BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The egg came before the chicken.

But besides that, let us carry on with the debate. The egg that contains a chicken could be layed by 2 chicken-LIKE egg-laying creatures and, from gene mutations, those 2 creatures could then lay an egg that contains a (by today's standards) chicken. To have a chicken come first is quite preposterous, how did that chicken come to be, from and egg, which means that the only probable explanation would be that the egg came before the chicken.
The egg came before the chicken.

For this debate there will be a 5,000 character limit and will be solely on the fact of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Before we begin the debate I would like to clear up especially one thing, I believe the definition of 'the egg' would be the egg that a chicken will hatch from. If my opponent has a better idea for the definition of 'the egg' than he may offer that up in his Round 1 argument.
President Obama is a welfare state liberal not a socialist

Resolve: President Obama is a welfare state liberal not a socialist Clarification: This debate is not about support for or criticism of the President, just as the resolve states this debate is about whether or not President Obama fits the definition of welfare state liberal as opposed to Socialist. Pro will argue that President Obama is a Welfare State Liberal Con will argue that President Obama is a Socialist. Burden of proof will be shared. I will provide some definitions. Con is free to provide definitions within their arguments; the purpose of these definitions is to be clear as to what is meant by Socialism and Welfare State. Definitions: Socialism: : "A way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies" Socialist: ": a person who believes in socialism"(2) Welfare State: " concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization." (3) Liberalism: "Political and economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need to limit the powers of government."(4) Format Round 1: Acceptance and definitions Round 2: Opening arguments, no rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals and new arguments Round 4: Rebuttals and closing statements, No new arguments. (1): http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2): http://www.merriam-webster.com... (3): http://www.britannica.com.... (4): http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The Rosary does not have roots in the Bible.

first, to the words of the ptayer itself, along with some basis for Marian veneration. The Prayer (line by line) Where it is in the Bible? Explanation 1. Hail Mary, full of Grace Luke 1:28 (Hail, full of Grace) The Angel Gabriel greets Mary with very respectful greeting used for royalty. The text doesn"t say "Mary" after Hail but it is implied. Gabriel then proclaims Mary full of Grace (full of God"s own life and love) 2. The Lord is with you Luke 1:28 (The Lord is with you) This is word for word. The Angel Gabriel said that the Lord is with Mary; she is full of his Grace, his own life. 3. Blessed are you among women Luke 1:41 (Blessed are you among women) Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit; she is inspired by the 3rd person of the Blessed Trinity to proclaim that Mary is the most blessed among all women. 4. And blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus Luke 1:42 (and blessed is the fruit of your womb) Elizabeth still inspired by the Holy Spirit proclaims that the fruit of Mary"s womb, the developing Jesus, is blessed. The text doesn"t say "Jesus" after womb, but it is implied, the fruit of her womb is Jesus. 5. Holy Mary, Mother of God Luke 1:43 (And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?) Mary is full of God"s grace; this would make her holy. Mary is the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ who is the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity. Since Jesus is God this makes her the mother of God. She is the mother of the God-Man Jesus, not the mother of the Trinity. 6. Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death James 5:16 (Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects) St. James tells Christians to pray for one another. All the baptized are members of the body of of Christ (1Cor 12:12-14), therefore it is right to pray for other members of the body. James goes on to say that the prayers of the righteous have great power. What human (other then Jesus) is more righteous then the Blessed Mother. Though she is in heaven she still hears the prayers of her children on Earth and intercedes for them. http://netny.net... the rest of the Roasary is just the Our Father, which is from Jesus, and a prayer to God. the main focus during the Rosary is a reflection of jesus' life, the "mysteries" as they call them. that means the emphasis is on Jesus, with side on asking Mary to be there with you in your petition and focus on Jesus. It's like a regular prayer, on steroids.
The Rosary does not have roots in the Bible.

I will be arguing from the pro's point of view, that the Rosary (commonly used by Catholics in worship) is not Biblical. The first round will be used as understanding/clarification. Sources to claims will be needed at the end of each statement.I will have the burden of proof, and my opponent must refute my debate. The person who takes up Con is advised to do the following:Give Bible quotations. DO NOT preach or evangelize.Refute my statements.(ALL BIBLE QUOTATIONS MUST BE FROM THE KING JAMES BIBLE)Preferrably, my opponent is Catholic. Thank you.
The Rosary does not have roots in the Bible.

so i basically showed you how biblical the rosary was, when i would suppose you didn't even know it. the words are almost verbatim from the bible. i debunked your mindless repetition point, which was only later brought into the debate, but showing how it's only mindless if you make it mindless. otherwise, the argument you pose has not much basis. and not only even later do you bring up the rosary in other cultures point. first even if it originate elsewhere it doesnt mean it has no basis. the only thing borrowed is the beads, the rest is biblical and based on christianity. the catholic encyclopedia probably mentions them in other cultures, probably the same way legend has it that they got there.... they say apparitions occurred to the native folks, and they learned how to pray it before missionaries ever even got there. id really like to see the article that says otherwise. thatd mean it's not only biblical, it continues the tradition of being supernatural. if all you meant by it has "roots" in other religions in terms of the beads, that's not saying much, and you are the one who didnt try to limit the debate to that, so i came out of no where and showed you how literally true the statement is, that it has roots in the bible, even ifit's not waht you were expecting.
The Rosary does not have roots in the Bible.

