BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should gay people be left alone

Romans 1:26 says: For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. the bible was written by men who WERE INSPIRIDED by God, and it says that in the Bible, it also says this in Revelations 22:19: testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. 20He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. God says that if anyone adds to the bible, saying that things are in it when their really not, that they arent real christians. You say that God made people Gay, but where is your proof. there is no way to prove that people were born gay. You also say that we don't know that the Bible is true because their is no one around to prove it, but you believe that George Washington was the first president, yet you have no way to proove that besides your history book. We as Christians have the Bible as our History book to prove all that we believe is true.
Should gay people be left alone

Ok, but the fact that you say it is a temptation! Some people are born gay, and its not always a choice. I don't believe that people are making themselves think that they are gay. I think that when creating human's, there were gay people in the process and God knew that. The bible was not written by God, we don't even know if some of the things in the bible are true, because no one is alive to prove it. I believe that many of the things in the Bible are of some people opinions. While the Bible in Genesis tells us that God made "male and female," does this really mean that all males and all females need to end up with opposite sex partners? "In the beginning, God made Adam and EVE, not Adam and Steve, nor Eve and Jane." Anti-gay Christian ministers have used this as a crux to grow the myth that homosexuality is "unnatural."
Should gay people be left alone

Those people that say that God doesnt love every one are not true Christians. They dont know what they are talking about. God loves everyone and that is why he gave us the Bible to instruct us on what is right and what is not right, so that one day their will be no more evil and sin, and we can all live with him in heaven. Being Gay is wrong and God will help those who are Gay to over come their temptations, and to turn away from their sin because God loves them. Being Gay is a sin, but it is also a choice. No one is born gay, people will aways be able to come up with excuses for their sin. People can make themselves believe whatever they want to, and until they put their strength and trust in God they will continue to be decieved by their own sin.
Should gay people be left alone

Gay people are like any other person. They eat, breathe & talk. Firstly, gay's have been pointed as sinful, disgusting humans, just because the bible says so. Of what I read of Homosexual bible versus...all it says is that it is an abomination . For some strange reason, everyone one says "God loves everybody"., And God does love everybody but for people who aren't for gays, they say "God loves every body", but then they go hate on gay people and say that God doesn't love you.
YouTube Ban in Pakistan

My main idea behind the question was that does it make any difference to YouTube? I am against it because I don't think it does. I guess I didn't clearly put my question but I do know that Pakistan indeed suffers a great loss from it. I myself used it for a lot of things like watching cooking shows or documentaries etc. Pakistan was not the main contender in the race of producing massive content for YouTube, but it indeed was used and accessed a lot from the people of different communities.
YouTube Ban in Pakistan

I think that Pakistan is more affected, in terms of integrity. Not only Pakistan is a country that is low on internet access and would have been low on content creation (due to the level of freedom in the country), Youtube belong to Google. Meanwhile, the loss of Youtube, which is the definite leader of video sharing over the web, is a separation from an incredibly open, rich, vibrant, and accessible source of information and content for Pakistan. Just flexing my brain muscles. I don't know about the situation, and we're not amounting to much enlightening here. Plus we strayed away from the starting question, which I positively ansewered validly because in itself it was a useless question.
2040 fed govt mandate all light trucks and cars in the US should be powered by alternative fuels

2040 has, of all years, been set by my opponent as the year by which the federal government ought to mandate all light trucks and cars operated within our borders operate on alternative fuels, which I take to mean, "fuels other than gasoline or diesel. " I'll not argue with my opponent about the virtues of alternative fuels. While I don't feel that using oil as a fuel is completely bad or wrong, I agree that other energy sources could provide a cleaner, more renewable form of energy. There is no doubt in my mind that the emissions that oil products produce could be harmful to our environment, you'll find no contest here. However, I disagree most emphatically with my opponents exhortations that, "alternative" fuels ought to be mandated. The American people know what they want; businesses provide it. Remember, it was not government mandates that brought about better computers, better cellular phone technology, better medical care, and so forth. Private businesses saw a need, saw a demand for a good or service, and provided it to profit from it. Some of those businesses will fail, especially at the beginning. Such is life. But A business led by a maverick entrepreneur will come along with the right business plan and will make new innovations available to the public. Why the government has a right to mandate such a thing is beyond me, anyhow. Show me where in the Constitution, on what line, in what article, is the federal government granted the right to control what kind of transportation I use? Where are they allowed to force companies and private citizens to comply with their idea of, "good," means of energy? Emission standards, sure. You might have a case there. But looking at an American citizen and saying, "no. Your evil gasoline burning Honda is not good enough. We are going to force you to spend your hard earned money how WE want you to, and that is on a brand new alternatively-fueled vehicle. It's preposterous. We have, at citizens and as business entities, rights that our government should not be allowed to trample upon. This proposed mandate is just another head on the 1984-esque Big Brother-Big Government beast that rears up every four years or so. We must RESIST government growth and expansion wherever it comes up, especially when it is illegitimate and Unconstitutional, as this proposed mandate it.
2040 fed govt mandate all light trucks and cars in the US should be powered by alternative fuels

