BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sola Scriptura

The Bible is written for us to understand what Christianity is all about, therefore, it is our guide. "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." - John 20:30-31 "I meditate on your precepts and consider your ways. I delight in your decrees; I will not neglect your word." - Psalm 119:15-16 "The Existence of Christian Doctrines that are not found in the Bible" God guided the Hebrews in making the Bible, they have the 66 books. Greeks added 7 on them, making it 73. Let us go back to Catholic theology, just one question: Why do you think they have 73 books, but before, they only have 66? Point 2: Satan "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, "I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.[b] I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit." - Isaiah 14:12-15 Let me point back for non Sola Scriptura Christian churches. One factor why I don't believe in non Sola Scriptura and "just rely on the church" doctrine is because, they tend to make non Biblical percepts. Some non Sola Sriptura churches tends to make their own doctrine, then, looking at the Bible for support. Sola Scriptura churches on the other hand, makes the Bible a basis for their doctrines. "Jesus and his disciples didn"t practice Sola Scripture." That is because they don't have the Bible yet. But, they do base on the Old Testament, and even Paul based on the Old Testament and on his books he write. All in all, were blessed to have the Bible, a guide. A reference we can have for our faith. Jesus is God, so He knows the teachings of our faith. Paul struggles since he does not have any basis yet, only the Old Testament and his books that we wrote. Question: If Sola Scriptura is non Biblical, why do non Sola Scriptura churches make non Biblical based doctrines? Isn't it were not allowed to add to His' words? (Proverbs 30:5-6)
god smells like a fart that never happend

I admit that god is a fart, but more important i admit that God is a fart that has happened. The fart happened 6,000 years ago at the start of the big bang, so everything is a fart. You are a fart, I am a fart, your mother is a fart. Everything is a fart. I pose a question to you, my witty opponent; how do you account for everything that is, if we are not the product of a giant fart? How do you explain hurricanes, sunsets, earthquakes, earth, sun, moon, stars, if it all arose by chance and not forced out through the anus of the almighty?
god smells like a fart that never happend

My opponent is incorrect in saying that God smells like a fart that never happen. It is indeed true that God in fact does smell like a fart that has happened. One only need to look outside to see the majesty and power of the flatulent bang that has happened 6,000 years ago, with the lingering scent, that refuses to dissipate. Everyone loves something about the Fart that always was, that can be clearly shown to be true through the olfactory senses.
NSA Domestic Surveillance

Con forfeits, meaning he drops my entire case. Extend my arguments. I will still take the time to rebut his points in the hopes that he will rejoin the debate. CON's CASE: Cons first point falls apart insofar as people know we are being listened to, but yet we're still buying phones and computers. They are conveniences we want badly enough that the risks of NSA eavesdropping aren't enough to stop us. Moreover, Con claims that there is a disadvantage to affirming--but yet he gives us no quantifiable impacts of the economic costs of keeping the NSA running. Without concrete numbers, we can't evaluate the impacts of Con's assertions under a cost-benefit framework. Con's second point is not warranted at all. He makes the claims but does not back them up. I would argue that the oversight mechanisms outlined in my case are sufficient checks upon surveillance. Also, Obamacare as literally nothing to do with a debate on the NSA. .. Thanks.
NSA Domestic Surveillance

Resolved: The benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweigh the harms. I negate this resolution for two main contentions. First, the NSA harms through an economic cost or social costs. Second, the US government doesn't play by its own rules. To start, the NSA harms the American people both economically and socially. Economically, the cost of data collection centers, such as the one in Nevada, comes out of the average man's taxes, raising them. With the taxes rising fewer people will trust the economy, which means, socially, they will not favor the government. To put that into perspective, if I don't like the idea of the NSA listening to my phone calls, I won't buy a phone, which puts the company out of business eventually. Socially, people will start to fear and mistrust the government, causing tension between the government and the people. Next, the government doesn't even play by its own rules. Take the top secret court for example. This court can only be accessed with a warrant. Well, at first the government did use these warrants, but after a while, they stopped and haven't used the REQUIRED warrants. What if they stop using search warrants on citizens and put cameras in our domestic areas, such as our homes. This is unconstitutional. But the government wouldn't stray as far as to admit that it is unconstitutional. Take Obamacare. Technically, this is an unconstitutional thing that the government has anyway. Therefore, the government does not play by its own rules. For these reasons, the con will win this debate.
Marvel is better than DC

