BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
god? real or not...

You ask if God is real. Yes, he is real. http://en.wikipedia.org... "God Shammgod (born April 29, 1976 in New York City, New York) is an American professional basketball player, currently playing for the Portland Chinooks of the International Basketball League." Here is his picture: http://4.bp.blogspot.com... Shammgod.jpg And a YouTube video of him. http://www.youtube.com... I ask you, how could he not be real? Thank you for starting this debate.
god? real or not...

"but it is not 'god'" This may not be "God," but he is still God. God Shammgod. "this is why these responses might be of somewhat uselessness... what is one to understand from reading this post?" Even less than he did before. "if this is teaCHING what does it?" This isn't teaching. This is basketball. "if not then this would be useless would it not?" Yes, this debate seems to be going in the direction of uselessness. However, I already won the debate.
god? real or not...

"ah, but this is god?" Yes, this is God. God Shammgod, to be exact. He may not be the Holy God, but he is God. God Shammgod. "indeed u must say this yes?" Yes. "but no it is not to be decided untill the noon of turkey day?" This makes no sense. "dus thou understand? maybe..." Nope. "who knows >.>" Apparentlly, not you.
Need to inculcate reading habits in children

Thanks for starting this debate, however I wish it was longer than one round. "Children only waste their time reading books." If a child loves to read but isn't forced to, they may never find out that they love to read, so its not really a waste of time. I love to read and I don't think its a waste of time. "one can even learn it by conversing in it and listening to it" In order to learn a language you have to be able to read it and write it, not just speak it and hear it. Reading helps kids in many ways. 1) people will be reading all their life. when their young, they read in school, when they get a job, they will read, be it report, email, etc. It is better to get good reading skills while you are young. 2) reading helps you become smarter. It increases our vocabulary, and helps us with our memory and reasoning. http://encarta.msn.com... 3) If kids are having trouble falling asleep at night, reading helps you relax and fall asleep. It would be hard to relax if you didn't know how to read some words. http://www.chacha.com... That was my argument but like I said before, too bad we couldn't have more than one round. Thanks everybody!
Need to inculcate reading habits in children

I don't think there is any need of inculcating reading habits in children. After all, what is the use? Children only waste their time reading books. And as far as learning a language is concerned, one can even learn it by conversing in it and listening to it. Further, there are many other constructive things that one can do during one's free time. So, I don't think that inculcating the habit of reading books is important......
Pick your own debate - 1G

Essentially, I only need to defend Kantian ethics from the two arguments my opponent made in order for it to be the correct option. I did, in fact, raise objections to Utilitarianism that my opponent chose to ignore (the fact that a person's humanity is wronged, degraded if they are used for others' gains is one of the objections I raised, for example). Here are the two examples my opponent gave, in short: 1. Your lover asks for information that, if you tell them, will hurt them. The dilemma is between protecting your loved one or telling the truth. This can be solved very neatly. The problem with this example is that theSkeptic has not offered a reason *why* the information would hurt the other person. Without this little bit, I can not properly answer the question. If the lover has done something wrong, then telling the truth will only bring justice to the situation. Since Skeptic said it was nothing that you had done, and if we assume that it's nothing that your lover has done either - then we are to assume that it is a third party fact that the lover has an emotional connection to (say your child was raped). I see no discrepancy with telling your lover the truth; for it is not you that is hurting them, but the fact of the world that they can not handle. Kant never says it is one's job to protect someone from reality. If reality hurts a person, that is of no fault of the one who clarifies this reality. It is the fault of the one who can not handle the reality. An example of this is as such; if two people must collect firewood for their home in the winter, but the wind is so harsh that it pains to walk outside; if your partner insists on going with you, it is not your fault that the winter wind pains them when they walk with you to get the fire wood. It is just the reality of nature. You shouldn't have to protect them from every branch on the ground, every insect bite. What Kant means by inflicting harm is actual intended harm, malicious harm one may do to hurt the other. If one has respect for the rationality and dignity of their lover, one will tell them the truth (as Kant says, always tell the truth, no matter what the situation). If the information hurts the other, it is of no weight on the one who told the truth. If it is asked for, one must give it in this case. 2. The last example is in regards to respecting the free press or protecting a family from murderers that might be looking for that information in the press. As we can see, this is exactly like the murderer dilemma, and therefore I do not need to produce an argument in defense of this. To conclude, my opponent has not successfully thwarted the ideas of Kantian ethics in regards to Capital punishment, nor has he addressed the moral dilemmas for Utilitarian use I have presented (or presented a case that Utilitarianism is more moral- he has only attacked the logic of Kantian ethics). Resolved; in regards to the situation of capital punishment, it is more moral to take the criminal's life than use them for utilitarian gains. Regards, Vi
Pick your own debate - 1G