1. Helps fight global Warming. Environmental Defense 2003. Our light trucks and cars contribute more to global warming than 190 other countries. 2. Nano-solar technology is a viable option, it runs at 80 % efficiency only way to be better is having your car be a nuclear power plant. 3. helps solve oil dependency - oil dependence as bad as WMDs ( Senator Dick Lugar) - Oil dependency = 1/3 of the US's account deficit harming the US economy - Oil dependency funds terrorists, 1 million of Velenzuela oil profits to Al quada from USA money - 15/19 9/ 11 hijackers received funds from our oil profits 4. mandate needed - Romm a senior fellow at American progress; no country has ever introduced a mass market of Alternative Fuel vehicles without a mandate/ - Tampa Tribune 2008, Free Market wont solve . The fickle nature of the market along with market fluctations hurts private invesments. We need alternative fuels to help combat global warming and oil dependency a mandate ensures completion.
The Bible teaches that water baptism is for - to obtain - the remission of sins.

Pro is, to put it lightly, a fool. Rather than make any attempt to respond to my interpretation of Biblical events, my opponent has capitalized on my ONE misreading of a SINGLE verse. My opponent has utterly failed to do anything resembling a debate. Quoting the Bible isn't an argument. My opponent seems to be blaming me for not quoting the Bible, in spite of the fact that no stipulation was ever made that I had to. After having reviewed several other debates instigated by my opponent, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that my opponent would rather stoop to the level of personal attacks whenever the existence of God and the truth of the Bible is called into question. My opponent shouldn't be instigating religious debates if she can't stand the thought of another person questioning her beliefs. My opponent hasn't even attempted to prove me wrong and has simply stated that I am wrong. No attempt at argumentation has been made by the pro. I will only concede the single point that I have repeatedly conceded. Her second point, first sentence, directly supports the position that I have taken, which the pro has made no effort to address at all. As for the third point, if we're going to acknowledge that maybe Paul was a real person, then see my argument. There is no reason to give any points to the pro. Everything I typed, no matter how awful, stands.
The Bible teaches that water baptism is for - to obtain - the remission of sins.

1. The Bible doesn't teach anything The Bible would have to teach something at all for it to teach that water baptism takes away sins. For anybody that isn't a member of the Christian faith water baptism, as written in the New Testament, teaches absolutely nothing. One must believe in the words of the Bible in order to believe that submerging oneself in water will cleanse your soul. Even for many members of the Crhistian faith, worship is a superficial act which lacks meaning, significance, or educational value. 2. Immersion in water My opponent is effectively asserting that swimming is a holy act. Even if we assume that the Bible is completely true, my opponent is still stating that "immersion in water" results in a remission of sins. As long as one is penitent while doing so. Which is in no way difficult. As this definition of baptism is meant to "avoid any confusion" it is completely acceptable to interpret my opponents argument in exactly this fashion. I am not misrepresenting my opponents case in any way, shape, or form as explicitly stated by my opponent. Penitence while standing underneath a waterfall, or in heavy rain could qualify as baptism according to my opponenet. I am not intimately familiar with all of the New Testament, but I'm fairly certain that occurences of that nature do not result in a remission of sins.
The Bible teaches that water baptism is for - to obtain - the remission of sins.

I'll try this a 4th time: the last 3 negative disputants made very little attempt to negate. The proposition is shortened due to space contraints, and should read, "The New Testament teaches that water baptism is, to a penitent believer, for - to obtain - the remission of past sins." To avoid any confusion, I'll define the terms: Bible or New Testament: the 66 or 27 books in the Protestant Bible. Since Christian baptism is a New Testament proposition, the 27 books therein contained are meant. Teaches: conveys the concept with by direct command, approved example, or necessary and proper inference. Water baptism: Immersion in water For: for the purpose of, unto, to obtain Remission: forgiveness Past sins: Prior transgressions of God's law. 5 rounds, 24 hr response time, each disputant may ask up to three questions of his peer which are to be answered in the succeeding post. First round acceptance only. If any questions, ask in the comments section, and I'll respond.
Rap Battle !!!