Well, I'd like to start by pointing out is that I think Marvel is much more original on some key elements. One is names. I think DC overuses "man" in their names. Batman, Superman, Aquaman, Animal Man, Wonder Woman. Another element is characterization. I think Marvel characters are much more dynamic. Wolverine, for example. Most of the main DC superheroes (with the exception of Bruce Wayne, who I won't deny is a very dynamic character) are very everyday nice guys in general, they don't really change much. I think Marvel tends to focus only on the Superhero, and not the human behind the hero. Superman calls most of the shots. Marvel, however, focuses on the personal issues and conflicting ideologies that exist between the X-Men, Avengers, etc. The last point I'd like to make is I believe that Marvel has better backstories. A lot of the time, DC story-lines are centered around saving the world. Marvel focuses more on more darker, personal issues. Again, Wolverine serves as a good example. That concludes the reasons I believe Marvel is the better of the two.
Marvel is better than DC

Being a DC fan myself and figuring that this soon-to-be very short debate will be directed by personal opinions, I have to say that this debate will be different in an interesting way. Seeing that my opponent has dictated that he will offer his statement in affirmation of the resolution in round two, I shall follow suit and save this round for acceptance only. I will also refrain from directly refuting my opponent's arguments unless my statement naturally refutes that of my opponent's.Now then, tell me why you believe that Marvel is much better and more creative than DC. Do this and I will tell you why DC is where it's at.
Is Cinderella better Than Snow white? I think Cinderella is a better princess than Snow white

I think cinderella is better because she as had an hard life and got through everything even when her dad died she always tried to keep a smile which this shows her human carisma she is also nice to the cat Lucifer which he is mean to everyone and She is also nice to her step mother and step sister in cinderella 2 she will try to show that there is more to life than just being rich that's why her step sister Anastasia finds love thanks to cinderella
Is Cinderella better Than Snow white? I think Cinderella is a better princess than Snow white

"In its original release, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs grossed $3.5 million in the United States and Canada," [1] My opponent didn't state any information about how much cinderella did, and provided no evidence in general. All of his statements are opinions. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(1937_film)
This house will stop the fight with piracy

to my last speech, I would say that the debate went around the question- is it time to fight with piracy or not. My next question to you, is When you think it is the right time! when the developing countries will become developed too? that will not happen in an near future There have always been the gap between them, which means, that piracy always existed. It also existed because of people like you, who would rather wait and let things change themselves. In my case, the government should act, and as sooner they do so, as more likely for us to have the results. By depriving people from that information, we make them look for the way to afford it, we make them find the ways to get a job, earn money and contribute to the economy. This is how we see the development of a country- not by supplying them with easy accessed materials, but by making them strive for it, making them work for their development. As I stated, that information is not the one that pushes for the development. Everything that is needed is already given by the government. By using it efficiently, we won't need pirated products and therefore will be able to fight with it.
This house will stop the fight with piracy

Thanks again for your speech. Seems like you approve the fact that developing countries do develop through the piracy and piracy does makes the process faster. But at the same time you would prefer making money for an individual rather than look in a long term impact. Who is going to buy the product if it is not available for free? nowadays teenagers have not less than 1000 soundtracks in their players, and even if you charge 50 cents for each song, you still make teenagers to pay 500dollars for the music. Add to that prices on movies, software, books and you will see that it is something that students like us would not be able to afford. Therefore the answer is that I will not simply buy your product and you still will not have any money from me. But there will another consequence- i will not be able to develop. I will not be able to learn about Photoshop, will not know this or that particular writing and will not be able to use it to earn money and contribute to the economy. Now multiply this fact to millions of people that think the same way as I do and you will understand, that right now our nations are not ready to pay. And while they can't, it is better to let them pirate so they will have the ability to pay in future, in a long term run. We are not closing eyes on stealing, but postponing the process till the gap will decrease. Job losses and decrease in revenues is a price, but that price is not dependent from piracy- it depends on the ability of people to pay. Right now they do not have that ability and the piracy is a result of it. and as I said, while people are unable to afford goods, they will pirate and as more you willing to stop piracy, as more time you waste on a consequences, rather than spending it on eliminating the root problem.
This house will stop the fight with piracy

