BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
60's Rock

For this round I choose Sympathy for the Devil by the Rolling Stones. http://www.youtube.com... It was released in the album Beggars Banquet on 6th December 1968. Mostly the work of Mick Jagger, with Keith Richards helping out, it helped gain them a reputation amongst religious groups that the band members were deveil worshippers. This was largely overshadowed when the song "Street Fighting Man" become more contentious in light of the "race riots" and student protests that were happening in America at that time. The song was most famously covered by Guns and Roses in '94 where it reached number 55 on the Billboard Hot 100. The original reached number 32 on the Rolling Stone magazine' list the greatest 500 Songs of all Time. Even amongst the controversy the album went platinum after selling 1 million copies.
60's Rock

http://www.youtube.com...Written by Bob Dylan for his albumn John Wesley Harding (Released in 1967) Bob Dylan's recording is overshadowed by that of the great Jimi Hendrix' who's always stunning guitar preformance, coupled with his incredible eye for musical detail gave birth to a song that has stood the test of time, remaining a monument to the talent of both Hendrix and Dylan The song has been covered multiple times by the likes of Neil Young U2 and Grateful dead. The meaning of the song is questionable, and reminiscent of certain bible passages Hendrix' version of the song made no 48 on rolling stone's top 500 songs of all time.
Mormonism VS. Catholicism, Which is the true church

I would like to point out that my opponent and I are apparently using two different versions of the bible. While I am using the King James version, my opponent is using another, that is why our views on certain scriptures can be different. My opponent says "Catholic priests can trace their succession through 2000 years back to Jesus; my opponent cannot say the same." I agree but at the same time disagree. Of course I cannot trace it back 2000 years because my church has only been organized on the Earth for only a couple hundred years. But I can follow it back to Jesus Christ himself, given to Peter, James, and John, then given to Joseph Smith by the laying on of hands. Then given to Brigham Young, to Joseph Fielding Smith, then to Marcus Taylor, following brother Taylor, was Martin Anderson, then to Dean Lowry, then Jeffrey Rombach, who then gave me the power of the priesthood on December 12th 2006 with the laying on of hands. With that being said I have just proved how I hold the priesthood coming straight from Jesus Christ himself. Also my opponent says that we use the Book of Mormon instead of the Bible, when in fact we use them coexistingly. There are many parts of the Book of Mormon that actually refer to the bible. So I would just like to point out even though my opponent seems to be using sources, he is not using credible sources. My opponent starts to bring up scriptures from the old testament, I feel that these scriptures are not credible for this argument for the reason that most of the Old Testament is also used by the Jewish faith, thus it could also be referring to that faith. I would like to put a final argument before my closing statement, the Catholic church has been known throughout history to have many problems. One of these problems was that the original catholic bible was interpreted by the pope to mean whatever he wanted it to mean. While the Catholic Bible is only used by Catholics, the King James Version of the bible is used by all Christian denominations other than Catholics. In conclusion, the Catholic Church had to go through many reforms. The LDS church has not gone through any reforms whatsoever. The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has more followers in more countries than any other protestant church. The Catholic Church is known for its problems more than how true of a doctrine they teach. While I am not saying that the Catholic Church is a bunch of satanic worshipers, I am only saying that they have fallen from the path set by St. Peter, and that although they may have started as the true church, Peter would not have had to come back and help set up a new church if the first one hadn't messed up.
Mormonism VS. Catholicism, Which is the true church

In 2nd Thessalonians verses 1-3 it says "(1) Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, (2) That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.(3) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" In my opponents opening he said that his church came straight through St. Peter. Then that would make St. Paul here a liar, as he wrote to the Thessalonian's that after Christ died there would be a "falling away", then the church would be restored. I myself am a holder of the Aaronic Priesthood in the Mormon Church, and when I receive the Melchizedek Priesthood when I turn 18, I will be able to follow my priesthood line of succession through Jesus Christ himself. This is something that makes the Mormon church different from others. Other church's have no power given by Jesus Christ himself. (Not that the following denominations are in this debate) The Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, and Presbyterian churches do not have the power of priesthood given by Jesus Christ.
Mormonism VS. Catholicism, Which is the true church

As I am Con, I will take the Catholicism side. Because of the way the resolution is worded, it is implied that one of the two must be the true church. Since my opponent has not dictated a debate structure, I can do whatever I want this round. It is quite clearly my belief that the Catholic Church is the true church. The Catholic Church has existed since 33 Anno Domini, and is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The Holy Father, Bishop of Rome, and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, has an unbroken chain of succession to the holy St. Peter. In clear contrast to Mormonism, which was kind of just made up by Joseph Smith in the 19th century, the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. It was founded through the Apostles by God, and can trace itself back to Christ. I conclude my opening statement with the following: Catholicism is true. I'm not exactly sure how we're supposed to go about proving our side, so I'll wait for my opponent to act first.
Mormonism VS. Catholicism, Which is the true church