Okay, firstly, quoting Bible scriptures used in the rosary does not count as 'debunking'. When I was referring to the rosary, I was referring to mindlessly repeating the scriptures whilst counting on the rosary beads. Rosary beads have been used for centuries in other religions as well as Catholicism. The Catholic Encyclopaedia stated that missionaries often arrived in foreign lands, only to be surprised that the local religions use the rosary. How, then, is using something other religions have also been using biblical? I believe I should have been clearer when posting this debate, as to what I meant by'Rosary'. I shall post my sources as to the rosary being in use by other religions after your next statement, as I am not able to currently. Back to you, Con! :)
The Rosary does not have roots in the Bible.

he preached against mindless repetition, it's then vain. when you pray the rosary, you are suppose to be focusing on Jesus' life, death, messages etc. and your heart is to be in that, and in the words that you say. sure, there's repetition, but it's not suppose to be mindless. does this sometiems happen with people who pray the rosary? yes, but it's not suppose to, and if you do it right, it doesn't happen. all i had to show is that the rosary has its roots in the bible. even the hail mary is almost verbatim based in the bible, with other concepts in the bible, and the rest is about Jesus and God, obviously biblical. and, i easily debunked your point that was derived from the bible, as well.
The Rosary does not have roots in the Bible.

Thank you for taking up this debate. :)I shall start my statement by providing a definition of the 'Rosary', as used by the Catholic Church:a. (in the Roman Catholic Church) a form of devotion in which five (or fifteen) decades of Hail Marys are repeated, each decade preceded by an Our Father and followed by a Glory Be.b. a string of beads for keeping count in a rosary or in the devotions of some other religionsSo, the Rosary is, to be put simply, prayers that are repeatedly uttered while counting, using a string of beads of 5 or 15 decades. (Please note, both the prayers and the string are known as a Rosary). Of course, we'd want to see what Jesus said on the subject of repeating prayers over and over again. In his time, many of the Pharisees and other high priests repeated the same thing over and over again. They spoke many words, however, they clearly didn't put much thought into the words they were saying. In Matthew 6:7, Jesus said: "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."Notice, the scripture says "use not vain repetitions". Isn't that exactly what the rosary promotes? How would you like it if your spouse said the same thing to you everyday, not even thinking about the words they spoke, merely uttering them based off memory? Would you be inclined to listen in the future? How, then, does reciting mindless prayers based off memory, over and over, draw you any closer to God?Back to you, Con! :)http://www.biblegateway.com...http://oxforddictionaries.com...http://oce.catholic.com...
God created the universe

Upon investigation, it turns out Wolf has a habit of starting debtes he refuses to participate in. Perhaps he's bitten off more than he can chew. The BoP obviously rests with my opponent but for the sake of adding flavour I'll make some poorly hashed-out argument steeped in brevity and we'll see what Pro does with it. God didn't create the universe because he didn't need to. It would have existed with or without his intervention. Given that an omniscient and omnipresent god would know that the universe would come into existence anyway, surely he wouldn't waste his time doing stuff like creating something which is already there, when he has more important things to do like killing millions of children every day and not curing AIDS, cancer, world starvation, the dozens of atrocious military conflicts currently being waged in places like the Middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe. Maybe he's too busy working on his new universe project right now. Anyway, that was just a bit of playing around, I haven't anything to demonstrate. Please provide an argument.
pascals wager is a fairy tale

Look, the next round is going to be the last round. so i must ask of you to provide an argument on why the logic that Pascal's Wager uses isn't right. If you can't provide that evidence, then i must ask you to either forfeit this argument or confess an act of trolling. Pascal's Wager tells you that your only chance of survival is believing in god. If you do so, you might go to heaven. if you don't, then you will absolutely, undeniably go to hell or perish from existence. So, according to logic, the safest way is to believe in god.
pascals wager is a fairy tale

Look, i can tell that you are way too stubborn to read a long paragraph, so i'll shorten it for you WITHOUT the explanation: If you believe, you might go to heaven. if you don't believe, you will absolutely rot in hell and/or perish from existence. Now, please, if you need evidence for this, it's in the last round, and you can also use logic to find out that Pascal's Wager is right. it is completely right, it uses logic to show that believing in god is the only chance of not meeting the worse destiny possible.
pascals wager is a fairy tale

