BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap battle

(I'd like to point out that your rap link is broken and when you click on it you get an error page, also my spacing still appears to be off as these are suppose to be 4 line bars.) Lannan13, United States Marine Corps, 'Bout to write into the Book of Lore, Going to end your life today, And serve your a$$ up on a silver tray. I find it funny to you come to issue a challenge, Cuz you're going down to zero, enjoy the plunge. On your knees cuz I'm the Pope, Then I'll cut you up like a line of coke. I'll shove my size 9 boat up your Guadalcannal,You're a chicken just like General Zhou, I'm the face of perfection, The real DDO Champion. Bow down and worship me, The real Rap God, Your rhymes and lyricical content is flawed, You better beware of my might.Imma win this fight. I'm the King of this Game. While I bask in the glory of the Hall of Fame. Get ready for your fall, Cuz it's Life Liberty, and Lannan13 for All.
God's name is Jehovah not Yahweh

The "J" in Jehovah is simply due to the standardization of the English language. In Latin it is "Iehovah" and in English it was first "Yehovah" but then became "Jehovah," but in all cases it's pronounced the same, much like Jehovah in Spanish is "Jehova" and is prounounced "Yeh-o-vah." To say the "J" is unwarranted is to say the name "Jesus" is also wrong as His name in Hebrew is "Yehoshua." In Greek Jesus is "Iesus" (ee-e-soos). So whether we spell Jehovah as "Yehovah," "Iehovah" or "Jehovah" it is still the same name and is still pronounced the same. Of course today we pronounce "J" differently but this does not change His name. But "Yahweh" is a totally different name (yah-weh) compared to "Jehovah" (Jeh-o-vah). "Yahweh" is disyllabic whereas "Jehovah" is trisyllabic. There is a story that says the vowels in "Jehovah" were added by the Masorets using "Elohim" and "Adonai." This is a myth without evidence. The conjecture is that the "e," "o" and "a" come from these two words; where is the "i?" Also, changing the name of God by adding vowels would be in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32 and Proverbs 30:6. True Bible believers have always known the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Moses, David and the prophets; it is Jehovah! "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth." (Psalm 83:18)
God's name is Jehovah not Yahweh

Greetings fellow brother in Christ. You say, "I believe that you are wrong because in the scriptures God is called Yahweh and Jehovah, the SAME God, is called by both names." Where in the scriptures is God called Yahweh? What scriptures? You say, "Yahweh means 'I am,' in the best translation that can be found for it." God's name has no meaning apart from that which can be attributed to it from the revelation of who He is in His written, preserved word. When God says to Moses, "I Am that I Am," the Hebrew word is not Yahweh but is "ehyeh asher ehyeh." I think what you are saying is that the God of the Bible who's name you suppose includes Yahweh is the "I Am." But I am contending that Yahweh is not God's name; His name is Jehovah. You say, "The meaning of Jehovah is 'The Lord who provides.'" This is not correct. Again, God's name has no meaning apart from what the scriptures reveal about Him; Jehovah has no Hebrew meaning itself. You are thinking of Jehovah-Jireh, which means "Jehovah sees" or "the LORD sees" which demonstrates His provision. But "Jireh" is what denotes provision, not the name "Jehovah" itself. You say, ". . .I believe that He is the same God of both of them." My argument is that God's name is Jehovah not Yahweh or anything else. So let me provide some facts to support my position. God has many descriptive titles such as Lord, God, Creator, Savior, etc., but He revealed His unique name in His word. The first name God gives in Genesis 1 is Elohim (God). The second name He gives in Genesis 2 is Jehovah. Whenever LORD is written (or GOD) in all caps, this denotes that in the Hebrew text, the name Jehovah is used. The Masoretes, from which we get the Masoretic text, had a tradition of saying "LORD" in place of God's name which they denoted in their text. The King James translators followed this except where His name was used explicitly such as Exodus 6:3. His name is written out where used with a transliterated conjugate such as in Genesis 22:14, Exodus 17:15, and Judges 6:24, as well as when it necessitates transliteration such as Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, and Isaiah 26:4. In total it can be found transliterated 7 times in the KJV. If we look at the Hebrew Masoretic text, we find that God's name is יְהֹוָה which when every consonant and vowel is transliterated (reading from right to left) is: Yod-Sheva-Heh-Holem-Vav-Kammatz-Heh; that is, Y-e-H-o-V-a-H. Following Hebrew grammar rules, Sheva is to be translated as "e," Holem is "o" and Kammatz is "a." There are no two ways about it, this is God's name. I challenge you to provide evidence, scriptural or otherwise, which says God's name is not Jehovah or that Yahweh is God's name. Yahweh cannot be the transliteration of יְהֹוָה; as Vav is "v" not "w," there is no true "w" in Hebrew. Also consider the vowels, even if you wanted to argue that Sheva could be "a," where is Holem ("o") in Yahweh? And where does the "e" in Yahweh come from? Kammatz (sometimes spelled Qamets) is always "a." Jehovah is the correct transliteration of יְהֹוָה not Yahweh. (http://www.kjv-asia.com...)(http://www.deanburgonsociety.org...)
God's name is Jehovah not Yahweh

