BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Instrumental worship for New Testament Christians can be justified

i don't know about my opponent but as i read the website (http://www.blueletterbible.org...) he said that refute my argument was not effective, did not even refute my argument, helped me a lot to DESTROY his false doctrine.He said ""The Greek word for psalms in Ephesians 5:19 ispsalmos, which comes from the root word psallo ("to twitch, twang, or to move bytouching")."This is TOTALLY false, the root word of psalmos (noun) is not the verb form of itself psallo (verb)!!!"Both psallo and psalmos come from the same root psao. Psao means "to rub, wipe; to handle, touch" (Thayer, p. 675). (Also see here http://www.blueletterbible.org... "Root Word Etymology")" . I even chuckled to find out that Brad is hiding the true meaning od "psao" I URGE THE READERS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY (THIS WAS TAKEN TO THE ACTUAL WEBSITE). Lexicon Results Strong's G5567 - psallō ψάλλω Transliteration psallō Pronunciation psä'l-lō (Key) http://www.blueletterbible.org...; type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> http://www.blueletterbible.org...; /> Part of Speech verb Root Word (Etymology) Probably strengthened from psao (to rub or touch the surface, cf ψώχω (G5597)) TDNT Reference 8:489,1225 Vines View Entry Outline of Biblical Usage 1) to pluck off, pull out 2) to cause to vibrate by touching, to twang a) to touch or strike the chord, to twang the strings of a musical instrument so that they gently vibrate b) to play on a stringed instrument, to play, the harp, etc. c) to sing to the music of the harp d) in the NT to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song.you see how the instigator is very choosy in his words. I hope the truth will win and i hope The instigator would find out what is the truth about the music in the N.T.
Instrumental worship for New Testament Christians can be justified

Other definitions by Strong and Vine give definitions in favor of my argument. Anyways, you've danced once again around my points which is fine. Since we are definitely having a semantic war, let me just point out one thing to the reader that my opponent said: "The Greek word for psalms in Ephesians 5:19 is psalmos, which comes from the root word psallo ("to twitch, twang, or to move by touching")." This is TOTALLY false, the root word of psalmos (noun) is not the verb form of itself psallo (verb)!!! "Both psallo and psalmos come from the same root psao. Psao means "to rub, wipe; to handle, touch" (Thayer, p. 675). (Also see here http://www.blueletterbible.org... under "Root Word Etymology") If the reader has read the entire debate I feel like touching on the rest of my opponent's points is like beating a dead bird. I urge a pro vote once again for at least me giving RIGHT and ACCURATE word origins in a debate over semantics.
Le-Vox-Von-Zhizn for Edeb8.com VS TBR for DDO in the topic debate making.

Now that I've got that out of the way I shall begin. 1. It has more features. People on DDO have asked for team debates, a longer time to form arguments and and more rounds which Edeb8 has Edeb8 also has video debates. 2. It is more serious. DDO is more noob friendly meaning it has numerous troll debates, vote bombs and other similar things but Edeb8 was meant to be serious as the creator said "Edeb8 is a serious debate site based largely on improving debate techniques. In practice trolls and VBers don't mesh well here and migrate to DDO quickly. " 3. The voting system. The voting system there is not perfect but is better than DDO's because there you cannot get your voting privileges revoked and it encourages people to make a very detailed RFD. I now gladly await con's arguments.
Le-Vox-Von-Zhizn for Edeb8.com VS TBR for DDO in the topic debate making.

I believe Edeb8.com is a better site for creating and voting on debates. Rules: 1. All users who want to accept this debate must have an account on both sites. 2. No profanity 3. My definitions cannot be questioned. I have made this debate impossible to accept so if your interested say so in the comments section also add your user name in Edeb8.com. Thanks.
Secular Government

All in all, I would want to conclude by saying that even though the predominant notion or popularity of secularism, we see that it does more harm than good as cited by the arguments in the previous round. Theocracy is gaining its lost followership and widening its base in socio and geo-political area. Revival of religion based government is not too far in the future and we may see its awakening any time soon, sooner than we predict.
Secular Government

No, I believe that a theocratic Government is more efficient in tackling all its problems than a secular government because in a secular one, the governing body has to take into consideration the postulates of all the religions in play and see to that the rules or laws governed do not stand in the way of people following their religion. This creates a lot of specifications/restrictions which a law has to adhere to, and hence reducing the flexibility it should. The main purpose of a legislation is lost as it aims more for not offending the public rather than spearheading the issue at concern. Whereas a theocratic government has only one set of rules or ideologies to follow and their deliberations can actually resolve the problems at hand.
Secular Government