As I am Pro I will take the Mormonism Side. As everyone in the world knows, the question of which church is the true church is a question we would all like to know the answer to. It is my belief that The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is the true church. There are many who say the Catholic church is the true church since it was the first Christian church. I disagree with this because the idea that a random Italian group can say that this one man can speak to god is outrageous. In history do they ever talk about who founded the Catholic Church, it just sort of showed up. Mormonism was founded by Joseph Smith when he himself was wondering "which church is the right church?" This young man, went into the woods by his house and prayed to our father in heaven, asking "which church is the real church?" Instead of receiving an answer he felt within him, God and his son Jesus Christ came down from the Heavens and explained to him that no church on the Earth at the time was the true church. He was told that he was to create a new church, one in the name of Jesus Christ himself. Thus the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was born. I conclude my opening statement with the following, Catholicism while it may seem true, is not what it may appear to be.
Battlefield 4 is Better than COD Ghosts

My opponent has not posted any arguments, so I will be brief. My opponent's resolution is that Battlefield 4 is better than COD Ghosts. In order to win the debate, I do not have to prove that COD Ghosts is better. I only have to show that my opponent failed to prove Battlefield 4 is better. By failing to provide arguments, he indeed failed to supply his burden of proof and uphold his resolution, so he has made my job easy. Thank you, voters, for your time.
Has the introduction of the Internet helped or hindered us

The birth of modern technology was a wonderful thing because it made life easier but it also has put a burden on many social aspects of our daily lives. Instead of going out with your friends and having a discussion about something they have done, now you just see it on social media and it doesn"t bring that connection of talking about it and laughing about it. The internet creates the fallacy that we are closer than ever when we are really farther apart than ever. Now when we go out instead of talking with our friends we go on our phones and talk to other friends. So even though it helps with technology, it hurts us as a nation of people.
Has the introduction of the Internet helped or hindered us

The Internet has brought we as a people closer together since it's introduction. Because of the Internet communication across the world and across languages have been made possible in an instant, the opportunities for education that the Internet has brought are endless giving the option for equal education for all just clicks away. Families are able to be closer, friends can remain friends, even across the world all because of the Internet. We are able to share ideas and works to better them and ourselves, without the Internet we would still be in a relatively dark time unable to communicate as easily or as freely.
Rap Debates are Trolls

Point 1: The opponent believes that curse words lower the quality of a debate because they are degrading. That's just the opponent's opinion. 2: My opponent states that spelling and grammar mistakes are "wanted or not cared about." He is making assumptions about the motives of debaters on here without a valid basis. 3: The opponent states that rap debates involve little talent... and that rap is not music... These are just opinions. Anyone can become a rap artist? What about someone in a vegetative state?4: More of the opponent's opinions...Okay. Here's my definition:"Troll Debate": Debates about trolls, the mythological beings. Thank you.
Rap Debates are Trolls

Point 1: Of the 15 I have seen, all of them had profanity. Now this is just a speculation, but I bet that almost all of them have profanity. I challenge you to find a rap battle that does not use profanity. Or better yet, find 5. The use of curse words does in fact lower the quality of a debate because it is degrading. And it is not so much the use of profanity so much as it is the frequency of profanity. The debates I looked at, almost all had at least 10 profanity words. These words preach the wrong message. Point 2: Ok. You found one example. What I find so amusing is that debaters are partially judged based on how the Spelling and Grammar is. That is the whole point of that voting point. So that debaters would have their arguments with fewer spelling and grammar mistakes. The spelling and grammar mistakes made in other debates are not intentional or wanted (I hope). In Rap Debates, they are either wanted or not cared about. They encourage misspelling through it's nature. Point 3: Rap debates involve little talent because it isn't really music. I mean anyone can become a rap artist. And the debaters don't even have to sing! Debates shouldn't be judged on opinions, they should be judged on the quality of a person's arguments and the reliability of the sources. I wish to refute my opponent's claim that all debate judgments are subjective. It is a lot times clear when one debater's argument is better than the other's. There are many debates where there should only be one clear-cut view of a debate. Rap debates usually depend solely on the voter's opinion. It is like saying there is a debate on abortion and the voters all vote based on their beliefs. Sound wrong? Rap debates are too highly opinionated. Point 4: These debates are useless. They basically preach profanity and incorrect spelling and grammar, they teach nothing and do not allow the viewer of the debate to learn anything, and they just flood this website with useless debates. Final Conclusion Arguments: I can't find a definition of a troll debate. We'll use your definition of a troll debate and I will argue against it in Round 4. My definition I have heard from several other people and I have heard no other definition.
Rap Debates are Trolls