Alright, so Yahweh is NOT Jehovah? Is that what you are really saying? First off, I am a creationist as well, I believe in the God of Jacob, and that Jesus Christ is Lord and died for my sins. That is my belief. I am a Christian, and I am strictly NON denominational. I believe that you are wrong because in the scriptures God is called Yahweh and Jehovah, the SAME God, is called by both names. I believe He is called many names because He is so many things. Yahweh means "I am", in the best translation that can be found for it. The meaning of Jehovah is "The Lord who provides". These are the best translations of these names, and I believe that He is the same God of both of them.
Islam is a cure to religion

My opponent has my some invalid statements. Islam is a religion and that is recognized by over 2 billion people. The definition or religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, Especially a personal God or gods. Since they believe that there is only one god and that Muhammad is the messenger of god. I completely disagree with their views but that has nothing to do with this debate. What they claim to believe fits under the description of a religion. I hope the voters will see the truth.
My 100th Debate: Assuming that the Earth is overpopulated, Mars should be colonized until 2200

PrefaceThis will be my 100th debate, and the resolution will be "Assuming that the Earth is overpopulated, Mars should be colonized until 2200." I am Pro in this debate, and my opponent Peepette will be Con. I hope for a exciting debate, and let's get started!!!Rules1. No forfeiting2. No trolling3. No kritiks4. No semantics5. No source spams (over 30 sources)6. Have good conduct7. All arguments have to be posted in the debate8. Sources can be posted in an external link9. No new arguments in the last round (defense and rebuttals of defense do not count as arguments, but rebuttals of normal arguments are counted as arugments, therefore not allowed)10. Not following these rules will give you an automatic lossDebate Structure1. Acceptance 2. Arugments3. Rebuttals4. Defense5. Rebuttals of Defense, SummaryDefinitonsMars: Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun and the second-smallest planet in the Solar System, after Mercury. Named after the Roman god of war, it is often referred to as the "Red Planet"[13][14] because the iron oxide prevalent on its surface gives it a reddish appearance.[15] Mars is a terrestrial planet with a thin atmosphere, having surface features reminiscent both of the impact craters of the Moon and the valleys, deserts, and polar ice caps of Earth.Note: As I believe that I have to show all the temperatures, I will do so here.MarsMean radius 3,389.5±0.2 km[a] [3]Equatorial radius 3,396.2±0.1 km[a] [3]0.533 EarthsPolar radius 3,376.2±0.1 km[a] [3]0.531 EarthsFlattening 0.00589±0.00015Surface area 144,798,500 km20.284 EarthsVolume 1.6318×1011 km3[4]0.151 EarthsMass 6.4171×1023 kg[5]0.107 EarthsMean density 3.9335±0.0004 g/cm³[4]Surface gravity 3.711 m/s²[4]0.376 gMoment of inertia factor 0.3662±0.0017[6]Escape velocity 5.027 km/sSidereal rotation period 1.025957 d24h 37m 22s[4]Equatorial rotation velocity 868.22 km/h (241.17 m/s)Axial tilt 25.19° to its orbital plane[7]North pole right ascension 21h 10m 44s317.68143°North pole declination 52.88650°Albedo 0.170 (geometric)[8]0.25 (Bond)[7]Surface temp. min mean maxKelvin 130 K 210 K[7] 308 KCelsius −143 °C[10] −63 °C 35 °C[11]Apparent magnitude +1.6 to −3.0[9]Angular diameter 3.5–25.1″[7]I believe this is enough for the definition of Mars, now let's go onto other definitonsColonized: to create a colony in or on (a place) : to take control of (an area) and send people to live there, or to move into and live in (a place) as a new type of plant or animal [2].Therefore, breaking down the resolution, it is that Mars, or the fourth planet from the sun should not be made so that people live there.I hope for a nice debate.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Democracy isn't the best form of government