Going to rebut. Firs of all, depriving people from the information they don't have rights on is not immoral. There is information that is available for general public for free so to enable them to improve. There are school, libraries, universities and all other institutions that work exactly for the reason to improve the society toward development. The products that are being pirated are not the ones that are the most important for development. You are exaggerating the fact that without these products the country would not be able to develop. It would, slowly, but it would under other factors. Loosing jobs. How long shall we wait till the government will crack down on piracy? till all workers at the industries would be out of work? I believe that while Bollywood loosing its workers, developing countries had no essential improvement toward their well-being. Therefore, we are just wasting our time while trying to help developing countries through the use of pirated products. We agree that the gap decreases when people watch other lifestyles and get those software programs, but the costs of it for the industries, workers, composers and writers are too high that we can not allow the government to wait. And regarding the starting writers and musicians- while they are just starting, the promotion of free stuff is not as important for them as the ability to pay for their bills. You can promote Rihanna and Eminem, and get the audience for their concerts, but those people need money to organize those concerts.
This house will stop the fight with piracy

thank you for your speech. Now I would like to rebut your points and through them provide further development of my arguments. When you say that it is immoral to steal someone's work, you did not imply that it is also immoral to deprive people from information that they are hoping for. Of course, we agree that stealing is bad, but at the same time, we do not see an other option for the people who need to receive the information. Will foreign countries really care about the revenues they will get from poor people in developing countries, knowing that the revenue will be small an at the same time they will know that they are taking money from people who already have financial problems? Is it right to put a burden of having to pay for the material that they can't otherwise obtain. Here we are saying that if people are being made to pay now, they will never develop into a country, where citizens will be able to afford the products without piracy. Regarding your argument on loosing jobs- as I stated before, it is not the right time to fight on piracy, Once you let the gap decrease and let other countries to improve their economic well-being, you will have low piracy, as in US or China. Good to mention that those examples with success in fighting comes exactly from the developed countries, and you haven't provided any examples on successful fight in developing, because there was no success. To rebut your first argument, we can say that actually piracy serves as a promotion for the starting actresses and writers. You would not need commercials and other advertising. since once you put your work in internet, you will probably get to be known through exactly piracy. Without piracy, those starting artists would still not get any profit, since, as I mentioned, people are less willing to BUY something that they don't know about, Every person wants to hear the music first, taste it, and only after decide, whether to buy or not. In this situation. people would be less likely to buy the product, meaning that the loss of revenues is not caused by piracy.
This house will stop the fight with piracy

You rather wrote an arguments for the preposition side. Therefore, I will act as an opposition side and provide my arguments, why the fight with piracy should not be stopped. First of all, piracy, as you indicated, is stealing of someone else's work. as a government, it should not tolerate people stilling work from each other as it is violates Intellectual property rights. imagine yourself working for years, wasting your resources and money and getting your work easily stolen afterwards just for the reason that it would help you. At the same time, this stealing will not help the one who actually did the work and tried his best to get the revenues and recognition. My first argument will be that piracy kills the artists, musicians and book writers who had just started their career. Since they have spent funds and their budgets to start their work, piracy will prevent them from getting further funds since all their work will be given out for free. Therefore, there would be no more people willing to write and do any kind of work, if they understand that the government approve the act of stealing and will not protect their rights. My second argument is that piracy brings harm to millions of people who work in those industries producing legal products. in 2007 Bollywood had a job loss amounted in 6 million workers, because it could not get enough profit from the movies to pay their workers a salary. People who had been working to make the product were left with nothing and that is why piracy should be fought for, so people who actually deserve something, would get it. The last argument is that Piracy is morally wrong. As I mentioned before, governments should not allow and close eyes on people who steal and should track them down. That is why USA fight with piracy and had been successful in it, now that only 10 percent of products are being pirated in that country. Chinese government also declared in 2011 he war on piracy and since then they could track over 300.000 web sites that used illegal materials. We don't say that we are going to make it too expensive for people in developing countries. but at least we are stating that they should have moral norms to not steal the work. to conclude, I would state that if the progress of fighting goes slow, it doesn't mean we should stop fighting. As we see the results, even small ones. we can be sure that in future the war on piracy will stop when there will not be any piracy at all.
This house will stop the fight with piracy

