BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
BMW is better than Mercedes-Benz

Mercedes essentially invented the internal combustion engine and generally speaking the automobile. It dates from the 1800s. BMW arrived in the 1920s and was a very small player up until the 2002 took off in the 1970s. It was more into aircraft engines than cars. Mercedes makes all kinds of commercial vehicles, trucks, etc. BMW only makes motorcycles in addition to its car lines. Mercedes owns Chrysler; BMW owns Mini. Mercedes is a large corporation with lots of stockholders; BMW is mostly privately owned by the Quandt family. The biggest thing BMW has going for it in the USA is its dealers and its customers, because besides the fact BMW has more quality problems than Mercedes by far, its customers don't complain as much and its dealers are better at fixing them and therefore the problems are unknown to the majority. BMW's image is the same worldwide, i.e. the "sporting" alternative to Mercedes.
BMW is better than Mercedes-Benz

First of all, I want to say, that we all in general consider Mercedes as car for comforable and calm driving, while BMW as sporty and dynamic vehicle and I think that assertion about Mercedes was appropriate in the past, but now it is just stereotype without any evidence. Nowadays BMW developed and from last 3-5 years doesn't concede in aspect of comfort to Mercedes and in this field they are on the same level of progress. For example if we compare BMW 7 series (F01/F02) and Mercedes S class (W221) only in comfort and smoothness of ride, we will realize that Mercedes isn't more comfortable or better for passanger on the rear seat, conversely BMW somewhere has better seats, better smoothness of ride, more settings and so on. But when we involve in the question of sport and speed, there is no doubts that the winner is certainly BMW, because no one can compare with BMW ///M, which is the legislators and they are much better than Mercedes AMG. Let's just compare BMW M6 GC and Mercedes CLS 63 AMG. The M6 feel itself much confident and better on the track and also it's faster in the drag race.
Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is legal when described as marriage but is grounds for divorce. Yes basic laws are relevant. No it is not obvious that gay means woman. Lesbian and Gay means men and woman the precedent already is in place. Lesbian is describing a liberty on sex. Gay is describing a liberty on sex. Marriage is not describing a liberty on sex. It is describing a man and woman. Binivir is describing two men. OnusMulier is describing one woman, which is in tern is generally describing a medical State two natural woman can share when together. Making this witness account unmistakable. At this time.
Gay Marriage

This makes no sense. It is obvious from my statement that gay marriage refers to the marriage between 2 men or 2 women, not a gay man and a lesbian woman. It also states nothing about gay sex, simply that 2 gay men or 2 lesbian women should be able to be married. The constitution, laws, etc. are not relevant, as this is a statement claiming that gay marriage SHOULD be legal. In other words, regardless of whether or not it is legal, regardless of constitutional laws, etc., it SHOULD be legal. You have yet to even bring up any arguments against this point at all.
Gay Marriage

Sorry for any delay. A gay marriage is already legal, a gay man can marry a lesbian woman just not a straight woman legally if he is using deception. The same goes for a woman as well. With no need for special exception to describe publicly any condition of sex. Gay is a particular sex, act which is being forced on the witness and is not relevant to what is being ask of them. An understanding is the witness is expected to place a person""s privacy above known truth. A constitutional definition describes these couples as Binivir"s and UnosMulier"s. Which is a loose translation to two men or one woman. This is a description that is imposing a provable truth of science and nature only. Not personal liberty of sex act. Constitutional law only has an obligation to judicial separation not interpretation of licensed Justice.
logic determines right and wrong thus morality

Contention 1: The Ontological Argument Dating as far back as the Saint Anslem, as this argument has been honnored by philosphers on every side of the spectrum. I shall be definding the version of this argument that was made popular by Alvin Plantinga. His model uses the S5 model and thus is immune to the popular arguments against that philospher Kant has made and hence making Kant's argument void. I shall also argue another point made famous by William CriagThe Argument is bellow. 1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [1] Here we can see that we can already see that on face value that it is possible that God exists. Due to this small plausability we can see that at any slight chance proves that there is a God in some reality and hence this reality. In order for Con to disprove God he must show that it is impossible in every possible circumstance. Now as we look at the premise 1 and 2 we can see that God can exist which leads me into my S5 argument. S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P [2] We can see with this applied to the above portion of premise 1 we can see that God can exist simply with their being a possibility and the only way to negate it would be to show that there is no possible way that God can exist in any given circumstance. When we follow this string of beliefs we can see that since God can exist in other worlds he can exist in reality and thus actually exists.So to conclude here, we can see that vi spex is not a maximally great being due to his debate record and it's obvious that there are other debaters on the site greater than him so he cannot be a maximally great being and thus cannot be God. Thus disproving a large bulk of his Round 3 arguments.My opponent says that he has no beliefs, but if that is true then that very statement is contradictory as he believes that he has no beliefs and is hence illogical. For him this sense of illogic is his sense of morality so we can see that my opponent has argued for the opposing side stating that illogic=Morality. He himself states that Morality doesn't equal logic and it's that concession there that there is no other option but for you to vote Con in this debate.Sources1. Oppy, Graham (8 February 1996; substantive revision 15 July 2011). "Ontological Arguments". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.2. Marenbon, M., Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. 128.
logic determines right and wrong thus morality