This debate is about secular government and whether a secular government is more beneficial to a society than a theocratic government. In order for a better understanding of the topic, definitions for the terms in question will be provided to simplify the context of the debate for both contenders.Secular - accepting of all religious while not particularly devout to one ; a system by which church and state are separated.Beneficial - Having more benefits than costs (or rather more pros than cons).The format of the debate will be as follows:[1] Acceptance[2] Opening statements (no rebuttals permitted)[3] Rebuttals[4] ConclusionsThe debate is open to all debaters, and the first debater to take the challenge must agree to the following rules:1) The utilization of first person pronouns is prohibited (exception being the the first and fourth round).2) Purposefully disregarding the seriousness of the debate and otherwise "trolling" is worthy of an automatic loss and closure of the debate.3) All quotations and citations from internet articles, books other forms of literature related to the subject must be appropriately cited following the argument with a direct link to the quoted text.If the debater agrees to these contentions they must specifically state so in the acceptance round.
Rap battle

Man you're a f**king idiot, you make me insane the style of your crap is melting my brain god, you're so awful, made my ears a distortion your crappy bars could be used, to do abortions You are so bad at rhyming I bet you have sex with goats you take it in the mouth and they brick in your throat Your crap I feel like I'm talking to a wall by the way you should stop sucking balls
Rap battle

you, your rap is wick you talking smack, ill destroy you within a minute, by the time I'm done you will be crying, your lucky I didn't take that serious or you be dying on a cemetery don't let me get at you scary, cause I'm a lion on a steel bar cage ill unleash the rage make you feel the pain, and after this sentence your weather will under the rain. your next argument will be left in vain, I just stained your rep this ant a bet? I'm winning this battle cause I'm climbing on you like a latter listen it doesn't matter at the end of the my hand will raise but this will hurt your rep like a Taber and maze.
Rap battle

I accept. On one condition Forfeit all the rounds, cuz I be winnin You can call me names, but a female dog? think of some better ones, get yo head out the fog I mean seriously man, you suck for real you havnt rhymed yet and I know im steel You suck, your rhymes are super gay whyd they let you create this debate anyway? Your an idiot, prepare the defeat dance get yo head out ya ash, and yo hand out of yo pants.
Buddhism (Pro) or Christianity (Con)

1.) The Buddhist WorldviewThe Buddhist worldview is actually a very viable worldview. It can be summed up in the four seals of the Dharma:1.) All compounded things are impermanent.2.) All stained emotions are painful.3.) All phenomena are empty.4.) Nirvana is peace.http://buddhism.about.com...This worldview is a very viable one in our present day society, as it does not ask for zealous faith in a being, but merely following the way prescribed by it. I won't go into much detail, and this is not my whole argument, as this is just the first round. On Con's turn, I ask Con to outline why they think Christianity is "better".
Buddhism (Pro) or Christianity (Con)

I accept. Pro = debating that Buddhism is more relevant to 21 century, first world society Con = debating that Christianity is more relevant at all times. Burden of Proof shared. I agree with the definitions and terms (although I must say I will need to do some more research on Pro's religion). Voters: take note on what Pro said in R1 about keeping an open mind. LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!
Buddhism (Pro) or Christianity (Con)

Note: I previously posted this debate, but my opponent never posted any rounds. If you are interested, post a comment or message me. Thank you. The debate is simple enough. Which religion, of the two, is more relevant in our present day 21st century, first world society. Which one offers more truth, and which one is "better" (I left the word open to interpretation, as it will be up to the voters, based on the arguments that both sides give, to decide which one is better in their own terms). Definition of Truth: the quality or state of being true http://www.merriam-webster.com...... Definition of True: agreeing with the facts ; not false http://www.merriam-webster.com...... Con agrees to argue for the side of Christianity (any or all sects they wish), and I, Pro, agree to argue from the side of Buddhism (any or all sects I wish). The Burden of Proof is shared, and the first round is for acceptance only. For the voters and/or readers, I ask that you please keep an open mind, and consider the arguments, and not let your personal beliefs weigh in too much. For all of those involved in this debate, Con, readers, and voters, I thank you.
The Arts are Equally Important to the Traditional Core Subjects

