BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Story Battle!

Alright then. Here is my Story....Afterlife?A dark and dreary storm came over sally's house. The only thing that could be heard were the sounds of the rain outside and her mothers footsteps as she was cleaning the kitchen. It was a long Christmas eve and her grandmother was coming over to visit. She just couldn't wait to finally tell her about the new friends she was making, or the toys she hoped she would get. Sally quietly paced herself as her mother quietly walked over to the bathroom to "powder her nose" so to speak. Sally was getting very impatient and wasn't able to wait any longer. She trotted herself downstairs to be welcomed by a dark lump figure on the couch. It was her grandmother. She had actually came. Sally was just delighted and ran toward her with sprinting action. They had hugged and kissed. Sally had demanded what took her so long for such an easy drive. Her grandmother had said she was just getting some gas and they both walked upstairs quietly into Sally's room. Sally lay on her bed while her grandmother had placed a blanket on her. Accompanied by all of the love, Sally was getting very tired and her eyes were resting slowly. The last thing her grandmother had said before Sally fell asleep was, "Marry Christmas."Sally had awoken the next morning, jumped out of bed and ran to the kitchen. Her mother was sobbing loudly while staring at a note inscribed by the police. Sally had asked what was wrong? Her mother had merely replied, "Sally," She lay a hand on Sally's shoulder. "Grandma wont be coming this Christmas. She has passed away by a car accident on the way here." Sally was certainly confused. She had explained, "But mommy, Grandma visited me last night." All her mother could do left was cry.The endWell? You like? Its supposed to be a sad story but I might have added to much description so it became less sad because of that but this was just the beginning. (I hope.. *_*)
Story Battle!

Ok guys this debate is basically just a bunch of stories that you guys can vote on which is best. So, here is how the debate will go for whoever agrees...1. Each round will consist of ONE SHORT STORY. 2. It can be absolutely any genre you want so long as it stays within the number of characters.3. When you people vote I would appreciate it if you would make a comment on which story out of all of them was the best.4. When making your story you must type a title to go with it so that people that vote can just type the title of the one/(s) they enjoyed. Good luck and thank you for the person that accepts my debate.
The Restriction of the Internet is a Human Rights Abuse.

So, the question is ' The Restriction of the Internet is a Human Rights Abuse'. Since the introuction of the Human Rights Act in 1988 new technologies have arose shaping the world around us. In 1990 when Tim Berners Lee created the World Wide Web (www.) for FREE it has had a major impact on the way we all live our lives on a daily basis. Now, countries which have the ability to Internet Access and its people aren't stopped accessing due to wealth and other problematic things which may restrict their ability to access the tool which is the WWW, restricting their access could be argued as a breach of their Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association ( achieved through forums, boards and social media) and Protocol 1, Article 2 Right to education due to the mass amount of information available on a metric ton of topics. Restricting the internet in countries tends to be for politcal gain and avoid many other things. By noticing this breach of human rights it ensures that people rights offline should be the same as when they are online.
The Restriction of the Internet is a Human Rights Abuse.

More than half of the world"s population lives in countries that restrict internet and media access: 34 percent in countries that heavily restrict internet access or content with another 23 percent with partially restricted access, according to a 2015 Freedom of the Net report. The question is, are all these countries committing human rights abuses? Rules:1. No trolling2. No bringing up arguments after introduction of one's side3. Do not attack the person (Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy)4. My opponent agrees to my definition of human rights, abuse, and restriction provided later on. (If you are absolutely against the definitions, please comment your versions and if I am alright with them, then you can accept.5. Forfeiting or "freezing" the debate will result in automatic loss. 6. Evidence is not mandatory but will be regarded above logical reasoning.7. All links should be added at the end of the debate with notes in the argument as to what link was used.8. No religious offense should be brought in (Sensitive topic and can sway voters immensely) and if any are, will result in automatic loss. Format:R1: Rules, Acceptance and Pro ArgumentsR2: Con Arguments/Rebut, Pro Rebut/RebuildR3: Con Rebut/Rebuild, Pro Rebut/Rebuild/Final RemarksR4: Con Rebut/Rebuild/Final Remarks, Pro (Just smile and wave :))Note: Pro may not attack or rebuild in the last round as they were allowed to start off with the arguments and would offset equal arguing time. Definitions:Restrict: Put a limit on, keep under controlInternet: The global communication network that allows almost all computers worldwide to connect and exchange informationHuman rights: rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible. Abuse: unjust or corrupt practiceAll definitions were found online (simply Google them) except for Human Rights which were defined by the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner[1]. Remember that this is an international topic. Therefore, one must evaluate or at least bring into consideration other countries other than the United States. I wish the best of luck to my opponent. Let's have a great debate! Sources:[1]. http://www.ohchr.org...;
Atheism is a LIE