Pro has made a number of criticisms regarding democracy, and suggested that Communism is a superior form of government. I have pointed out that Communist principles do not stand opposite Democratic ones, are not an alternative to Democratic procedures of government, and could be implemented alongside Democracy. Thus, Pro has not provided a true alternative to Democracy, making any criticism of Democracy meaningless. It is impossible to say something is bad without showing that there exists something which is better. Additionally, most of Con's criticisms center on particular implementations of Democracy, and do not show that fundamental tenets of Democracy are themselves flawed. His own suggestions for improving them still fall within the boundaries of what would be called a Democracy, hence his own vision of a good governmental structure supports the idea that Democracy is effective.
Democracy isn't the best form of government

I remind Pro again, that it is meaningless to say that one form of government is "bad" without showing either that some other form of government is better, or that having no government at all is preferable. His argument can be divided into the following points:The majority is not necessarily correct, and can cause harm to the minority.As Pro has not suggested some other superior form of government, we are left asking, "what is the alternative?" Does he propose a monarchy, where a lone figure can cause harm to the majority? You cannot simply list a negative of one option while neglecting to discuss other options to compare it to. All options have pros and cons, it is only in the comparison that one option can be called "bad" as a whole. Pro's choice of Communism as a superior form of government is irrelevant as I stated before, since communist ideals are about economy and social status, not governance, and are in fact entirely capable of being implemented alongside Democracy.Democracy in some countries has become "about money".Discussing the failings of a particular implementation of a concept does not disprove that concept as a whole. In fact, Pro himself states "this is not what democracy is about", thus distancing these implementations from the core ideal and further destroying his argument that these implementations show that the concept of democracy is bad. The topic of debate is not "U.S. government isn't the best form of government", it is "Democracy isn't the best form of government".Many countries use representative democracies instead of true democracies, and a representative cannot take every citizen's ideas into consideration and thus must default to the majority.As with my previous point, attacking specific implementations does not disprove the whole. Furthermore, I ask Pro: how would you go about taking into consideration the ideas of every citizen? As with before, Pro does not propose an alternative. It is easy to criticize one system when you neglect to say what would work better, and thus cannot be criticized in return. As it stands, all these arguments prove is that governance is hard.At the end, Pro suggests a system whereby a "good" democratic government could be formed. This does nothing to disprove Democracy as a concept. Quite the opposite in fact, if it is indeed a good implementation, that would prove that Democracy does/can work. Thus I see no need to address or refute his arguments there.In summary, Pro must propose an alternative to Democracy and show why it is superior before he can say Democracy is bad. He has not yet done so. Instead, his focus appears to primarily be on attacking the US implementation of Democracy, which does not disprove Democracy as a whole.
Democracy isn't the best form of government