The core subjects, which you have defined as being English, Math, Science, and Social Studies, should be considered of greater importance than subjects that fall under the traditional "Arts" category. First of all, these subjects contribute far more to society than the Arts do. With applications ranging from public policy, health care, economic growth, technological advances, and much more, I shouldn't need to dedicate more than a single sentence to explain to you how far the core subjects have brought human civilization. On the other hand, the Arts primarily serve two purposes in society: enriching culture, and providing entertainment. Both of these prove some function in society, but their benefits are intangible and immeasurable, and pale in comparison to the benefits the core subjects brings to all of society. They simply serve to compliment the core subjects, not be equal to them. Entertainment is what an individual uses to take a break from work, and in such a way it serves as a compliment. But entertainment and culture are not at the forefront of humanity's mind; what is at the forefront is trying to solve questions like: "What will we produce? How will we survive? How can we prosper?" These are all questions that the core subjects attempt to solve, whilst the Arts contribute next to nothing towards.
The Arts are Equally Important to the Traditional Core Subjects

English, math, science, and social studies are treated as the only "important" areas of study. However, the arts (creative writing, visual art, music, dance, theater, etc.) are equally important. The traditional core subjects offer little room for creativity, and they consist mostly of hard facts. The arts, on the other hand, offer the ability to express oneself. In addition, art is an important part of culture and history, and learning about the way a culture created and interpreted art can be key to understanding the culture.
abortion funds

Really I hate abortion pretty much until it comes down to the health of the mother. In the case of rape the woman should really bare the child. If the moms poor she doesn't have to take care of the child. There is adoption and adoption numbers have been flying due to the fact gay marriage is legal. Kids should be able to live there lives wether there parents love them or not. You cannot kill one for the needs of another. There's an estimated 15,000 abortions every year. That's 15,000 deaths in just one year because there parents don't want them.
abortion funds

I would like to remind the judges (the readers) that this debate is not about the aspects of abortion, rather about whether or not the Federal government funds/should fund abortions through tax payer dollars. My opponent has ignored my contentions that: 1) Federal funding for abortion is banned except in cases of rape, incest, and in the current version of the Hyde Amendment, where the pregnancy poses a significant risk to the life of the mother [A] 2) My opponent has already conceded that abortion is "okay in the case of rape." Incest is rape. Neither situation pose a significant risk to the life of the mother, so it would be rational that if you support the right to an abortion in the case of rape or incest, which does not amount to a medical necessity, a medical emergency would just as rationally justify an abortion, if not more rationally. 3) My opponent has to prove that abortion is funded by the Federal government to the degree he has claimed, and outside of the situations he has conceded are appropriate for government funded abortions. If this were an argument about the government funding the deaths of children, my opponent would also have to argue why death by abortion is worse than death by unmanned aerial vehicle. He would also have to argue why children are allowed to join the US Military, and their lives put at risk. He would have to argue why the government allows the death of children who don't have health care, or who's parents can't afford food. He would also have to argue why the government does not fund medical care of all children in the United States once they are born. Of course, my opponent would never make these arguments as they are against his conservative ideals, which are what dictates his opposition to abortion, rather than a genuine concern for life. Alas, this is not a debate about what my opponent alludes to, nor about what my opponent now tries to argue. This debate is about whether or not the government: A) Funds abortion with tax payer dollars, and B) Whether or not they should. I contend that A is false, save for in cases my opponent deems that funding necessary, or at least "okay." I would also agree with B- the government should fund abortion in some cases. [A] http://www.nrlc.org...
abortion funds

There are quite a bit of taxes actually though it may not have been as much as discussed earlier. But the people pay some of there annual income to help out murder man kinds most innocent citizens the unborn. You post a strong argument but the bills at the end of the month don't lie. Abortion is an issue because a whole kids fate is chosen by his mother. And if do pay you make that much easier. I think we should lower the taxes by about 50 percent and women should get a extensive reviews before she makes the choice. The government can't force citizen to pay for deaths of the poor children. People do not belong in the governments affairs to kill our children.
abortion funds

First of all, I'd like to point out that my opponent did not make a clear argument. He is arguing Con, but makes many assertions that are untrue, and unfairly assume Pro agrees with. These must be clarified. 1- Abortions are not funded by tax payer dollars. The Hyde Amendment, which is voted on every year, currently allows for federal funding of abortions in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy. Availability of these options vary from year to year, but for the sake of semantics, the Hyde Amendment bans federal funding of non-medical abortions/non-rape/incest abortions. 2- 0.4% of taxes are NOT used for abortion. My opponent's numbers are completely off. Planned Parenthood receives 0.008% of the annual federal budget, or about $300 million annually. Though Planned Parenthood is banned from using federal funds for abortions, only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services go towards abortion to begin with. So even if my opponent's completely skewed numbers are to be believed, Planned Parenthood would be using about $3 million annually on abortion- not $12 million monthly as he claims. With these two points clarified, I think it is justified to say that even though I am Pro, the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that: 1- The Federal Government provides significant funding of non-medical/non-abuse abortions through tax payer dollars, and 2- The amount of Federal dollars used to fund non-medical/non-abuse abortions is not justified. Thank you.
Persuasive Debate! (Video Format)