i have no beliefs, belief is theism i know my experience of now to me a star is a light in the night sky and nothing beyond that, and the earth i know beneath me has no necessary shape if=false=imaginary i agree that, i can remember what i imagine, just like i can remember what on the tv, but with cameras shooting for me, watching tv is the death of death god is imaginary, if you believe i am wearing a hat right now i am your god and then hat you imagine is your god if any truth existed about god, god would necessarily be true. religion is belief, belief is the opposite of knowledge, and know is the opposite of belief and knowledge. belief=Future=false. knowledge=past=truth, know=true=now life is, not was or will be lies are complicated by seperation and true is simple now as one morality dosnt equal logic.. i agree, morality is reason and intent, reason is logic and experience of it logic is the measurement of resonable, i determine what is resonable based on logic, but logic is still resonable, and resonable is moral, is good, is logical, is right
logic determines right and wrong thus morality

I would like to point out a flaw in your argument from last round. belief=unresonable=wrong=illogical=immoral=bad=false=imagination If that is true we can apply your belief "Morality=Logical" and thus in that stimulated equation we can see that "Morality=Logical" is your belief and thus=wrong and False from your own equation. So we can thus see that by your own logic you're incorrect and thus cannot be correct by your own standards. Another flaw in your own reasoning is this equation. logic+experience of it=reason(concept, mental simulation of logic) Let's see. If I exierence God, or religion or the Supernatural that we can see is the cause and effects of the paranormal relm we can see that it would have to be reasonable. Thus creates a memory which is correct based on the knowledge equation. Thus if we have memories of God or religion we can see that it's truth and logical and thus disproving your own theories. So the correct set of equations are really.Cause+effect=LogicGod=Morality=simplicityHumanity=Complication Simplicity=/=ComplicationThus,Humanity+Logic=Complication and death of God and morality.Morality=/=Logic
logic determines right and wrong thus morality

yes i agre logic dosnt equal morality. morality is subjective cause+effect=logic logic+experience of it=reason(concept, mental simulation of logic) reason+intent=morality belief=unresonable=wrong=illogical=immoral=bad=false=imagination knowlege=resonable=right=logical=moral=good=truth=memory it is wrong to place my hand on the stove if my goal is being healthy, or if my goal is feeling good. god is illogical, there is no logic in fantasy is it moral to feed your kid battery acid if you want it to be healthy? let me think for you.. no ..becasue its not healthy for the kid.. and thus its wrong, its immoral, illogical, unresonable
logic determines right and wrong thus morality

If we apply the Infinite Monkey theorem we can see that no matter what there is a chance that ANYTHING can happen and thus we need to keep these possibilities in mind. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) It's for this reason that shows that even though shark attack odds and lightening striking odds are really low, but yet they still happen. We thus cannot ignore that. You can show it, but the fact is that you haven't shown that he is imaginary and I have posted proof and thus we just have to go with my evidence until you disprove me. Once again your logic is flawed. You imagined this equation as all things are imagined and by your own standards this theory is false. Plus if your last equation is correct then reason would have to be 1+1=Infinitity. In order for it to be both false or true, but even then it's contradictory and cannot have an applicable answer and at that your logic is once again flawed and incorrect.
logic determines right and wrong thus morality

i agree with those numbers thingies imagiation=god=possibility=false=future god exist, lies exist so to show that possibility is irrelveant i can simple state that its possible god is just an imaginary idea. therfore any further assertion is irrelvant, and if not i might as well write a comic book and belive in it reality is not something that can happen, reading these words on the screen is happening reality is logic, morality is reason, reason is false and truth, logic is true. 1+1=2=logic, 1+1=3=reason
premarital sex is not forbidden in the bible