1: Many rap battles, do, indeed, involve profanity. I cannot say "most" because I have yet to see a study that has looked at every rap battle on DDO and calculated the percentage of them which involves profanity. The opponent has not sufficiently proven that profanity takes away from intelligent debate. Profanity does not necessarily take away from the intellectual quality of a debate, and the opponent fails to substantiate his claims that state otherwise. A counterexample is "On Bulls--t," an academic paper written by Harry Frankfurter, a professor of philosophy at Princeton University. [1] This paper is viewed as an insightful philosophical piece, despite the use of a curse word. The use of curse words does not necessarily "violate the intelligence of debates."2: The opponent claims that rap debates "always" involve bad spelling and grammar.If one were to read through this rap battle [2], for example, one can see that spelling and grammar in a rap battle debate do not have to be poor. Through the use of this example, I have deemed the opponent's extreme claim null. Rap debates do not "always" involve bad spelling and grammar. Moreover, plenty of regular debates on DDO involve more spelling and grammar, too. I do not see how the nature of a debate (i.e., its being a rap debate) would encourage such mistakes. 3: Although judgment is subjective, rap debates do involve talent and are not detrimental to the quality of this site. When you watch Iron Chef, although the judges make decisions based on opinions, a general strong talent is required to fare well in the competition. Also, all of the debate judgments on this site are subjective. There is no such thing as a clear-cut view of any debate. Even on the most objective issues, debates can end up being closely scored. The foundation of this site is community voting and, if anything, rap-style debates celebrate that.4: The idea that the debates are "unintelligent" is completely the opponent's opinion. I can just as easily say tat they are "brilliant" and their authors should receive Pulitzer Prizes for their work. ---I would like to add that the opponent simply put his own definition on the term "Troll Debate." This does not appear to be an accepted definition, from what I can tell (which could be reinforced with a dictionary source.) And if the opponent does not find a definition that is supported by evidence, we will have to use my definition for future rounds, which would probably not work in the opponent's favor.The opponent has yet to provide a valid definition for a key term in this debate, and he has no adequately defended his resolution. Thank you.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...
FDI is not India's expressway to economic slavery

base job training such as customer service and manual labor are the only key area of expertise promoted by the FDI. India has become increasingly reliant on outsourced jobs as more and more companies put FDI into it. As India becomes more trained in these jobs, they are losing expertise in others. There are less entrepreneurs, less businessmen, etc. The country is losing so much potential that if the companies leave India, these people would be stuck with worthless skills. 500 limit??!
The ability of law-abiding, mentally healthy citizens to own firearms for legal purposes.

1. Isn't the duty of the police "to protect and serve", if so their duty is to protect and serve the community which includes individuals! 2. The standards of animal welfare are better than they used to be, the entire European Union has recently banned battery farms and several EU states such as Sweden have banned ritual slaughter. Also the number of vegetarians has been increasing, particularly in countries such as the UK, Germany and the Netherlands. A. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The ability of law-abiding, mentally healthy citizens to own firearms for legal purposes.

1. In Warren v. district of Columbia, the Supreme court ruled that the police do not have to provide police services to an individual, except when they develop a special duty to particular individuals (i.e. witness protection)(A). The average 911 response time is also 10 minutes(B). Are you really willing to risk your life and the lives of your families for 10 minutes while intruders run rampant through your home? Or would you rather be a self-sufficient member of society and do your best to protect yourself, so the police doesn't have to. 2. True, we do have farms that keep animals, but odds are, those farms feed them steroid riddled food to make them "meatier" and are kept inhumanely(C). Your statement about a growing number of vegetarians is an opinion until you cite a source to back up your theory. If you hunt for your own meat, the animal is allowed to live it's life freely and interact with it's species as they were intended to. And when their time comes, one bullet, that they never see coming, is a very humane way to treat an animal you will soon eat. No cages. No steroids. Just the animal in the wild. A. http://en.wikipedia.org... B. http://www.self-defense-mind-body-spirit.com... C. https://awionline.org...
The ability of law-abiding, mentally healthy citizens to own firearms for legal purposes.