I kept my rebuttal short for you to comprehend,I keep them clean but it's time to transcend,Your limited vocabulary is in need of a thesaurus,The rhymes I present give me a feeling of being a tyrannosaurus. Use google and find the definitions,Your dreams of being a rapper are failed ambitions,Belittlement is old and quite offending,So I say that the abuse is ending. Take this elsewhere, I am leaving to eat dinner,Voters will determine who is the winner,Please take the next debate as a chance at redemption,I am pleased to say this is the end of the contention. Thank you for this interesting and entertaining debate topic. I appreciate all who viewed and voted. Vote Con. Also if you plan on even winning a 'rap' battle, try to make your lines make a little more sense. My IQ dropped slightly from reading your 'professional lyrics', and at the fact that you failed to spell ejaculate wrong clearly shows you have a great lack of intelligence. Line 4 of Rap #2: "This guys just aggravated i wont enjackulate in his asss" <- Why would you want to ejaculate in my bottom? Clearly you have other issues to sort out other than aspiring to be a rapper. Assuming that's your goal. Line 1 & 2 of Rap #4: "So hows your boyfriend going? everything all right? I know your asss must be hurting after what you guys did last night" <- Obsession with my butt is quite alright, I get it alot, but continuing to speak of it and think about doing what you had stated in Line 4 of Rap #2. .. That's not. Figured I would point out a few flaws toward your raps/rebuttals, though you're correct, I'm not a rapper. I'm impressed with myself which is really what counts. Thank you for this interesting and entertaining debate topic. I appreciate all who viewed and voted.
Rap Battle !!!

I'm sorry to those who are reading this, expecting a fight Cause im destroying this kid, hes the worst rapper ive ever seen in my life He raps against me and tries to call me dumb When he knows for a fact my intelligence greatly surpasses him I should tear you to shreds, Go super saiyan After all the sh't i hear you saying You're a peasant trying to fight a king Now bow before me like your mom did when she was in between my knees So hows your boyfriend going? everything all right? I know your asss must be hurting after what you guys did last night Im snapping though, like im taking you down Im gonna take that smile and turn it upside down Dont ever try and rap against me against me again, im done Everyone who read this and isnt retarded already knows i won. Thanks for the battle(: It was fun
Rap Battle !!!

Thank you for your rebuttal and absolutely baffling response.I'm not a rapper as i stated before, about 10 sec from now ill be passed out on the floor,Intoxicated and out of it, my rhymes, unlike yours aren't abhor,Your confidence and spelling mistakes,Proves to many that your intelligence is what's at stake.Breakfast, lunch -- who cares you dunce,I hope you realize what people think of you and leave at once,This pointless and you're dense,Your rhymes don't make sense.I'll leave it at that to spare your feelings,Be here all night since your mother is kneeling ;].
Rap Battle !!!

I can tell you aint a rapper cause you garbage as f'ck Why am i wasting my time with a fa'g whose too scared to cuss? Bruh I dont even know why im doing this, Id rather just pass This guys just aggravated i wont enjackulate in his asss My rhymes eat yours for breakfast, Captain Crunch Then they spit you back up and eat you again for brunch My rhymes scream to the heavens, yours dont even speak For me difficult takes a day, impossible takes a week So im gonna end this early, cause ive already won I gotta go to sleep on top of your mom. Im done.
Rap Battle !!!

I'm not a rapper.My flow is not like sugar, I'm too bitter for you,That leftover gunk on the bottom of your shoe, is just the dump I'm taking on you,Brooks Brothers and Polo is how I roll,Don't diss my style or you'll pay the toll.Tortoise and the Hare,Quickest or best I don't care,I drooled and stuttered yet still prevailed,What's that? -- Oh you failed. I just breached the borders,Took over your fort,Turned those cannons around,and awaiting your retort.
Rap Battle !!!

HAHAHA Daax dare challenge me?? The greatest rapper alive, AKA Bestzappy? Lmfaoo Imma tear this freak to shreds, then still have time left to f'ck his mom in HIS bed! I still cant believe YOU accepted, Bruh my rhymes stand untouched Unlike what you let that priest do to you last month My flow is like sugar, its too sweet for you Your the leftover sh't i found on the bottom of my shoe And lmaoo bruh if you bet everything your worth You'd straight up lose only your socks and your shirt This is David Vs. Goliath, but this time Goliath dont lose No one wants to hear your rhymes like Horton Hears a Who Spit some game against me and we all know who we lose Wait my bad.. I forgot Your retarded, the answer above is YOU Ok Imma keep this thing short Cause there aint no way your getting over my lyrical fort Imma blast you with my cannons, just try and cross this moat Now shut up before i finish you like a root beer float.
psychic ability does exsist but its not how its percepted