I accept, I look forward to our debate!When claiming a system is bad, you most compare it to other systems that might take its role; it's meaningless to list the costs of Democracy without a point of comparison to determine how much of them might be saved by doing something else, and what other things are lost or gained in doing so.Communism is not something that stands opposite democracy. Communism proposes a system without classes and with common ownership of the means of production [1]. This is not a method of governance, but rather an economic system, and is better compared to concepts like capitalism. Democracy is simply a system of governance whereby decisions are made according to the wishes of the majority [2]. There is nothing stopping a country from adopting a democratic communist way of life.You cannot claim democracy is not the best form of government without either demonstrating a better alternative or advocating a lack of governance.[1]http://www.auburn.edu...[2]http://www.whatisdemocracy.net...;
Gun control does not reduce crime (USA only)

I thank my fellow Canadian to this debate, Argument 1: States with strict gun control generally have high homicide rates.Many people are under the impression that gun bans will reduce crime. However, it is exactly the opposite. A good example would be the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia also has the highest homicide rate in the nation (compared to other states) at a 13.9 per 100,000 homicide rate [1]. Also, keep in mind, that D.C also has one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.[2]. So, I believe it is safe to say that Gun control hasn't helped the U.S deter it's homicide rate. Let me take use the state of Vermont, a state that has much less restrictions on guns [3]. Its homicide rate in 2013, was 1.3 per 100,000 [1]. The gun laws of D.C The gun laws of Vermont As you can see, Vermont has nearly 0 restrictions on guns. Even allowing open carry. Yet, the homicide rate of Vermont is extremely low compared to D.C, which has restrictions on nearly everything.Argument 2 : Gun control only takes away guns from "legal owners"If strict gun control was enforced, it would likely produce millions more crime victims. That is because, legal owners would have no access to guns to protect themselves. With fewer people able to defend themselves, criminals would have an easier time getting away with crime, because most criminals will resort to the black market .Guns can be used for illegitimate purposes, but they can also be used for proper self defense. Studies found that approximately two million defensive gun uses occur each year[4]. In other studies it showed that between 800,000 and 2 million defensive gun uses are used per year[5], which show that guns save lives and protect against criminals. I'll provide my other arguments in the coming Here is a fun picture that demonstrates the results of gun control. [1] http://www.ucrdatatool.gov......[2] http://handgunlaw.us......[3] https://www.nraila.org...... [4]http://www.guncite.com...[5]http://www.guncite.com...
Gun control does not reduce crime (USA only)

I agree to terms. Gun Control: "Gun control generally refers to laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms." Firearms: "a rifle, pistol, or other portable gun" For me, what is particularly interesting about this debate, is the fact that I too am American, but have been living in Canada for years. Its strikingly odd to me the American obsession with guns. None-the-less, I acknowledge that this debate shall be in the US only, and hereby look forward to the views of my opponent. Its a strikingly odd claim to claim that it works everywhere else, but not in the US. Either way, this is going to be fun. I further want the audience to note sources here. Lots of bad evidence, I have no doubt, tend to be used in debates like this, so audience please be objective as much as possible. Good luck, and let's do this!
Gun control does not reduce crime (USA only)

Rebutalls R1: Correlation is not Causation I’m not sure what Pro is trying to say here. When I compared Hawaii and New Hampshire, I made sure that other variables such as poverty, income was very similar to each other so that when I compared both of the states. So In my opinion, me comparing the two states made sense. R2: Hawaii vs New Hampshire This comes to my other point. Since Hawaii’s homicide rate is higher than New Hampshire, it proves that gun control didn’t prevent overall crime from happening, because criminals resorted to other methods. Lets look at more in depth look at how many people were actually killed by guns in Hawaii. Out of the 24 murders that occurred in 2010, guns did only 7 of them. If I compare that to New Hampshire, it had a total of 13 murders in 2010, and 5 were committed by guns. So, yes if I look at it by %, You’re less likely to be killed by a gun, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you won’t be killed at all. Remember, I’m trying to prove that gun control did not reduce crime, not gun crime. I’d like my opponent to know that I didn’t try to nitpick a bad example, as Hawaii’s has to lowest homicide rate, among states with strict gun control. So I feel like this was a good comparison. R3: Psychopaths by Nature Lack Empathy/Fear Pro is saying that the right to self-defense should be revoked, because we have law enforcement to deal with the threat. My point wasn’t to say that we should get rid of police, but rather to take measures to reduce causalities as much as possible. If CCW owners were allowed to carry guns, there could have been a chance to reduce the causalities. To address the Fort Hood and Naval Yard shootings, my job was to prove that gun control did not reduce crime, and in these cases it didn’t. Pro however conceded that gun control failed in this case, and is insisting that had gun control gone further, there might have been a chance to stop the shooter. The problem with this argument is that Pro never specified how gun control could have gone further. In the Naval Yard shootings, Alexis was deemed mentally fit to wield a gun. If Pro is insisting that the gun seller or the employer should have done a better job, there is no way people could regulate that, because gun sellers who are assessing buyers are indeed human, and humans cannot be 100% perfect. R4: Lawlessness in Society, and Bad Gun Ownership So I said I would refute Pro’s argument so here it is. According to this source, High gun ownershi
Who will win this debate