To answer your question, here is where the Bible forbids pre-marital sex: 1 Corinthians 7:1-2. "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. " (KJV) So here we see Paul recommending not having sex with a woman, condemning "sexual immorality", and saying the solution to to sexual immorality is to have sex with one's spouse. So clearly, Paul considers all sex outside of marriage to be sinful. There are only two types of sex. 1. Pre-marital, and 2. Post-marital. With this in mind, even if Paul was only referring to prostitution or incest with his use of "pornea", that's still pre-marital sex. Now, maybe you might say that Paul was always referring to adultery when he used the word "pornea". But then how do you explain where he condemns both adultery and what was translated "fornication"? For example, in the very same letter. to the Corinthians, he says in 6:9-10 " 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, (KJV) 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Finally, Pro's source is wrong to imply that the condemnation of pre-marital sex was a 19th century invention. It was believed by Christians even while the Apostle John was still alive. We know this by reading a passage from an ancient catechism called The Didache (written around 85 A. D. ). Notice again the distinction made between adultery and promiscuity: """ you shall not commit adultery; you shall not corrupt boys; you shall not be sexually promiscuous; you shall not steal; you shall not practice magic; you shall not engage in sorcery; you shall not abort a child or commit infanticide. (Did 2:1-2) So I have shown two places where the Bible forbids pre-marital sex. Whether or not the other passages Pro quotes condemn it or not is irrelevant. I have proven the Con position.
premarital sex is not forbidden in the bible

no where does the bible explicitly forbid premarital sex. it has prohibitions on 'fornication', but that only means 'unlawful sex'. that doesn't necessarily include premarital sex. in fact, in the old testament when it is listing various sins including sexual sins, it doesn't mention premarital sex. if it was wrong, you'd think it'd be included. conservatives expanded the definition of fornication from the original usage. originally it doesn't include premarital sex: "Strong's Concordance gives 19th century meanings to Greek and Hebrew words found in the Bible. It describes "pornea," as having a somewhat broader usage in Biblical times, compared to today. When used literally, it includes three activities: prostitution, adultery and incest. Figuratively it means idolatry, or sexual intercourse between unmarried persons. However, most conservative Christian churches have greatly expanded the English term "fornication." It is to them a catchall term" http://www.religioustolerance.org... a common argument is that Jesus forbade lustful thoughts. that would pretty much inherently prohibit permarital sex. Matthew 5:27-28 (New International Version 2011) Mt 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." Mt 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." there are a few problems with this approach. the first glaring issue is that he used adultery when he could have said fornication or something else. why is that? adultery is specific to marriage, and lustful thoughts do not necessarily have anything to do with marriage. the real problem though, is a mistranslation of what Jesus said. "lust" is the same word as "covet" in biblical language. also, "woman" is the same word as "wife". http://www.jasonstaples.com... covet, most christians agree, means something excessive, inordinate. that's why you don't see people get hung up on the ten commandments, cause they know it's something excessive, not just passing thoughts. in fact, if you look up covet in the dictionary, it says "inordinate". according to Webster's dictionary "to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably" so, we basically have Jesus saying, "if you covet another's wife, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart". we already know the covet rule by the commandments, and Jesus is just getting to the "heart" of it, pun intended. noteably, this also causes Jesus's 'adutlery' usage to make a lot more sense.
premarital sex is not forbidden in the bible

"con makes a pretty big leap there. i'd say all paul is saying is sex is best kept in marriage given all the immorality. but he doesn't define the immorality. it's similar to when Paul says that a priest should ideally have no more than one wife. he wasn't saying you can only have one wife, just that that was preferrable and most conservative. he couldn't really say otherwise, as it was well established that people often had many wives and were still following their religion. " As I explained in the previous round, Paul did more than saying sex is best within marriage. He said men should avoid having sex. But if they find that too difficult, they should only have sex with their wife. (1 Corinthians 7:2). As for what Paul said about clergy having wives, my opponent has not provided us with the relevant passage, so I will reserve commenting until such a time. "pretty fuzzy logic there. first, con admits paul might not be talking about consensual premarital sex that does not involve prostitution or incest, right after he says it's clear that Paul said otherwise. " I was playing Devil's advocate. "second, he's conflating premarital sex with prositiution and incest. perhaps he's tecdhincally true that it is premarital sex, but that doesn't mean all premarital sex is bad. at best, he's trying to win the debate on some sort of semantical point given not all premarital sex is permissible. " This debate is basically over. Notice how my opponent has admitted that "technically" my claims are true that the Bible forbids pre-marital sex (at least sometimes). Remember the title of this debate: "premarital sex is not forbidden in the Bible", but my opponent has admitted that "technically" the Bible forbids it in certain cases. With that in mind, please vote Con. "con is also resorting to quoting possibly apocraphal books? " As I started in the previous round, the reason I offered the passage from the Didache was to show that Pro was wrong to claim that Christians didn't condemn pre-marital sex until the 19th century. They did so from they very beginning of the Christian era. So the question is, who's interpretation of the original Greek word "pornea" are you going to trust. .. those believers who learned from the Apostles themselves, or someone 2,000 years removed, like Pro? "at any rate, promiscuity can be viewed as wrong even if some premarital sex isn't wrong. " So my opponent admits that only "some" pre-marital isn't wrong. That implies that some pre-marital sex IS wrong. . This debate has been settled. I have won.
premarital sex is not forbidden in the bible

