has to feed someone who does not deserve life. 5. You claim that someone who has killed can change. Fine, you pay for all the meals and supplies and care for the criminal for twenty to thirty years, because you do. You pay through taxes. Furthermore, if prison was really about reform instead of revenge, people would not be in prison for thirty years so that their life would basically be over when they get out of prison. I say make the prisoners work hard and care for themselves and make the prison terms dramatically shorter. Then: 1.The people would get a service from the prisoners. 2. It wuld cost far less 3. Prison would be about reforming prisoners instead of just keeping them in a cage until they are about to die. 4. deter people from comitting crimes(would you rather go to a prison with tv's in every cell or be put to hard long labor and be dramatically be limited on food?) How could you call me childish for not wanting to feed a murderer for twenty plus years?
is there an alternative for prison

why would you want a prisoner such as a murderer handling a military weapon when you could have a civilian do it? why would you give jobs to a prisoner when a civilian who is way more trust worthy and is in much more need of a job than the prisoner? having them put in a concentration camp is most certainly not the way to go when it comes to offenders of the law. and what would killing the murderer get you? What would that make you? A murderer? why would you stoop to that level of cruelty? That would make you just as convict-able as the guy/ girl you killed wouldn't it? What is killing them going to do? will it make you feel better when you sleep at night? every one deserves another chance. even someone who has killed someone can change. for all you know the person you just killed could have gone to prison and became a christian but now they wont ever have the chance because you wanted to be childish and kill them instead of putting them in jail.
is there an alternative for prison

Yes there is an alternative for prison. 1. I support an Andersonville style prison or at least one where people grow their own food, build their own shelters, and clean their own bathrooms. I believe that, if we do have prisons, there would be no indoor rooms. 2. I support bring back the noose, murderers should be killed. 3. I support labor camps like concentration camps...prisoners work on weapons for the military, grow food for the military, or do other hard tasks.(I am not saying kill the Jews with the concentration camp comparison). These are what I think should be done for the punishment of prisoners. I think it would be more effective if the state gave the non murdering or raping offenders the choice of these punishments. Murderers and rapists get option 2... no exceptions.
is there an alternative for prison

why should we give the heartless people in this world any other option but prison? Prison is the only way of ensuring that criminals are taken out of circulation. Alternatives to prison, by their very nature, are riskier. The offender is, after all, still 'on the street', and the public are still at risk of re offending the offender. also,Prison is an immediate, easily understood punishment. Following the sentence, the convicted criminal is immediately escorted out of the courtroom, placed in the prison van and to be taken behind the high walls of the prison. No other sentence is seen to have this immediacy. why would you want to risk the person escaping because action was taken right then and there.
It is unconstitutional to protest mosques being built anywhere in the U.S.

Thanks Con, for the quick response. I agree it would be unconstitutional to ban these people from protesting Mosques (it says so in the 1st amendment) however, the message these people are sending is an unconstitutional message. Its unconstitutional to discriminate against an individual religion just as its unconstitutional to say a protest can't take place. I don't understand where this goes from black and white to grey, but apparently a lot of people are seeing grey. The protests themelves are not unconstitutional, but the purpose they serve is very unconstitutional.
It is unconstitutional to protest mosques being built anywhere in the U.S.

I am not saying they don't have the right to build a mosque, all i am saying is that people have a right to protest. What would you say if police arrested protesters because they were were peaceably assembling to exercise their freedom of speech to say that they don't want the mosque built. The anti-mosque movement only becomes unconstitutional when the government prevents the mosque from being built. Also if the government take any action to support the mosque, more then what they normally would for a secular building, that to is unconstitutional. And that is what you are talking about, providing government aid to a religious group to shield them from public criticism.
It is unconstitutional to protest mosques being built anywhere in the U.S.

Thank, Con for the response. Did you skip the first part of that sentence buddy? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Interesting how many people apparently do, and this is exactly what I'm talking about, when I can it's "in conflict with very amendment we are discussing." You say your first admendment rights allow you to protest Mosques, however the SAME EXACT SENTENCE gives people the right to worship where ever they please. Are these Muslims somehow unprotected by the Bill of Rights? I think not. Either these people have the right to worship where they want to, or no one has any of the rights expressed in the first amendment.
It is unconstitutional to protest mosques being built anywhere in the U.S.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." do i need to say more? "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" Nowhere does it put limitations on what the speech can be.
It is unconstitutional to protest mosques being built anywhere in the U.S.

I 100% accept the fact that protesting something is supported by the 1st amendment of the U. S. constitution. (I will not provide a source, I'm sure you won't mind) However, protesting Mosques is in conflict with the very amendment we are discussing. This makes such protests an unconstitutional act (freedom of religion). We have no right to tell these people where they can worship, even if it bothers us. I'm not going to get in the ethics of terrorism and its relation to Islam ( even though I find it insulting that people are accusing American Muslims of being in league with terrorist organizations) but none of that even matters. The fact is, it is their right to pray however they wish, where they wish. It would be one thing if people protested the construction of ANY religious building, but that's not the case, they are targeting (unfairly) innocent Muslims wanting to pray in peace. I look forward to your arguments, and for this debate to heat up.
It is unconstitutional to protest mosques being built anywhere in the U.S.

do to spam the original debate was ruined. So i am challenging it's creator. i accept the definition provided in the original debate Unconstitutional-contrary to or failing to comply with a constitution [1] Mosque- a Muslim temple, or place of public worship [2] given that pros assertion is "it is unconstitutional to protest mosques being built anywhere in the United States" (again from the previous attempt http://www.debate.org... ) my position is that it is constitutional to protest the building of a mosque. the key word here is protest, which is clearly protected by the first amendment, as freedom of speech.