BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mavericks will beat spurs and they will advance to the next round in the playoffs

I negate the resolution, "Mavericks will beat spurs and they will advance to the next round in the playoffs." Simply, it is impossible to affirm a resolution that speaks absolutely about the future. There is a possibility that all of the Mavericks players will be the target of a terrorist attack tonight and die. Thus, the Spurs would advance to the next round due to forfeit. Therefore, my opponent cannot possibly affirm the resolution. Furthermore, the resolution is now negated. Besides, the Spurs have also had a great season and are a good team as well. Dirk Nowitzki may be the best free throw shooter, but that does not mean much if the Spurs do not foul him. Dirk cannot make shots from everywhere on the court. Tim Duncan is also tall, and he can also do a lot of things. The resolution is negated.
Mavericks will beat spurs and they will advance to the next round in the playoffs

Because they had a great season and, they have a good team many players are good like: nowitzki, Shawn Marion, john terry, Erick dampier, butler and many more. Dirk nowitzki is the second best free throw shooter and he can make shots from everywhere from the court and it doesn't matter if he is tall because he can do a lot of things
should social media be good to have

Social media has many pros and cons to it but I believe that there are more cons. Let me go over a few of the cons. First, people who use social media tend to have lower grades in school. This is not good. Because social media can be addicting, people can spend more time on social media than they should. Studies have shown that the average GPA of social media users is 3.06, while the GPA average of non social media users is 3.82. This is a significant difference. Another reason social media is not a good thing is because some people who use social media can have personality and brain disorders. This is a serious problem. people can have narcissistic personality disorder because of social media. Another reason social media is not a good thing is because criminals use it to commit crimes. They can recruit members to a gang using social media. In fact 78 percent of crimes committed were used through social media. Another reason social media is not good is because it leads to stress offline. A study showed that people who use social media are more likely to have problems with relationships later in life. The final reason social media is not a good thing is because it enable cheating on school assignments. There were several stories of people using social media to send pictures of test questions to each other to cheat on the test. In conclusion, social media is not a good thing. It creates too many problems and too many risks.
Nonsense debate

"LUIGI: But what if green pig wasn't kill? I believe do what for turtle theory in terms for the alligator clock. Rubber bands potentially flail food like markers. Blue ink caught the coyote go do soon you do do no know for I'm sprucetree master." To phone I might eat keep throw that! But what do now arbitrary snake? Over caress the apartment of French flush! The locust bullies wears truth definitive in. Blossom ceremonial, east bait! Well, game for dominance. But cotton wise, a grand consumer! "ROADRUNNER: Shrek is for not yet the cause of computers cooling paper. What if microwaves were hauled by clouds, or how would be eating it? Picture of rat meets the evergreen criteria by zombifying my ears. But or not yet so assumption roof permeates pirates." Gems? GEMS? Enzymes with gems in crumply thumb? Don't blacklist compute her credence cunning. Your paralysis is heartsick. "Iron Buccaneers made of both Earths: Sorry, the letter eight couldn't catch a cold on Saturday night. Nope frogs taught eat plastic worms which hate cardinals. Blue jays are the yellow fries of Mars don't that opera." Blend behavior fold! Blush in boardhouse alarming detaches drops devastation don't conceive. Concept; felony; adopt. But my blissfully purposely the creation feelings. Dual finger drama grinder is that don't shadow. A guild chills pastoral damage. A herald paradox made of energy room decontaminates schemes that. I rest my pharaoh.
Nonsense debate

I must post a rebuttal involving iguana mantises that eat mice. LUIGI: But what if green pig wasn't kill? I believe do what for turtle theory in terms for the alligator clock. Rubber bands potentially flail food like markers. Blue ink caught the coyote go do soon you do do no know for I'm spruce tree master. ROADRUNNER: Shrek is for not yet the cause of computers cooling paper. What if microwaves were hauled by clouds, or how would be eating it? Picture of rat meets the evergreen criteria by zombifying my ears. But or not yet so assumption roof permeates pirates. Iron Buccaneers made of both Earths: Sorry, the letter eight couldn't catch a cold on Saturday night. Nope frogs taught eat plastic worms which hate cardinals. Blue jays are the yellow fries of Mars don't that opera. Good luck to my Doritos opponent.
Nonsense debate

