BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All people walk by faith

I will operate with the bible definition of faith. Hebrews 11:1. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for and it is the evidence of things not revealed to the five sense gates.Atheists have to have faith that God does not exist. Since I have never heard one of you claim to have peeked over past your own death and saw that God just was not there.I have faith that God indeed is there and I will hear, " enter into my joy , my son." What I would never want to hear is, " depart from me for I never knew you." All of us have to exercise faith when dealing with others. An employer gives his word that on a certain date your paycheck will be there.If , even one time, it is not there. you would lose faith in his word. My overwhelming faith is in Gods word I believe that when he says something it will come true.There are those out there that have no confidence in his word.I believe most of them have never read and lived on it.Just mimic what others say about it. That is alright. But something that important I would think would bear some interest .
videos 4 people = absolute trash

Thank you, sir! I am glad you are willing to debate this topic with me! I have looked far and wide for somebody who's willing to settle this question once and for all. All I ask is plenty of valid arguments, legible vocabulary, and a whole lot of emotion. I'd rather debate for more than 3 rounds, but it's OK, just as long as we put a whole lot of grit and determination into this thing. Is that OK? Here's my opening argument, which you are going to counter argue against: Videos for people is the best Youtube channel I have ever uncovered. It's entertaining. When I see one of his videos, I laugh, I cry, and so on. His videos attract me. I am drawn to them like a moth to a porch light. I don't know why, but I like them. He has a zany sense of humor and a firm grasp of the world around him. He is a hidden genius. I have never seen any videos like his and I don't think there ever will be anything like his. They are completely unique. They are so funny that I can't stop laughing. I don't know who he is, or what he's doing, but I can identify with him. His videos are unique. They are done using stick figures. The stick figures are badly drawn, and created using MS paint, but their quality isn't what matters. What matters, really, is what they do. They do hilariously funny things. they do romantic stuff, funny stuff. Nothing is too insane for this guy to tackle. Every video seems more bizarre than the last. But, although his videos are weird, they still seem somewhat normal, so the viewer isn't removed from reality. He uses normal language in his writing. There isn't any dialogue, only music. everything is written. His videos are the better than anything else I have ever seen. I am a devoted fan to the way he interprets things. Every video of his resonates with me. Videos for people is a genius. I don't know who he is, and I have no desire to uncover his identity. Knowing his identity isn't necessary to enjoy anything he makes. He's quirky, and I enjoy his videos. I await your next argument. Good luck!
Christianity is akin to Fascism

It is unfortunate that my opponent seems to have put so little effort into this debate. Have it noted that not a single part of my argument was refuted. As such, Con has only provided one argument of how Christianity is different from Fascism. Considering the bulk of what I shared even if cons argument stood, which it will not, it would not be enough to outweigh the weight of my argument. Reminder that “akin” mean similar, not exactly the same. There are certainly differences between fascism and Christianity, however they have much in common. Rebuttals: Con says “In Christianity it is presumed you have free will, therefore the option to choose. You are allowed to disagree. Perhaps you will burn in hell , but you are allowed to disagree.” “Per the definition "Facism" A dictator controls the lives of the people and are not allowed to disagree.” In a Fascist society when one disobeys the law, they are removed from the society, via prison or exile. In extreme cases even killed. This is very similar to the “Kingdom of God.” Consider, P:1 God gives commandments John 14:15 “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” P:2 Sin is disobedience to Gods commands. 1 John 3:4 “for sin is the transgression of the law.” P:3 Sin is punished. Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death” P:3 B Sinners cannot enter the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,”(all verses from KJV Bible) A fascist dictator controls the lives of the people and they (the people) are not allowed to disagree. When they do they are removed from the society. The only way to remain in the society is obedience. In Christianity God “dictator controls the lives of the people and they (the people) are not allowed to disagree. When they do they are removed” or denied entrance to the Kingdom of God. The only way to remain in the society is obedience. In both Fascism and Christianity people choose not to obey, they are not free to choose consequences… ergo “control.” Cons arguments is negated. As he has not refuted any of my arguments the resolution stands. Christianity is akin to Fascism.
Christianity is akin to Fascism

Sorry , im soooo busy my apologies for the FF.By con.3 Fascism: "a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government"(3) Christianity is akin to Fascism-----TOPICDisclaimer----- I AM AGNOSTIC.In Christianity it is presumed you have free will therfore the option to choose. You are allowed to disagree. Perhaps you will burn in hell , but you are allowed to disagree.Per the definition "Facism" A dictator controls the lives of the people and are not allowed to disagree.P1. As defined "fascism" You CANNOT disagree.p2.In Christianity you CAN disagree.ConclusionChristianity and fascism are not similar.
Christianity is akin to Fascism