piracy is basically"stealing" of the work of authors, musicians, computer software and all other products that can be obtained in the internet. This house believes that we should stop fighting with piracy because of three reasons: 1. it is not effective 2. piracy helps developing countries develop 3. piracy reduces the gap between developing and developed countries. Firs of all, it is not effective, since people themselves are willing to continue to pirate and their willingness can't be stopped, since the punishment can't guarantee that they will not pirate again. What we see in India- control forces burn all pirated CD's, but this doesn't really make piracy smaller, as CD's are being produced again and again. Also, it takes a lot of resources and time to crack down piracy in Internet. Internet is a new sphere, and the technology is not that advance yet to cope with piracy online. Many anonymous links can appear from any part of the world at any given second. For example, everyone knows the web-site Zaycev.net, where we can download music for free. Their moderators live in Russia, but that only means that people from any country can access their materials and only forces from Russia itself can stop them. Piracy helps developing countries to develop. In developing countries, where is the limit for needed information exists due to the lack of research, piracy plays a role of enabling people to receive information they need to develop. On average, more teenagers in any Central Asian country know how to use Adobe Photoshop rather than American teenagers, because the last ones have to buy it for 700USD per program. This fact shows that development is faster when the information is available. This leads to the third contention- through piracy we will be able to decrease the gap between developing and developed countries. Let those teenagers use that information and software. let them get to know the culture of developed countries through watching those movies and listening to that foreign music and they will be able to develop faster. Rather than making them buy the product, which they will not be able to buy anyways due to the low income. To sum up, I wanted to say that if the product will be available only through purchase, people in developing countries will not buy it anyways, which means that companies will not loose the revenue they still could not have been obtained anyways. Also, Piracy helps the development of the country and with willingness of people to pirate, piracy will never be stopped, because it is a part of economy- we see the biggest precentile of pirated materials in the countries, where these products would never been bought otherwise, - in poor developing countries. Stop wasting the resources on something that can't be stopped, stop fighting with piracy. Thank you
Morality does not exist

My opponent has not effectively refuted my argumentation. My opponent quotes: "We recognize that what we claim as morality is subjective..." My opponent states that humans can reference morality as being subjective. The mere act of noting morality as subjective implies that morality exists, for things in existence are labeled as subjective or objective. The resolution is negated. Although there are many preferences of morality, there is no doubt that it exists. It does not matter if different people have different feelings of morality. My opponent has already conceded that morality is subjective, and has thus recognized morality being existent. I urge a Con vote. Thank you.
Morality does not exist

morality- conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. [1] One can certainly practice rules of conduct but this does not mean that one ought follow the rules of conduct. A person could say that beating children is "moral" and another could say it is immoral. What I define as "Morality" isn't merely the conformity to rules of conduct, but the belief that one ought follow those beliefs or codes of conduct. Certainly anyone can claim that that something is moral or immoral but this in itself does not make or justify moral propositions. When a shark kills a seal in the wild we don't say whether that was "moral" or "immoral", we understand that the seal nor the shark understand there action. We recognize that what we claim as morality is subjective and that we can not truly say whether the shark was justified in killing the seal. Christianity claims that we ought to follow "god" but this statement alone does not justify it. There is no evidence that this is so. An advance alien civilization could look at us humans and consider are wars and feuds over wealth and power as "immoral", but this moral claim like all other ones have the same problem of justifying there proposition.
Morality does not exist

I negate the resolution, "Morality does not exist. " I propose the following definitions: morality- conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. [1] exist- to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur. [2] I contend that morality does exist. Morality exists when there are displayed instances of right, moral conduct. If one was to find others and attempt to convert them into Christianity, that would be an outward display of right conduct, or morality. Clearly, in that situation, morality is found, or exists. Therefore, the resolution is negated, as I have proved that morality does exist. Although morality may be subjective, that does not mean it does not exist. Although people have different perceptions of morality, that simply means that people interpret moral conduct in various manners. Morality still exists, although it is not consistent in the minds of a number of people. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...