"So clearly, Paul considers all sex outside of marriage to be sinful." con makes a pretty big leap there. i'd say all paul is saying is sex is best kept in marriage given all the immorality. but he doesn't define the immorality. it's similar to when Paul says that a priest should ideally have no more than one wife. he wasn't saying you can only have one wife, just that that was preferrable and most conservative. he couldn't really say otherwise, as it was well established that people often had many wives and were still following their religion. "With this in mind, even if Paul was only referring to prostitution or incest with his use of "pornea", that's still pre-marital sex." pretty fuzzy logic there. first, con admits paul might not be talking about consensual premarital sex that does not involve prostitution or incest, right after he says it's clear that Paul said otherwise. second, he's conflating premarital sex with prositiution and incest. perhaps he's tecdhincally true that it is premarital sex, but that doesn't mean all premarital sex is bad. at best, he's trying to win the debate on some sort of semantical point given not all premarital sex is permissible. con cites a source that distingushes adultery and fornication. i never tried to equate pornea with adultery though so i will just let that go. and add that again fornication hasn't been defnied here and does include premarital sex. and that it was conservatives who expanded thedefinition, as shown in the first post. con is also resorting to quoting possibly apocraphal books? at any rate, promiscuity can be viewed as wrong even if some premarital sex isn't wrong. even most people who have premarital sex will agree "too much is too much". promiscuious basically means "too much". it is self definiting and gives no frame of reference. also, it should be noted, that con is resorting to extra biblical work, when the debate has been said to be about the bible itself.
The big bang happened

You logic is flawed, you say time doesn't exist, yet we age, plants grow, things get bigger or smaller, time, weather existing or not, does not disprove the Big Bang, if time doesn't exist, then this whole debate took no time to happen, yet we humans still see the effects, when you say time doesn't exist, you contradict yourself, due to the fact that if it didn't or doesn't exist we do not have birth? Time is us, we have usually around 85 years to live out our lives, but if time doesn't exist, we are already dead, thus this debate is a waste of time, but wait, time doesn't exist, so it can't be a waste, but it is a waste of time, but time doesn't exist.
The big bang happened

My opponent begs the question. He states that I have to provide an explanation for the beginning of the universe, as if it came into being. However, that presupposes temporal becoming, which I argued against and got no response to. Also, all I have to do to win this debate is argue sufficiently that The Big Bang did not happen, I don't have to replace that with something different. So, the notion that I have to replace the idea that "The Big Bang happened" with a different explanation is flawed. Regardless I believe in The Big Bang theory at its most fundamental level, I just don't believe it "happened". Every state of affairs that we would say existed at what we call a "moment" in the past after The Big Bang, that we would say exists "now" and will exist in the "future" exist as a timeless collection. No events actually occur, change is just an illusion.My opponent didn't respond to any of my arguments from the last round. Therefore, they stand. I argued that time doesn't exist and is an illusion, and that this entails nothing has ever happened, happens, or will happen. Change is an illusion. Thus, The Big Bang couldn't have really happened.The resolution has been negated.
The big bang happened

If the Big Bang did not happen, you will have to provide a secular-scientific beginning of the universe based on evidence, not belief, without that, you will have argued against something without your own reasoning/beginning of the universe, without these, you will have just debated me without a huge piece of evidence, one piece that you will need to win this debate, or at least get points and I getting the argument points. Arguments passed on to con, after he makes his round 4 argument, I will refute it in round five, then he refute me.