1st round. Nobody in this day and age needs guns to protect themselves, that's why we have a police force, otherwise there is no point of having a police force. We do not need to hunt animals for food either; we have farms that keep animals, there is a growing number of vegetarians and vegans in the world and if anything most people these days do not hunt animals because we believe that hunting is immoral.
The ability of law-abiding, mentally healthy citizens to own firearms for legal purposes.

1. While good security of possessions may make the rich less likely targets of home invasions, I do not think that a burglar would want to go to a working class neighbourhood and steal possessions. Even if they do not invade houses most of them would invade banks and shops especially shops like jewellery shops which have security systems anyway. While your source says 20% of American homes get invaded, statistics are not 100% accurate. For example, crime statistics show that Scotland has a higher murder rate than England and Wales, but there are 2 majors flaws; around 40% of Scotland's population live in the Glasgow area which has some of the worst slums in the UK outside London, West Midlands, Northern England and South Wales. The other major flaw is that Wales, which has very low crime rates, is in the same jurisdiction as England which makes England look safer than Scotland.
The ability of law-abiding, mentally healthy citizens to own firearms for legal purposes.

1. True, but the rich guys are the ones more likely to have good security over those possessions that your average citizen cannot afford, so that makes the rich less likely targets. And in America, a home invasion happens every 15 seconds(1). The same source shows that every 1 in 5 American homes will be invaded. I can't speak for the U.K but that's how it is in America. 2. Ok, but no farm will ever be as humane as hunting until they let the animals roam free and socialise with their kind. (1). http://www.globalsecurityexperts.com...
The ability of law-abiding, mentally healthy citizens to own firearms for legal purposes.

1. Even if a home invader is only a threat to you, what is the likeliness of somebody breaking into your house? I'm pretty sure the risk would be low. Most home invaders would not invade a house in somewhere like London's East End or South Manchester; most would rather go for a large house in somewhere like Richmond or Hampstead because they would presume that the occupants of the property would have expensive possessions such as Aston Martins, jewellery or paintings and even so most rich people have security systems to protect their homes which are linked to the police. 2. The amount of vegetarians HAS increased in the UK but the number is only around 6% and that number has been increasing since the Second World War, humane slaughter is now compulsory in the UK and many parts of Europe except for Muslims and Jews. A. http://www.euroveg.eu... B. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The ability of law-abiding, mentally healthy citizens to own firearms for legal purposes.

The community and the individual are 2 different things. What I'm saying is, it's not their job to protect any one individual, rather, the whole community. Is a home invader a threat to the whole community? No, because they're only threatening you, in which case, you should have a means to defend yourself. 2. And actually, wiki said that ya'll up in the U.K are actually more of a "meat avoider" or "meat reducer". Not as much full on vegetarian as you claim. And I'm still waiting for a farm to come along that treats it's livestock as well as a wild animal. I personally don't believe there will be one, which is why I prefer to hunt when I can, because it is always more humane to an animal than any farm.
Some of the Bible is not true

Rebuttals"1: your argument was that every day people pray to god and do not receive an answer. The reasoning behind this ironically, can be found in Bruce Almighty. In the movie, a man who takes gods place gets so tired of all the prayers that he simply accepts them all. Chaos ensues, as we are human beings, we want certain things."If God thought so, he should've listed the restrictions, seeing as he's omniscient. However, he did not. So, we must assume that all prayers are granted, no matter what. However, regardless of how much you pray, some aren't granted. They don't have to receive an answer, as that isn't mentioned (According to the Bible).The rest, I won't reply to, as the same is repeated."2. Your second argument was why Christians suffered into death, and why god did not just create us in heaven. Christians do not truly suffer unto death, in the words of one of the first great evangelists "to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. We are born with a new life, a spiritual one. If you are looking for a more "logical" answer, the let me state this. I don't know of any man or woman that is not willing to die for one they love. We should be equally willing to lay down our lives for the faith that holds up our very being."Jesus allowed himself to be crucified to OUR BENEFIT! If we die (Suffocation, crucifixion, E.T.C.), it's not to his advantage. We die for people for their assistance. That? No."Finally, just look at what happened when just one who believed died, (although he rose again). Jesus changed the world with his disciples, and almost three quarters of them died. Finally, we were originally created in heaven, as Eden translates into the word for Paradise. We screwed it up, and a perfect God cannot be around sin, he would e forced to turn his gaze away. Fortunately, we are given this life to turn our eyes upon Jesus so that god can look at us and bring us into his kingdom."Here, my opponent types in what Jesus has sacrificed (Like him being crucified) for us. The rest, I have already replied to. I await my opponent's next set of arguments.