Psychic energy, or "psi" is the transfer of information or energy that cannot be explained by a physical process. People who can do this consciously are called psychics. But does it really exist? Many don't think so - either because they've never experienced it themselves, or because they've heard about or had personal experience with one of the great number of fake psychics making money off believers. For example, psychic energy has often been linked to meditation, hypnosis, drug use and especially dreaming. These altered states of consciousness, whether self-induced or naturally-occurring, have been the conduit for psychic experiences by individuals who did not consider themselves psychics - or think they had any such ability.
psychic ability does exsist but its not how its percepted

My opponent has a burden to show that psychic ability exists. She has failed this task in one of the most spectacular ways imaginable. It's amazingly ironic that you would use articles on Derren Brown as your supposed "evidence" to back up your claims, because Derren Brown is one of the most die-hard skeptics in the world. If you didn't know that then I'm afraid you don't very much about him. If you don't believe me then watch Richard Dawkins interview him on youtube. Let me end this debate by quoting an author whom I admire, "Whatever can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
psychic ability does exsist but its not how its percepted

My last arguement contained assertions, proven evidence as written If my opponent was able to anaylse what I wrote he would of seen this. My opponent rather than defending his behalf and elaborating on why he is con for this, Is ridiculing my arguement... You just stated this psychic ability is nonsense Yet he has not stated an explanation or statment into why, Obviously my opponent is not adament on this subject if hes willing to " change his mind" If i provided more evidence. I have provided you with sources anyway to relate to my previous arguement ^^ Thanks http://sandersthegreat.co.uk... http://www.expert-advice-online.com...
psychic ability does exsist but its not how its percepted

Let me begin by thanking Megzayboo for starting this debate. My opponent's last round was nothing short of hilarious. It contained no sources, zero evidence, and baseless assertions. Without extraordinary evidence to back up my antagonists claims a simple hand wave is all thats required to negate this resolution. --> "Furthermore i would like my opponent to elaborate his view on psychic ability." I regard psychic ability the same way I regard all other pseudoscientific nonsense. I'm more than willing to change my mind on this subject; I just need some amazing evidence. All the best, Freeman
Citizens United versus Federal Election Commision

Resolution: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process. Round Structure: Round 1: Opening Arguments Rounds 2-4: Rebuttals Round 5: Closing Arguments (No New Arguments) Rules: No forfeits No trolling Remain civil No semantics Burden of Proof: The BoP is shared. Opening Argument: Let us imagine two hypothetical electorates. In the first, the majority of the citizens are at least mildly educated and interested in the election process, and all have access to at least a few unbiased news sources. Candidates gain publicity in accordance to their popularity, for this is in the best interests of the media company. The people know who to vote for. The second electorate is less Utopian. The populace only have access to a small number of media outlets, all funded by gigantic corporations, which only show the stories and perspectives their parent corporation wants them to. Candidates gain publicity in accordance to what the rich want, from the perspective of what the rich want. Grassroots campaigns are rare and often unsuccessful. The candidates put forth by the rich are often not who the majority agree with, and many citizens stop participating in a race between parties they don't agree with. The difference between those two groups is that in the second, corporations corrupt the electoral process. They control the minds of the people in an almost Orwellian way. They control the elections. America has not gotten to this stage yet. But it is on its way. The people can feel this change, and, without knowing the cause, try to stop it. This results in a volatile radicalization on both sides of the aisle, resulting in he recent rise of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Radicalization at such a rate and on such a scale as this leads to a decrease in political and economic stability. Most everyone can agree that, for the purpose of representing the people, a democracy is better than an oligarchy. Limits must be placed on the rich to keep them from interfering in the democratic process. Limitless sums lead to limitless corruption. Footnote: I understand that no utopia is possible. No electorate will be perfect. But the contrast drawn between the two extremes remains.
Donald Trump's 35% tariff against US companies

As you can see, John ignored the vast majority of my arguments and instead inserted irrelevant information, such as his entire first paragraph. We are discussing the benefits for the USA. Free trade does NOT benefit the USA, because free trade causes companies to move abroad and the USA to lose jobs to countries which are desperate for employment that they will take extremely low wages and dangerous working conditions. If anything, wages in the USA are too low; only people who are out of touch would argue otherwise. The rest of this argument really is just nonsense. ".35% of from the # 1 mathematically is still easier to take with the 50% of the other 9." What does this even mean? "When faced with a threat from some-one who is supposed to have represented a non-biased representation and opportunity in the largest economy in the world." What? The US president isn't supposed to be biased? OF COURSE HE IS. HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE BIASED FOR AMERICA'S INTERESTS. Con has refuted none of my arguments and instead added jibberish and nonsense to this debate. I see no reason to write anything more as none of my arguments have been refuted.