Oh boy, your argument is not only ignorant, but it is also making a terrible comparison. Pascal's wager considers every option possible. See, if you don't believe in god, you will absolutely rot forever. There's no out of it, it's a fact that you will either perish from existence or rot in hell for eternity. If you DO believe, then you have a chance have a chance that you will live in heaven forever, or perish from existence, if god doesn't exist. So you're actually better off believing in god. Here's a better comparison: Let's say a mad dictator has sent soldiers to capture you and your family and torture all of you for as long as you live. Now, there's a really big trench, but the only way across is through a very, very loose wooden bridge. Now, he soldiers will arrive in about 3 minutes. You either get tortured by the soldiers, suicide by jumping in the trench, or try to walk the bridge and either fail or succeed. now, what's your best option? Obviously, you need to try to walk the bridge, since it's literally your only chance of not dieing or getting tortured. It's a small chance, but you should take it. it's the same thing with god. you need to believe, and that's your only chance of NOT being in pain or perishing forever.
pascals wager is a fairy tale

Yes I see that you're obviously going to lose, since you never provided a valid argument about what we are ACTUALLY arguing about. You only talked about how you should not or should wear a hat because of some bird poop. Pascal's wager shows by logic that believing in God is the safest way to take, and the only way you might ever survive and live on as a person. You did not understand this, I don't even kn ow if you actually read what I wrote. Oh well, I knew that you were never going to move from that one little bad comparison you made from the start. The voters will now decide who is in the right, and i have a feeling it's not you.
pascals wager is a fairy tale

Oh wow, You really can't provide a valid argument, can you? Getting some bird poop on your head is merely an inconvenience to us, we can take the risk. Hell is something that will torture us forever, it's horrible and we have to avoid it at all costs. Perishing from existence is also something to be avoided at all costs. So logic shows that believing in god is the only way that we might be saved by god if he exists. I need you to give a real argument instead of making terrible comparisons. I'm pretty sure that you only have 1 argument left, it better be a good one. Because if it's not, then you have failed to prove your point. just stop repeating the same thing about a hat and tell me, full-on, Why Pascal's Wager is, by definition, wrong/incorrect? Because it's logical, the safest path is believing in God.
do phones isolate kids from the out side world

I will start by refuting my opponent's arguments."as most kids today are on there phones . if you look at a phone to long or do it all the time study shows it can cause brain tumors .plus it doesn't have much positives to it . plus kids are Tex ting now with the phones to the person right next to them sometimes . now with the Internet these day there is cyber bulling ... cyber bulling is saying mean things on the Internet with the Internet the word can be spread easily because people could see it every where. for that I think phones isolate kids from the world"There. Most of it is either grammatically incorrect, not true, or does not even make sense. It has no relevance to isolating people from the world.Now my arguments. For clarification of this debate, I offer one definition.isolate. - (a person or place) to be or remain alone or apart from others. [1]It can be inferred that kids are people in infancy, childhood, or adolescence. So a reformed version of the resolution would be: Phones set kids apart from the outside world. How would one hand held device have the power to do that? It is not a cell phone that would stop a child from being able to go to whatever country or state he or she would like to go to. It is not a cell phone that stops people from spending time outside, in the "out side world". A cell phone clearly does not isolate kids from the outside world, nor as my opponent stated any arguments to support this.[There are only a few more characters remaining therefore I must cut my argument. I await my opponent's response][1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
do phones isolate kids from the out side world

as most kids today are on there phones . if you look at a phone to long or do it all the time study shows it can cause brain tumors .plus it doesn't have much positives to it . plus kids are Tex ting now with the phones to the person right next to them sometimes . now with the Internet these day there is cyber bulling ... cyber bulling is saying mean things on the Internet with the Internet the word can be spread easily because people could see it every where. for that I think phones isolate kids from the world
germ theory is a fraud (4)

My opponent sounds very confident and cocky, even at this very early stage in the proceedings. He believes that he has already won this debate before it has even started. But, alas, he has erred at the very first stumbling block. He has totally misinterpreted what Germ Theory is. lol Germ theory states that micro-organisms are the CAUSE of disease, AND that these micro-organisms come from EXTERIOR sources. Reference - http://www.mednat.org... This reference shows that germs are the RESULT of disease and are not the CAUSE. Thus, although germs may be present at the time of the disease that doesn't mean that they are the cause of the body's dysfunction. I will use the example of a house fire. If there are firemen present at a house fire, does that mean that the firemen caused the fire? Answer - No! The firemen are there to put the fire out. The same goes for germs. If there is a vitamin deficiency or body poisoning occurring, then the body will send some bacteria or virus to fix it. http://members.iimetro.com.au... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
germ theory is a fraud (4)