Thanks Con for your rebuttal and the opportunity to clarify once more. I have been payng attention. But I believe Con wants to make his logic as obscure as possible, so it would be difficult to do so. Also Since this is the last Round i will wrap up my argument best I can. May the best argument win. i'd like to also mention that Con needs to stop asserting strawmen for his argument. Clearly, I have established what constitutes "valid evidence" is DIFFERENT for an atheist and a theist. Con used equivocation fallacies to generate strawmen for him to fight against. He confuses the audience, by stating it does not matter what the word "evidence" even means. This is obviously not true. Another lie. It matters of immensely on what or how evidence is defined as. How can you even tell if a proposition is true or false, if you are not even properly defining your terms? Basically Con argues my proposition is impossible to prove, because he cannot understand what I mean by "evidence." Entirely illogical. Allow me to skip through your straw men and prove it once again. This time i will clarify on the terms my opponent is obviously confused on, and allow him to refute once more. Though I expect he will just continue with more strawmen, like when he tried to insist that I was arguing that "atheists dont exist. " in R2 and 3. 1. No one "knows" or holds "scientific evidence" for or against the existence of God. 2. Then if someone claims to hold scientific evidence for or against God , they lie. As well all know. Atheists claim evolution as counter evidence for God. Theists believe this is not scientific evidence against god. Either way, atheists believe this is valid evidence against God. Then require similar standards of evidence from theists. Ie. Asking for "valid" or scientific evidence for God. IF we define knowledge as having valid evidence, atheists claim to know About God's existence. Atheists claim they have scientific evidence for their beliefs , which is to KNOW. And therefore atheists lie. Pretty simple logic actually.
Atheism is a LIE

I am finally glad to see Pro actually paying attention to the debate and not arguing against his own definitions. "I specifically stated that we are using the atheist definition of evidence, which is scientific evidence." I does not matter what definition of evidence we actually use, if Pro concedes that at least one party has evidence. Even if we use scientific evidence, and only atheists have evidence, what difference does it make? Still, there is someone with evidence. If evidence exists, C1P1 is FALSE. Notice that Pro has already conceded that atheists have scientific evidence: "IF we decide that evidence is scietntific evidence or even demonstrable evidence in court, YES the evidence for theism is weaker."(R3) Subsequently Pro asks: "But who considers the Bible to be valid evidence" (R4) Pro does. "For me, the theist, I consider the bible to be valid evidence for God." (R3) I have to state here, that I am not biased in any way. I was since the beginning asking Pro to define his terms. I would accept anything that was not contradictory, as I promised. If Pro wants evidence, I accept evidence. If Pro wants no evidence, I accept no evidence. If Pro wants know = evidence + belief, I will accept that too. His resolution is impossible to prove, since it requires biased definitions to prove that 2 people that hold a different belief, one of them is a liar and the other is not. The only thing I said in R1, is that I will not accept biased definitions and assertions, i.e. one side has evidence, the other doesn't etc. Even if I accept that no evidence exists, for neither atheists nor theists, and C1P1 is actually TRUE, Pro must still show what part of definition of atheism says they have evidence, causing them to "know", thus making his Construct 3 TRUE. However, I find it rather convenient for Pro to change his position to "no evidence", now that he saw that it backfired. We have already agreed on the definition of Atheist: A person who disbelieves that God exists. Disbelief is a rejection of a claim with or without evidence. (as agreed) Nowhere is evidence involved. Therefore: Atheists don't claim to know anything.
Atheism is a LIE

Pro seems undecided about the definition of evidence we should use. I find this reasonable, but since this is the case, I don"t understand why he argued with me in the first place. It seems that we agree. In this round Pro pretty much conceded this debate by accepting that valid evidence exists pro or against the existence of God. "I did not deny that evidence could not exists both ways." "theists in fact DO have evidence" "For me, the theist, I consider the bible to be valid evidence for God. " "Con admits that both sides have evidence." (That's one of the first things I said in R1, and Pro disagreed) The above make his statement C1P1 FALSE. Even if we assume that C1P1 is TRUE: Pro believes that God exists. (apparently) Pro claims that he has valid evidence for God. (he just did in R3) Pro claims to know whether God exists. (see definition of knowledge) Pro is a liar. (through his construct 1) Plenty of people would be happy to argue about the existence of God in this website. If that's what Pro wants, he should make a debate stating explicitly that. I know that making such a provocative statement will get more attention, but it's impossible for Pro to support such a case. In R2 and R3, Pro made absolutely no effort to stand by his initial argument. He wrote 3 constructs in R1, and he abandoned them right away. He is trying to debate about whether God exists or not, which is irrelevant to THIS debate. This debate is about whether the definition of atheism means that it is a lie ("Atheism is a lie by definition and logic."). I accepted Pro's definitions, and showed how (with these definitions) C1P1 is FALSE and C3P2 is not included in the definition of atheism. I asked Pro in both rounds to support his argument ("I am expecting Pro to address my points, and prove his case. Particularly the points I made about C1P1, and C3P2.","I would like Pro to explicitly make an effort to show how this statement is possibly true."). If Pro has nothing to support his initial argument, I will kindly ask him to forfeit the next rounds, or admit he lost.
Atheism is a LIE