Maybe i will win. You can't be sure of the future and with your only argument being that you will ask the voters to vote for you, you have a slim chance at victory. It is possible it will end in a tie (which it most likely will given the pointless circumstances of the debate topic) and neither of us will win or lose and where does that leave us? In the end the only things we can contribute to this debate are opinions and speculations so with that i will end my argument.
Free college is a terrible idea.

All points extended. This concludes my part of the debate. I now ask the voters, in the sense that I have debated with no worry of rebuttals and nothing to stand against my arguments except two forfeits, that you vote for me. I also open up my arms to my opponent in hopes that they will use the opportunity to post their arguments. I'm very interested in seeing how they were, or would prove that free college is a good idea. At this point I have nothing further to say.
Free college is a terrible idea.

I believe that free education is a gift to society and students everywhere. Sometimes when I look at my college debts, I think that "College education should be free." I do however think its a terrible idea to completely free all colleges because then not only would the economy suffer, every department would suffer because than they would not be able to provide enough money to hire teachers, teacher assistants, and students working with professors would not get funding for a research project. The class size today is roughly 400 - 600 students in a first year course (I. Biology, Chemistry, Psychology) but making education free would result in there being 1000+ students in each class and not enough teachers. The school suffers, students suffer, the economy suffers, and we end up with nothing.
What is God's intentions

Thank you for starting this debate. WHY GOD CREATED THE EARTH, Being made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27), human beings have the ability to know God and therefore love Him, worship Him, serve Him, and fellowship with Him. God did not create human beings because He needed them. As God, He needs nothing. In all eternity past, He felt no loneliness, so He was not looking for a "friend." He loves us, but this is not the same as needing us. If we had never existed, God would still be God—the unchanging One (Malachi 3:6). The I AM (Exodus 3:14) was never dissatisfied with His own eternal existence. When He made the universe, He did what pleased Himself, and since God is perfect, His action was perfect. "It was very good" (Genesis 1:31). Also, God did not create "peers" or beings equal to Himself. Logically, He could not do so. If God were to create another being of equal power, intelligence, and perfection, then He would cease to be the one true God for the simple reason that there would be two gods—and that would be an impossibility. "The LORD is God; besides him there is no other" (Deuteronomy 4:35). Anything that God creates must of necessity be lesser than He. The thing made can never be greater than, or as great as, the One who made it.
What is God's intentions

The Bible begins saying: In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth. and he saw this was good. But why? Why was it good?? Why did God create the Earth, why did he create people. Imagine your God, why would you make the heavens and the Earth? For something to.. do? Is mankind entertaining? Is that why he made a world... and he watches us all from above? For something to do instead of floating meaninglessly in a mass of darkness? He gave us free will, and now he watches us all, seeing how we live, how we act. Must be much better than TOTAL DARKNESS. There is so much more pain in the world than good. Explain why God wouldnt help us... he watches us... he can hear us. Why doesnt he show himself? Imagine being in God's shoes. This world must be something really fun to watch... watching what we do, how we live, must be extraordinary. See this from my point of view? Now debate, what are your thoughts? Is God really good? If he is... why the hell did he make us??