The concept that disease is caused by that germs is false. Antoine Bechamp discovered centuries ago, that - 'germs are the result of disease and were not the cause of it.' Just because germs are present when somebody is sick, doesn't necessarily mean that germs were the cause of the problem. The modern diet contains many foods which are unnatural for humans and can cause disease. These foods originated with the start of the agricultural revolution and have been with us ever since. These dangerous and allergic foods may include grains, refined sugars and dairy products. Leaky gut syndrome has been identified as the means that gut bacteria can enter the blood stream and cause disease. The common cold is a common symptom of food allergy. Many pesticides and fungicides can cause serious nervous system failure which may result in so called diseases like MS, Polio, Ebola, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, shingles and stroke. Note - Halogens replace iodine in the endocrine system which causes a dysfunction of the body's hormone system.(immune system)
Rap battle

Man, look at this garbage! Only three whack bars! Blood n' bones is ya home? pfft only in lab jars! Cuz you've just been sacrificed, this is the autopsy! Tissue samples are here for your own biopsy! If you are a monster then that makes me a legend killer! Vaporize you, movin' that white like a real drug dealer! Makin' kids safe at night from you, i'm a world leader! Con fell out like a pile of crap, tossin' his lyrics out of whack Time to throw a green party and send the garbage right back! Here's my signature: I can handle sittin' in a booth repentin' for the sake of my youth Being a seeker, street sweeper, Now can you handle the Truth?
Rap battle

Wisdom says you can't fight fire with fire, guess ya better take refuge! Psychology says an object makes products nicer, lets take this deeper! I won't burn you, but i will drown you with the raging waves of a deluge! I'm going to show your picture is an illusion because your not a reaper! Time is money and in this battle, your already past your expiration date! Don't flop or you'll get blown away like stepping on a mine in Vietnam! Your life is laid out before me, i'm sendin' you broken through hell's gate! I'm electrocuting and opening up Con like i'm wrecking apart a CD-ROM! If your the anti-Christ then i'm about to cut you piece by piece for a sacrifice! I don't use guns for weapons, i prefer to let that machete slice open a gap! I'll put you in your place in a hellhole of pain, an outer abyss n' a lost paradise! When i get up on rapper's, they too afraid to accept, bodies'll get bones snapped! There's no bars you can use for hope, so accept your fate and weep bitterly! At least you'll have the courage to get murked with what's left of your dignity!
Rap battle

Judges shall vote on the battle based on the following: 1) Bar length - In my opinion, every line should be the same length. Were each rappers too short or too long to your distaste? 2) Aggression - If you favor aggression, Was it aggressive? How aggressive? What was aggressive about either rapper's lyrics (ex. death threats, boasting, etc. ) 3) Originality - Were their verses original? What did you like? What was original about it? 4) Rhyme schemes - What kinds of rhymes did you like (ex. multis, slant, internal, etc. )? 5) Personals - What bars did you find devastating on each rapper's reputation or character? 6) Disses - What jokes (ex. yo momma jokes, appearance jokes, personality jokes, etc. ) did you like? 7) Rebuttals - Rebuttals are when a rapper addresses a bar, flips it, and disses you back. How effective were they? Why? 8) Imagery - How detailed is the imagery presented? What's unique? What did you like? What metaphors and similes as well as other literary devices stood out to you? 9) Word-play - What word puns did you find most clever? What did you like about them? 10) Complexity - How creative were their lyrics? What stood out to you? What ideas and/or thoughts did you find most appealing and entertaining?
Rap battle

Your a monkey on a skate board with stick up your a*s you only have the knowledge to repeat as a parrot has with a brain the size of a pea, and mother to lean on you got no real world experience you stupider than a head crab you go around with you little jaws and all do is a little snap I'm the zombie, resurrected from the dead I'm eatin' flesh to live and I carry the virus to kill the entire planet just one bite will spread and kill all the humans I will rule supreme and I'll rule real mean Your a man child, you cower in the corner as those bullies beat you up you can't fight back are you just peaceful? or pitifully weak? you couldn't even catch a Magikarp when it was level 3
Rap battle

I'm going to put 2500 ELO points that was rational madman He's always changing his identities like a psychotic bad plan He presents no signs of intelligence anywhere on the site He doesn't debate cuz like a mythical troll, he's not in sight Everytime i look at him, i see a retard with down syndrome With a brain like that, it's not possible to create his own clone I expected him to show me his lab coat, but he has no shirt on He made a video called "intellectual DDO" but never saw Boron Nothing's rational about this mad-man, his name's oxy-moron