Christianity is akin to Fascism Definition of terms: 1 Christianity: "the religion that is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ"(1) 2 Akin: "similar or related"(2) 3 Fascism: "a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government"(3) 4 Rounds, 10,000 characters, 72hr Round 1 acceptance Round(s)2-3 Arguments and Rebuttals Round 4 Rebuttals and closing statements (no new arguments.) This debate should be impossible to accept, please comment if interested. Please no forfeits. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Heavy metal music is the best genre next to classical music

Heavy metal has no rules, so the artist can be as creative as they want or as simple as they want. With rap, if your too complex, it doesn't sound as good. Same applies to pop, techno, etc. In heavy metal, there are different forms of vocals: death-metal, black-metal, screamo, grindcore, false, fry, etc. and various sub-genres: death-metal, death-core, metal-core, hard-core, thrash, black-metal, grindcore, list goes on with their own distinctive sound. You can also mix in sub-genres together. It also covers a variety of topics (philosophy, death, crime, politics, torture, etc.) that is often ignored by the masses. An example is Suicide Silence The lead-singer mixes in black-metal vocals when his voice is high-pitched with death-metal vocals in his low range. He fuses metal-core, death-core,grind-core,math-core, etc. in his music (1). It takes a lot of dedication to be a vocalist, be a drummer, guitarist, etc. which isn't found in many genres of music. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Heavy metal music is the best genre next to classical music

"I did not say they promote it,rather they encourage it.Simply because they talk about such controversial topics they influence us with their lyrics, this has been scientifically proven." Of course lyrics can influence you, but that's not the point of the debate. It's whether or not heavy metal is the best genre (regardless of whether they make "safe" lyrics or not). The fact that you have to develop an ear for it implies that you must be an active listener rather than passive which takes skill. "While it may not be easy to make Heavy Metal music,this does not mean that heavy metal vocalism is the hardest,here are some examples where the vocals takes much more effort than Heavy Metal." While you gave links to these genres, you didn't explain why they are much more difficult than heavy metal. "This artist produces songs that have incredible complexity, sound distortions, synthetic sound effects, maximum distorted voices and recordings and off to on beat changes." While yes that is true, i believe Metal is more complex as it mixes in vocals along with the guitar riffs. Example: "Meshuggah" "do not look down"
Heavy metal music is the best genre next to classical music

"While yes those are key to the music, those aren't the only things that define heavy metal." Of course,I cannot possibly list ALL the features of metal however I've made my point clear that there are points whether that be many or otherwise which limit the creativity of the artists and what type of songs they produce.If they did not have the key features they would fall into another genre of music. "Just because they talk about it, doesn't mean they promote it." I did not say they promote it,rather they encourage it.Simply because they talk about such controversial topics they influence us with their lyrics, this has been scientifically proven. http://www.positivemusicassociation.com... http://www.nbcnews.com... http://musicpsychology.co.uk... Vocalists don't technically yell, they use breathing techniques to give the illusion that they are, but their lyrics are comprehensible if you develop an ear for it. The fact that you have to develop an ear to understand them proves they are for a niche audience,other genres do not require you to develop an ear to understand them.Therefore Heavy Metal cannot be the next best genre. "They don't just play louder, it requires alot of skill to develop that kind of art. The fact that you need to incorporate singing into your screaming proves that metal vocals take skill (1). Even more skill is required on your vocal ranges from low-pitched to high-pitched screams, guttural, death-growls, grunts, etc. It also takes skill to blast beat in metal (2). Although metal uses dissonant riffs, you still need skill to play it (3)." While it may not be easy to make Heavy Metal music,this does not mean that heavy metal vocalism is the hardest,here are some examples where the vocals takes much more effort than Heavy Metal. Regardless a genre having hard to do vocals does not make it the next "best" genre.Classical music almost always has no vocals however is considered the best. Heavy Metal is also not the most complex genre,not even close actually,EDM is far more complex This artist produces songs that have incredible complexity, sound distortions, synthetic sound effects, maximum distorted voices and recordings and off to on beat changes. Metal is not the most original genre,if you look at the list of academy awards for most original song,metal is one of the least awarded genres of the category(1).This is not exclusive for the academy awards.The same applies to the golden globe for best original song.(2) Finally while Metal may be a diverse genre,again this is not an exclusive trait and being diverse does not make a genre better than another. 1.http://en.wikipedia.org... 2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Heavy metal music is the best genre next to classical music