I will argue for black mittens sheep carts flippers. I strongly tread on this pound, because of the rollicking martialisms overexcited below. THEOLOGY 1: Syentic icteritous pupils are well-shambled as footfights. But what if veneficial stereotypes are actually seven? This, dear blackwasher, I think is the mechanisation that will keel my platypus' stretcher. This bean is commuting! Demonstrate that, mop stick! ARKANSAS 4.7953: Impractically, the serum of octad is mutated to be yearning. How, then, can my armadillo sand state under up for? What, what, is his delayment? He has deduced the ruby of the testament! Under what foxes is this transparent?! My official, as you will obstruct, dear flower, is much, MUCH more wailing. PEASANTRY 3.32 " 0: Repetition of the passage is a dear weather. This can be found by the wart of which was slided by Les Mis"rables at the Reincorporation. This radio shows that the telephone is investigation! I don't think that you'd flood me on this.
certainty beats second thought

might have felt certain is not certain.. certain is certain, not might have been... only the doubt full question certainty my response is this= Secound thought and doubt are different. Secound thought is usually felt after you do something. second thought = : a feeling of guilt, doubt, worry, etc., that you have after you have decided to do something or after something has happened http://www.merriam-webster.com... however it also can be used thisway second thought: noun: second thought a change of opinion or resolve reached after considering something again. Therefore you can feel certain about an action but later "second think" the decision that was made. Or you can doubt something you were going to do, consider new way to do it and then you feel certain again... this time permanently in a lot of cases.
certainty beats second thought

Observation: I will mainly be attacking the resolution itself. I am also advocating that both certainty and second thought play a role in your life and neither beats the other. In some situations one is needed in other situations the other isn't needed. They are equally important. It's kind of like driving vs walking, sure in some cases driving is more useful but in other cases it's not. You can't fit a car in a building but driving is just as important as walking in the sense that transportations faster and safer in some cases such as, traveling an area around midnight, or just simply going on the highways, logically you cant walk on a highway or street without getting hit by a car, thus you need a vehicle or the road. Definition Certainty: something that is certain : a fact about which there is no doubt firm conviction that something is the case. 1. I argue that certainty doesn't beat second thought simply because second thought comes after something that already happened. For example you may have felt CERTIAN that shooting that man to save a girl was the right thing to do but later you began to doubt the choice to do so. What I am saying is that since usually people have a SECOUND THOUGHT after committing an action a SECOUND THOUGHT naturally can occur after you act in CERTAINTY. Second thought is important after the incident as well because it helps you not make the same mistake again when you contemplate what you did wrong and CERTAINTY provides the confidence to try again or carry out the SECOUND THOUGHT the next time you are in that situation. 2. Some people consider second thoughts to simply be thinking before you make an action. For example you're hanging out with friends and you are about to have beer for the first time. You began to have SECOND THOUGHTs that are telling you things like how you were raised lets say as a Christian and it's wrong to do or how its unhealthy. You then contemplate what choice you will make and eventually you form CERTAINITY to execute the decided action. 3. Habits= a book known as "Habits why we do what we do in life and business," shows that habits emerge because the brain is constantly looking for ways to save effort. The brain try's to make almost any routine into a habit because habits allow our mines to ramp down more often. You see a habit doesn't require a second thoughts and very little brain activity however other activities do. For example solving math problems require second thinking, you can't rush to an answer you have to double check or in other words SECOUND GUESS your answer. Whenever you decide to go with friends its important to stop and SECOUND GUESS yourself to ensure you should go. Does the environment or party violate person morals?, will I be safe at the location? It's also important to SECOUND THINK before you go to school or to anywhere, do you have everything you need?, are you prepared for what you are essentially about to do?, did you pack your lunch? Conclusion: I believe certainty and second thought are important tools that each have different roles to play in different situations or events. Neither beats the other since both are a necessity.
Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine

You never rebutted my argument nor understood it. I never said Chronicles was inaccurate. Your lack of understanding is amazIng. I just said that since Chronicles was written much later, it was based on tradition that's all. Since you have me nothing else to rebut or counter argue, your argument is completely useless because we believe the exact same thing. And I believe that tradition has great value. So to conclude this, you never gave any more evidence and you just mistook my entire point I was trying to make. Believing in tradition in no way annuals the authority of scripture. Let me just suk it up for you, tradition is just scripture that was not written down if found to be accurate. Even John the Apostle claims this in John 21:25
Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine

There is so much wrong with your argument.Firstly, you claim the infallibility of the Bible, yet then say that Chronicles is not accurate. You attempt to explain that since the books are not written in the time of the actual events, that they are not accurate. However, by accepting the infallibility of the Bible, you agree that the Bible is accurate and is true. Your argument has a logical contradiction.In addition, the argument you present is that no scripture can be trusted. You state that what we consider to be scripture is actually false, as you have suggested that scripture becomes fallible once the date of its writing is not that of the rest of the book that it is in. This is incredibly fallacious, as you attempt to state that the Bible, which you claim is infallible, is inaccurate and not able to be taken.Never do you back up your point that the scripture should not be the sole source of our divine inspiration. It has been stated: "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."We know that the scripture is true. We have the ability to interpret scripture. We cannot for sure say who is correct and who isn't, but we do know one thing: that scripture is the source of divine information that we must use.
Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine

Yes indeed while the Bible is infallible, not everyone's interpretation is. This is proven true by seeing all the different Christian denominations around the world. With that being said, whose to say that the interpretations of scripture by men like Polycarp and Clement of Rome are not trustworthy? Besides, these men received their teachings from the apostles themselves. On another note, why then does Pail quote Greek philosophers? Or what about Jude who quotes from the Assumption of Moses and the Book of Enoch? Clearly there are also allusions to Apocryphal texts and other unknown documents throughout the scriptures. For example, "the saints will judge the world?" (1 Corinthians 6:2) Does this not reflect Wisdom 3:8 which states, "They shall judge nations, and rule over people, and their Lord shall reign for ever." (Wisdom of Solomon 3:8 DRA) And also, with that being stated, Paul told the Thessalonians to hold to all the traditions he had taught them. Traditions are oral teachings that were never written down. And just read Luke 1:1-4 which says, "FORASMUCH as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us; According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed." (Luke 1:1-4 DRA) So we see that Luke wrote his account only to let Theophilus know for certain what he had heard from tradition orally. Thus, we have a book of the Bible. Another interesting fact is that the books of Chronicles were not written until the time of the Jewish exile. Why was this so? It was so that the Jewish people could know for certain the teachings they heard orally (tradition). In fact, most of the books of the Bible were not written in the time that they took place. Chronicles is one example. The Gospel of John is another. Most people would agree that Jesus' ministry was somewhere between 30-33 A.D. However, the Gospel of John was not written until roughly 90 A.D. And it also was really unique compared to Matthew, Mark, and Luke which already existed. And in that same gospel, the story of the woman caught in adultery was said to be tradition that was later added. And yet we consider that to be scripture. And take for example Hezekiah finding more compiled proverbs of Solomon (Proverbs 25:1) And we consider those also to be scripture though they were found much later. There is to much to discuss so I will end my argument here for a start. There are many other proofs but I will end my argument here.
Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine

In Christianity, it is important that we learn directly from the source of God's divine doctrine: the bible. In this Christian debate, as is stated, we both believe that the bible is the divine source of knowledge; it has the stance of all that is good. We therefore have to rely on the bible as our source for all divine literature within Christianity. Since we believe that the Bible is the divine inspiration of God in word form, we must then derive any of God's teachings from this holy book.Within Christianity, this is a valid argument. As we know that the Bible is the true Word, we know that all Christian ideals must come from this summation of books. On that note, the Bible is open to interpretation and all have the right to derive all of their theology from the bible. In reading Scripture, we are able to tell how God wishes for us to act and to proceed in our lives. However, all traditions that are within Christianity are not mentioned in the Bible. It is due to this that the doctrine of sola scriptura is needed.All theologies must be completely derived from the bible. In this, the entire Truth is able to be made. through the rejection of ideals that are not mentioned in the Bible, we come closer to the actual tradition that the Bible wishes for us to have.In short, since the Bible is containing of all of God's true word, sola scriptura is the most reliable and correct doctrine in Christian theology.
Gay marriage