What theSkeptic has done in this debate is a total cop out. I intended to debate ethics of reasoning for Capital punishment, not if there should be Capital Punishment or not. The debate is, "In regards to the situation of capital punishment, it is more moral to take the criminal's life than use them for utilitarian gains" NOT "Capital punishment is morally superior to hard labor." I never intended for this to be a political debate. This topic was me proposing a debate in regards to different moral system's take on reasoning for Capital Punishment. I'm sorry to say, but the Skeptic completely turned this debate on it's head and made the topic something that it wasn't. He completely changed it form ethical systems' takes on Capital Punishment discussion to a political debate on whether CP is right or wrong. I will come right out and claim his actions are abusive. I'll give him next round to re-establish a proper CON rebuttal towards the topic that I proposed for this debate. Regards, Vi
Pick your own debate - 1G

I'm also glad to see that her list of topics are unique; it should serve to be an enthralling debate. I will be choosing her first topic: "In regards to the situation of capital punishment, it is more moral to take the criminal's life than use them for utilitarian gains. " She has chosen to be PRO, so logically I am CON. To advance my position, I will fulfill my burden by arguing an in-between position: taking a criminal's life is not more moral than using them for utilitarian gains, OR vice versa. Essentially, they are on the same moral standing - none. In fact, this is the reason why I personally am against CP. Instead of fulfilling some false moral obligation of taking a criminal's life, it would be much more useful to have them do hard labor, or something of the sort. Since I have no clue what argument my opponent will use to support this claim (though I can suspect). I will simply conclude by saying that I do not believe there is a moral obligation to take a criminal's life - and the same for using them for utilitarian gains. Unto my opponent.
Pick your own debate - 1G

lol this was a bit difficult as we agree on almost all issues... but here's the list I came up with. 1. In regards to the situation of capital punishment, it is more moral to take the criminal's life than use them for utilitarian gains. I'll be Pro. 2. It justifiable for protesters and activists to break the law for the sake of their cause. I'll be Pro. 3. Parenthood should be a privilege not a right. I will be Pro. Good luck, Skeptic, : )
Pick your own debate - 1G

f you have participated or read any of these types of debates before, then this one should be no different. However, for those who haven't: ROUND 1: This obviously includes this opening introduction and rules. For my opponent, he/she will post 3 topics (clarify them if you could) he/she wishes to debate, and then post his/her position on each of the topics. Please try to add a mix of subjects. Have some deal with religion, others with politics, others with art, others with social issues, etc. ROUND 2-4: I will start my case by supporting or attacking one of three topics my opponent proposed. It should follow throughout as a normal 3-Round debate. *NOTE* - I realize that politics are almost undoubtedly tangled with social issues, but a somewhat cut between the two would be fine. By politics, I imagine topics such as what is the best political system, what role does the government play, economics, taxes, so on and so forth. By social issues, I imagine topics such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, so on and so forth. *NOTE* - Please put forth only controversial, or at least opinionated claims, for the topics. This should be pretty self-explanatory. If you have any questions, just leave it at the comments section. *NOTE* - The "1G" notation is for purely for browsing purposes. If there's any concerns or questions, leave it at the comments sections.
Can you staple water to a tree

1. What exactly is your job and what is the job title? 2. How can one staple water on a tree? 3. What kind of water are we talking about? 4. What are the staples? 5. How did you staple the entire ocean to a forest? 6. How is there an ocean right now if all of it ended up in a forest? 7. What is a forest? Thank you.
Can you staple water to a tree

If it was impossible to staple water to a tree than I would be out of the job. My job is just to staple water to a tree and nothing else. If it was not possible than I would be out of the job. But I have a job. Therefore stapling water to a tree is possible. Also it saved my life once. I was under water drowning and I just stapled all of the ocean to a forest so I could breathe. If you don't agree with me then go try it for yourself, I'm sure you will have success.
Wikipedia should not remove the images of Muhammad from the article "Muhammad".