"Heavy metal actually does have rules,them being consisting one at least one of these: Loud distorted guitars, emphatic rhythms, dense bass-and-drum sound, and vigorous vocals If it does not consist of at least one of these it may not fall into the category of Heavy metal.This serves as a major limiting factor to the types of songs one can produce." While yes those are key to the music, those aren't the only things that define heavy metal. " In many of it songs it encourages violence,anger,rebellion, juvenile morbidity and many other negative characteristics.Very few metal songs are about anything remotely positive and the majority of this genre revolves around negativity." Just because they talk about it, doesn't mean they promote it. " A lot of the time the lead vocalist is often incomprehensible because he/she shouts so loud." Vocalists don't technically yell, they use breathing techniques to give the illusion that they are, but their lyrics are comprehensible if you develop an ear for it. "It takes a lot of dedication to be a drummer,guitarist or vocalist in most genres actually.Simply because they play louder does not mean it requires more dedication," They don't just play louder, it requires alot of skill to develop that kind of art. The fact that you need to incorporate singing into your screaming proves that metal vocals take skill (1). Even more skill is required on your vocal ranges from low-pitched to high-pitched screams, guttural, death-growls, grunts, etc. It also takes skill to blast beat in metal (2). Although metal uses dissonant riffs, you still need skill to play it (3). Sources: 1. http://www.wikihow.com... 2. http://www.wikihow.com... 3. http://www.wikihow.com...
Heavy metal music is the best genre next to classical music

Heavy metal actually does have rules,them being consisting one at least one of these: Loud distorted guitars, emphatic rhythms, dense bass-and-drum sound, and vigorous vocals If it does not consist of at least one of these it may not fall into the category of Heavy metal.This serves as a major limiting factor to the types of songs one can produce. The different forms is not unique to Heavy Metal only,almost all genres of music has just as many For example:- Pop:Baroque pop , Bubblegum pop , Christian pop ,Dance-pop, Europop, Operatic pop, Power pop, Soundtrack, Sophisti-pop , Synth Pop , Space age pop, Sunshine pop ,Traditional pop, Teen pop, Electropop,etc. Country:Bakersfield sound - Close harmony - Honky tonk - Jug band - Lubbock sound - Nashville sound - Neotraditional country - Outlaw country - Red Dirt - Western swing - Texas country/Tejano Just to name a few genres with just as many sub-genres.Furthermore Fusion genres is a very common thing and most genres have them, and is not a trait exclusive to heavy-metal.While yes it does cover a lot of topics that are ignored by the masses it is not the only genre which does this Rap also covering such topics as extensively as Heavy Metal.Furthermore it also covers very blasphemous topics which most other genres do not cover and hence many people find this very offensive especially to many god believing people (which is basically most of the world). In many of it songs it encourages violence,anger,rebellion, juvenile morbidity and many other negative characteristics.Very few metal songs are about anything remotely positive and the majority of this genre revolves around negativity. Another song which talks about weed(Like your example) and also much more popular:- Again the phenomenon of mixing vocals is not unique to heavy-metal and actually encompasses a lot of genres. A lot of the time the lead vocalist is often incomprehensible because he/she shouts so loud. It takes a lot of dedication to be a drummer,guitarist or vocalist in most genres actually.Simply because they play louder does not mean it requires more dedication,in fact the subtler genres often require MORE dedication. Here is an example of some vocals which require a lot of dedication and skill: Sources: 1.http://en.wikipedia.org... 2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Topic X (25 CHARACTERS)

Indeed. I take it this is what you mean: "These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change" (3). " First, she may have made a mistake and admitted it. That doesn't mean she renounced her perception of the situation, and I saw no evidence that she did. Second, the link comes from some manifestation of support for Benny Peiser, and I already intentionally put the fact of his criticism, and subsequent withdrawal of it. Look back above: "Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work,[25] but his attempted refutation is disputed[26][27][28] and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. PEISER LATER WITHDREW PARTS OF HIS CRITICISM,[29] also commenting that "the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is MOSTLY DUE TO HUMAN IMPACT. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous. "[27][30]" (Caps mine, not to be rude, but to simulate italics) I have met your challenge.
This house believes that the Harry Potter books are way better than the films.

Second, I think that younger kids may well be influenced more by films rather than books. The average child spends 55 hours a week watching television, and they spend 35-40 hours at school. This means that they spend most of their free time either doing homework, watching television, or any other activities. I understand that some children read more than others, but I know plenty of people at the age of 13/14 who barely read any books in their free time. For me, this is an issue, because books help children's imaginations to grow, which can help them later on in life. For example, in high school, or in some cases the end of primary school, English lessons involve creative writing, which assess them on their ideas, as well as their spelling and grammar. If they struggle to come up with something creative, then their grades my strain as well. That is why I prefer the Harry Potter books. Yes, I love the films, but they don't feed my imagination as much as the books do. . http://www.thedailygreen.com... *This is the link to the webpage from which I got my facts and figures from.
100 Debate Challenge 15: THB Wild animals Should not be kept in captivity.