chipmonk Pro I have yet to recieve a satisfactory rebuttle to this argument. Hopefully, this time around , my opponent will not use critical fallacies one after another in place of his argument. If you do not know what a "fallacy" is, please do not accept this debate. There are no rules in logical debates. The only rule is that you be logical. If you are illogical , or only want to discuss things based on a matter of your own opinion, please do not accept this debate. I present 3 constructs, in which i argue each is a logical truth on its own.. As well as my final conclusion being deduced from the combination of all three constructs. You can attempt to refute any part of my construct, definitions or logic. Just please do so logically. My resolution is "Atheism is a lie." Below is my logical argument supporting my resolution. Theism. Belief in God Atheism. Disbelief in God. A LIE. Deception. Pretending. Acting. Hypocrisy. To decieve another or give another a false or inaccurate depiction of the truth. Belief...assumption of truth with or without evidence Disbelief assumption of falsehood due to a lack or contradictory evidence. Faith. An assertive Belief without valid evidence. Knowing. An assertive belief with valid evidence. Construct 1 Premise1 : no one can know if God exists of not. Premise2: to claim to know is to have valid evidence Conclusion: whoever claims to know if God exists or not, is a liar. Construct 2 Premise 1: Believers claim they have faith God exists. Premise 2: to have faith is a belief without valid evidence (see defintions) Conclusion: Believers do not claim to "know" if God exists. Construct 3 Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists. Premise 2: disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence. (See definitions) Conclusion: Atheists claim to "know" if God exists. Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic. Rules. If u do not know how logic works. You lose. If you do not like my definitions, you may propose an alternate definition. However, Both parties must concede to all definitions for any claim to be evaluated at all. If con is unable to find an agreeable ground for each definition cited, there is no point in talking to each other as we are not even talking the same language. Logic. Basically, Con and Pro must agree on definitions before making any argument for or against. Any arguments ensued without agreeing on definitions is rendered moot. Report this Argument as flawless.
Justice delayed is justice denied

I'll make 2 quick arguments for now: 1. Justice Delayed The very phrase/concept of 'justice delayed' suggests that justice is/was served; it simply is/was postponed or deferred until a later point in time. However, regardless of WHEN justice is/was served, it is/was still being served... meaning that justice is/was not denied, and I have negated the resolution -- (Sorry for all of the is/was's). 2. Temper Temper Our first reaction to a provoking situation is passionate. For instance, if my friend said something a little mean about me, I might be FURIOUS about it at first. I may even choose to punch my friend in the face. However in time, chances are that I'll have calmed down and rationality will have had a chance to resignate. We are, after all, instincutal beings (though we do have the ability to process logic and reason and use discretion). Sometimes that discretion - or better judgment - takes a little time. Usually after the initial shock, heartbreak or anger of an emotional situation, we are able to come to terms with reality regarding the situation, and our opinion of what is at hand has changed. An example in modern society of this shift deals with the support if the war in Iraq. At first, public opinion for the war was high as the Bush administration threw words like 'weapons of mass destruction' and 'remember 9/11' around. Everyone wanted Osama dead, the Taliban destroyed and - ha - peace in the middle east. Yet here we are 5 years later and public opinion has certainly changed, to say the least! In March of 2003, 72% of Americans supported the war, whereas in February of 2008, only 38% still believed in the cause [1]. My point? This example is just one of many which illustrate how people may realize they "may have been wrong..." with their initial thought process or approach. Instead, I argue that justice delayed can actually LEAD TO justice being served, in the sense that time actually allows for clarity and the opportunity to take many things into account regarding what is moral/fair/just. 3. Rebuttal I also don't necessarily agree with my opponent's claim that time makes people forget. For instance, I don't think people would welcome Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot with open arms given their crimes, or even bother trying to minimize their failures/terror. You often hear the phrase "Time heals all wounds," not "Time eliminates justice."
The Trinity is the most fundamental belief of Christian doctrine.