No cases of Overdosing on Marijuana: "While prescription painkillers cause thousands of overdose deaths each year, no one has ever died from a marijuana overdose. But is it even possible to overdose on weed? The answer is no, according to the National Cancer Institute. And here's why: "Because cannabinoid receptors, unlike opioid receptors, are not located in the brainstem areas controlling respiration, lethal overdoses from Cannabis and cannabinoids do not occur."" (http://www.leafscience.com...) Benefits of Marijuana: Helps Veterans Afflicted with PTSD Calms Tremors in Parkinson"s Patients Relieves Arthritis Pain Pain Reliever And much more! (http://ieet.org...)http://youtu.be... http://www.youtube.com...
Persuasive Debate! (Video Format)

Okay its' about time I started this!This is a persuasive video debate I had made a forum back like 4 months ago trying to find an opponent. http://www.debate.org...) So here is the introduction video..pretty simple.Sources (if used) shall be posted in the debate round. Resolution "Recreational Marijuana Should be Legalized in the U.S" http://www.youtube.com... By the way, I meant to say "Should be legalized" Not "It shall be legalized"
Anarcho-Capitalism (Con) vs Democratic Socialism (Pro)

Darn, I was so interested in this debate. I would like to say that Con was the toughest debater I debated with on the matter of socialism vs capitalism.Incase Con manages to have time the next few days, I would encourage him to put up a short conclusion of his main arguments. I would also put up a conclusion but that would make the number of rounds unfair.
Anarcho-Capitalism (Con) vs Democratic Socialism (Pro)

I hate to dot his, I'm kicking myself. But due to unforeseen circumstances in my personal life I was unable to complete this round. I Truely am sorry, and theunknown should win this because I forfeited. If you're willing, I'd definitely be up for a rematch within the next week or so. So vote pro, and hopefully we'll do this again soon. Once again, I apologize.
Anarcho-Capitalism (Con) vs Democratic Socialism (Pro)

Burden of Proof is shared in this debate, Roark555 must prove that Anarcho-Capitalism is preferable to Democratic socialism whilst I must prove the reverse.Con may use round 1 for arguments for arguments or acceptance. If round 1 is used for arguments by Con, then he must leave round 5 blank to avoid forfeiting the debate and to keep the number of rounds fair. Though I would appreciate if Con would go first since we can get this debate through quicker.Defenitions 'Anarcho-Capitalism': A term coined by Austrian-school economist Murray Rothbard to describe a market-based society with no government. Instead of government, all goods and services would be provided by private businesses. 'Democratic-Socialism': A political ideology advocating for a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system.'Democracy' - a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically [though not necessarily] through elected representatives.'Socialism' - a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community [in this case the democratic state] as a whole.'Anarchy' - absence of government'Capitalism' - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Abortion Should Be Unconditionally Legalised

My opponent simply supplies his opinion and does not give back up or reasoning for his opinion. I'll break down his argument a little at a time."Assuming that a woman hasn't gone through any physical or mental trauma in the conception of the child, even then I believe she has a right to her own body." Why? There is nothing backing this up. Now, it is worth mentioning here that a baby and the mother are genetically separate from conception, making the unborn child not part of the mother's body. "That she may do with it what she pleases, especially in the case of childbirth; due to the trauma of childbirth either through C-Section or the traditional way, there should be no question as to if she has control over how she deals with her unborn child." Again: Why? There is no backup here.Although, I notice my opponent calls the unborn baby what it is: a child.So, I'd like to ask my opponent a simple question: "It's OK for a mother to kill her child when _____"
Abortion Should Be Unconditionally Legalised

Assuming that a woman hasn't gone through any physical or mental trauma in the conception of the child, even then I believe she has a right to her own body. That she may do with it what she pleases, especially in the case of childbirth; due to the trauma of childbirth either through C-Section or the traditional way, there should be no question as to if she has control over how she deals with her unborn child.