1. Zoos act as an educational tool. Many kids can visit zoos first hand to learn about all different types of wild animals up close and personal. 2. Zoos often times act to prevent species from going extinct. Some species on the brink of extinction are actually saved by being protected from poachers and predators in a secure environment. 3. Keeping animals in captivity allows researchers more time to closely study and examine animal to learn all types of things.
100 Debate Challenge 15: THB Wild animals Should not be kept in captivity.

I personally see the matter of wild life, as that of human life, the wilderness is their home, and if you are being attacked by those wild animals when you're invading their houses, well it's their right to defend their homes. It's a natural instinct for both animals and humans to protect them selves from predators, and it's well known to everyone that most animals, not to say all of them, only attack when they are scared and feel fear. So if you don't invade their privacy you won't be hurt. As for humans, if they are attacked, they doubtlessly will protect them selves and fight back. We can't argue that if you are attacked by a killer or thief at your home, you'll fight for your safety and home. So in that case why keep them captive, when we are the ones invading their homes, obliging them to attack us. And we can save everyone the trouble and let them be in their natural homes, and ourselves healthy in our cities. Also it has been proved many times, that some kinds of animals if raised from the beginning of their lives they can be perfectly harmless to human kind.
should I play reach with a gay kid named colt

Cool name. You should play with him. After all, who cares. If he's good, keep playing with him. If he's bad, never play with him again. That's all that matters, whether he's good or bad. Nothing else, not even his name, matters. Take Lim Yo-Hwan as an example(1). He is the champion for the Korean Starcraft competition. Yet, his name is ridiculous and gay. But would his allies, care about his name, or do they care about winning? Sources 1). http://en.wikipedia.org...
can mastercheif from halo beat a alien queen from aliens colonial marines

If I am understanding your stance on the issue as being that Mastercheif can beat the Alien Queen, than I take your challenge. I need clarification though for the next round, are they battling mono a mono? or does the Queen mother have an army she wields as Mastercheif has many ranks at his disposal? SO is it one on one or war I guess is my question. Either way, I defend the stance that though Mastercheif is masterful and a force to reckon with, he would eventually fall prey to the Queen. Though there is awesome skill that MC has, the Queen has knowledge and some gory tricks I think that would doom MC to a hatchery in the long run.
can mastercheif from halo beat a alien queen from aliens colonial marines

I must apologize to my opponent. I have sat back and thought this out, played Aliens colonial marines, read a little deeper. And I have hit a brick wall. I do not quite know how to defend my stance or refute your argument as it is sound. I apologize as it is not fair that I cannot defend myself. You deserved a better debate. I how ever must forfeit.
can mastercheif from halo beat a alien queen from aliens colonial marines

Sorry for the confusion it is face to face For my following argument i stand for the pro position with the reasoning of these three comtentions 1. As seen in the galo video games and books that the covenent which at the time the galaxys greatest power (before the flood parasite) could not successfuly kill the cheif 2. Faced the flood parasite and survived multiple times 3. The chief survived a weapon that was used to destroy all sentient life in the galaxy I begin with my first contention the covenent could not kill the cheif Master chief alone destroyed multiple ships and covenent bases. In halo 1 master chief successfuly cleared covenent held positions whereas an whole marine squad could not survive after one. The chief also killed two of the covenents prophets, the prophet of truth and prophet of regret. The covenent then later crumbled to pieces after chief supposedly died after the halo ring was destroyed by the chief with the help of the arbiter and sargeant jhonson. So the following statements support my contention that the covenent could not destroy the chief On to my second contention, chief has faced the flood parasite and survived multiple times. Master chief faced the flood alone multiple times in the first halo ring, the second and third rings encountered by mankind, as well as the ark, new mombasa, and the city of high charity and survived as a elite, human etc. would have died quickly or go insane. Master chief as well destroyed the grave mind. So the following supports my contention that the chief faced the flood and survived multiple times My third and final contention is, the chief survuved from a weapon that was used to destroy all sentient life. As seen in halo 3 as chiefs ship departed the ring the back part of the ship (where the hanger was positioned as well as were chief was. ) cutting it from the bulk of the ship. The unsc then presumed him dead. But as the chief usaully does the impossible he survives and manages to get in a cryo tube. Then cortana reawakes him into what is known as halo 4. The followinhg supports my contention of the chief survived the blast of a weapon that was used to destroy all sentient life.