great thanks for responding I see a viable improvement the these arguments from the last debate keep up the improvement :) defending my arguments, and defending them too C1: procreation then please tell us more eon how it is not as I have proven from a Christian and from a legal stance it is. Also people who "run dry" don't know it till LATER. Also old people can still sometimes bring up children, the mom maybe not but if they truly wanted another kid they could artificially inseminate another woman. C2: institution Allowing more people to marry doesn't nessacarily weaken or make it stronger. will however refute the divorce claims: If marriage is a privilege then people in marriage ought to able to opt out. Also gays have a higher divorce rate. So correct the institution is not very sacred, but more divorces make more likely that divorce rates will rise if you allow gays to marry, therefore raising divorce rates. Gays have higher divorce rates: Moreover, a 2004 study of divorce rates for same-sex registered partnerships in Sweden from 1995 to 2002 indicates that, compared to opposite-sex married couples, male homosexual couples were 1.5 times more likely to divorce and female homosexual couples 3 times more likely. [1] Therefore letting gays marry would increase the amount of divorces raising the divorce rate and weakening the institution. When did I say marriage was ALWAYS between a man and a woman, in america that is correct any of my arguments said many different types of marriages have been used, adopted, and faded away. Modern 1600and beyond marriage has stayed the same until the goverment came along and took control of it. C6: marriage is not a right If you read about the case it was about race. All races have the right to sexuality, one may not discriminate based on color. Nothing about sexuality . I know that churches can say yes but the problem is they can say no. The point is they can say no and most religions say no. The slippery slope argument: Time to site examples: australia: Joseph Guiso, 20, married his 5-year-old golden Labrador Retriever named "Honey" in an elaborate wedding ceremony at a park in Toowoomba. [2] It does lead to a slippery slope. Also the bible: Those who contend that the Bible never negatively treats polygamy are wrong. Consider the warning given to prospective and actual kings of Israel: [3] "16: But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold" (Deut. 17). [3] The bible is against polygamy. I believe ay arguments still stand and I have defeated my opponent up to now. So I will end as I seen no reason to ush on. ==conclusion== I have fulfilled my BOP, as for my opponent maybe not. I have refuted my opponents arguments and proved my case. Voters vote pro. sources: http://www.robgagnon.net... [1] http://www.ktla.com... [2] http://www.bibletruths.net... [3]
Gay marriage

First off marriage is not about procreation. One does not need to be married and procreation is not a requirement of marriage. If it were elderly couples and infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Now I suppose you could make the argument that procreation was at one time an unspoken rule of marriage but that time has long past. Secondly, I reject your claim that allowing gays to marry would weaken the institution. It only stands to reason that allowing more people to marry would only strengthen it. Also if you really wanted to protect marriage I would think outlawing divorce would take precidene over banning gay-marriage. As you typed over half of all STRAIGT marriages end in divorce now; it really doesn't seem like the institution is that sacred anymore Next, you say marriage has always been between a man and a woman; this is false. In ancient Rome, gay relationships were accepted and gay marriage was allowed. Point four, the supreme court has already ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is in fact a right. Here is the courts ruling "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." Now I need to make a point you, like me, confuse civil marriage with the religious ceromony. The religious ceromony is optional the marriage license is not. You are correct in saying that the Catholic Church, and indeed all churches, have the right to say no, not only to gays, but to all people for any reason once so ever. They are offerded this right via the first amendment. But, that also means they get to say yes. Their are sects of Christianity such as the Episcopalian church and sects of Judaism such as the Conservative sect which routinely perform gay marriages. Yet, these marriages are not federally recognized. So, because some churches want to and can say no other churches can't say yes? Lastly, your argument about comparing gay marriage and bestiality is a total fallacy. When an animal can agree and sign a legal document maybe then you would have a point. As for polygamy, Throughout the bible, which you site, marriage between a man and many women. It certainly doesn't have a problem with polygamy. End of first argument.
Gay marriage

Final post so I will make this quick. 1. ) The definition of marriage in the world and in this country has changed often. Grown men used to be able to marry thirteen-year old girls and interracial marriage was illegal. If we can change that we can change the part about procreation which if we are being honest no longer has any real barring in marriage. People do not get married just to have kids and they do not have to be married to have kids, I have already stated this. 2. ) How will allowing gays get married make the problem worse? More people getting married invariably means, more people will stay married. That helps the institution. But, as I have already stated you can not deny a specific group rights simply because you feel the will mess it up. 3. ) I concede this to you. 4. ) I disagree with this definition just like you, however, I disagree with it for different reasons. Marriage should be allowed for any adults, who knowingly and willingly, agree with everything that comes with it (I am referring to civil marriage). That is why, on principle, I must also agree that polygamy should be legal. Again, as I have stated, animals cannot give consent; they cannot sign a marriage license. Any argument arguing for the legal recognition for a person-animal marriage would surely be laughed out of court. 5. ) I posted the argument because, you were using religion and to show you how that causes problems. Also because, of my argument whether Hinduism, Judaism, etc are against polygamy is also irrelevant. 6. )