I'm still unsure what the premise of your argument is intended to be. Your comments certainly helped because they were a bit clearer and less scattered, though they still did not really solidify what you're trying to say. Of course, I would greatly appreciate clarification, either explicitly or through the direction you take in this round, but for now I will simply continue with my own argument. As I mentioned previously, the Trinity is crucial because without it, God would not be loving - which, considering God is love, is a rather important idea to consider. If one is loving, there is an implied beloved. So, if God is eternally loving, He must have someone eternally to love. Jesus - the Word of God - is this person: - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1, English Standard Version). - "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed" (John 17:5). We also know that God the Father loves His Son, Jesus, joined in unity by the Holy Spirit: - "And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased'" (Matthew 3:16-17). Finally, know that Jesus loves his Father and delights to do His will: - "but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. . ." (John 14:31). - "Jesus said to them, 'My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work'" (John 4:34). Thus, we can be certain that because God is a Trinity, He is indeed loving. Without the Trinity, this would not be the case.
The Trinity is the most fundamental belief of Christian doctrine.

Trinity = avoda zara. Xtianity virtually has no real scholarship in its texts. The bible translations, utterly pathetic. Brit does not mean covenant, tohor does not mean clean, tuma does not mean unclean. The noise new Testament and the absurd old testament does not even once bring the Name of the God of Israel. This violates both the first and second commandments of Sinai. But this does not concern this religion of stupidity and arrogance. As if belief and dogmatism determine the reality of the Gods. This vile dead religion which has murdered more people - Jack the Ripper was a saint in comparison. This evil scum filth which styles itself as moral - by their fruits you shall know them; the Holocaust proves the wickedness and moral depravity of the religion of Xtianity.
The Trinity is the most fundamental belief of Christian doctrine.

Given the nature of this topic as one deeply rooted in the Christian worldview, I would prefer to debate a brother or sister in Christ, though the debate is open to anyone. The first round is simply for accepting the challenge and stating your position; I added a fourth round to keep the same number of debate rounds. I look forward to debating whoever accepts this challenge, and I pray that both of us, as well as anyone else who sees this discussion, will come to know God more richly and fully through this. Many Christians have a tendency to dismiss the doctrine of the Trinity as unnecessary, unknowable, complicated to understand, or even unbiblical. I, however, contend that the Trinity is actually central to Christian belief, shaping everything about our faith. It is what makes the Christian faith distinct from other religions, and it is what gives our beliefs any validity. Without the Trinity, God would not be loving. Without the Trinity, humans would have a miserable, hopeless existence. Without the Trinity, the resurrection would be meaningless. These are obviously very bold claims, so clearly there is something to be said for the importance of the Trinity. Many of the ideas that I will bring up during the debate are discussed and expanded upon in Michael Reeves' book, Delighting in the Trinity. It's an excellent read, and I highly recommend it for anyone (Christian or not) who is interested in understanding Christianity and the Trinity in more detail. You can find the book on Amazon here: http://a.co...
Should the Olympics be moved out of Russia? (Open version)

These will be my final statements on this debate. I'd like to thank the spectators and my adversary for participation in this debate. My competitor conceded to me that honor was not a proper way to determine whether or not the Olympics should be moved out of Russia. He claimed that the Olympics were an honor that Russia did not deserve. I countered by pointing out that other countries who could be considered dishonorable have hosted the Olympics, and that it is not a condition by which the Olympics were held. In relation to the issue of Human Rights in Russia, I conceded that this was a concern for which we should be aware. It is important to take note of for the circumstances involved here and it shouldn't be ignored. Concerning the safety of the athletes, they are not likely to face any serious threats as long as they maintain that they are at the Olympics to compete. My opponent argued many times about how the populace of Russia has the possibility of posing a harm to the athletes. In this I have continuously disagreed, as the athletes security is ensured, to the best ability of the government, by the government. Considering the amount of time, expenses and work the Russian government has put into this operation, it is unlikely the Olympics will be delayed, moved, or insecure. The athletes haven't much to worry about in their security. In the actual letter of the law, my opponent decided to continue his argument into the closing statements. In terms of the definitions of this law, my opponent continues to pick away at the words and definitions of the law. At some point the law is open to interpretation and no matter how rigorously you define each word, there will be people who mistake it for something else. In regards to Athletes being reward for their efforts, they should be rewarded for the work they have been doing to train for these games. The delays would cost them and Russia time. This does not mean that they couldn't postpone these games, but more that they shouldn't have to. In conclusion, the Olympics games should not be moved. They should not be delayed. They can stay where they are and the athletes can be defended. Perhaps something good will come out them staying there and being there while this law is in effect. Russia would prefer to be good sports and not offend other nations. I'll once again thank my opponent, MysticEgg, and the onlookers for their involvement in this debate. This is certainly a debate where we can all learn something and I hope everyone has.