My opponent states the following: "Perhaps my opponent is trolling, or simply doesn't understand what this debate is about." My opponent's argument concerns the treatment of Islam by non-Muslims. I actually agree with him that Islam does not deserve special treatment.However, the title of the debate is "Wikipedia should not remove the images of Muhammad from the article 'Muhammad'." Thus, any evidence that the current images on Wikipedia should be removed is relevant to the debate. I have shown that the images currently displayed on the Muhammad page are not of the highest quality available and should thus ideally be removed and replaced with images that are.
Wikipedia should not remove the images of Muhammad from the article "Muhammad".

The current images of Muhammad are not of the highest possible quality. Indeed, if we were to keep the same paintings and sketches of Muhammad, we would be sacrificing the display of a superior image for an inferior one. There are four images of Muhammad which directly show the prophet’s face. The first one, an illustration of Muhammad re-setting the Black Stone, can be located at . http://goo.gl... – note that upload. wikimedia. org refers to Wikimedia Commons, where Wikipedia publishes and draws its public domain images. This file, used on Wikipedia, is resolved at 626 x 459. A superior image of the exact same composition can be found at . http://goo.gl... – which is 640 x 469. This is a 14 x 10 improvement over the original Wikipedia image. The second image, a graphic showing Muhammad’s revelation from the angel Gabriel, is found at . http://goo.gl... – this image is 720 x 542. A grander image can be found at . http://goo.gl... and has a resolution of 800 x 602. This is an enhancement of 80 x 60, a considerable change in overall quality. The third illustration, Muhammad’s arrival in Mecca, can be found at . http://goo.gl... and has a resolution of 497 x 777. Once again, a larger, quality picture can be seen at . http://goo.gl... and is 550 x 860. This resolution change is 53 x 83. The last illustration, depicting Muhammad’s teaching to Muslims, has been uploaded to . http://goo.gl... and has a resolution of 600 x 360. It does not take much work to find a superior image, located at . http://goo.gl... and which has a resolution of 736 x 442. This enhancement is 136 x 82. For each and every one of Wikipedia’s current images of the prophet Muhammad, a superior and higher quality image can be found elsewhere on the Internet. Note that these images are all in the public domain so copyright infringement is irrelevant. Because there are enhanced pictures available online, and because Wikipedia displays pictures that are not up to par, I thus insist that Wikipedia should remove the current pictures of Muhammad, and, of course, replace these images with the higher quality duplicates. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Wikipedia should not remove the images of Muhammad from the article "Muhammad".

Thanks for accepting. It's my understanding that certain Muslim communities forbid any depictions of Muhammad. It is widely questioned as to whether the images on Wikipedia might be offensive to some Muslims. My question is simply, what makes Islam so special that people should treat it differently from other religions? What makes Muslims think they have the right to demand these pictures be removed from a public encyclopedia? Wikipedia is neutral in this matter... it does not deem Islam to be wrong or inhuman. Although not exactly facts... these images are culturally relevant a great number of people. Islam does not deserve special treatment from anyone.
Evolution

"My opponent says to counter his argument without pulling a separation move, (this is debate, not simon says) while his argument is completely bogus in the first place. So I get really offended when my opponent puts moldy cheese into my face, and expects me to counter it. Im done playing simon says." You have given no reason why my argument is bogus, you just asserted it. I consider this a concession. "My opponent says that evolution isn't true, by saying that god wouldn't create it." Straw-man. I said evolution is true, but God did not create it. "But no one can scientifically prove evolution wrong." I never argued evolution was wrong. Evolution is right. I gave an argument as to why God most likely did not create evolution. Your rebuttal was self-refuting. Thus, the debate has already been won by me. "No one has proved god right scientifically, only the bible can tell us that, and the bible is straight from the hands of god." Using The Bible to prove God is like using Comic books to prove Batman. This argument from my opponent is embarrassing and is basically a concession.
Evolution

My opponent says to counter his argument without pulling a separation move, (this is debate, not simon says) while his argument is completely bogus in the first place. So I get really offended when my opponent puts moldy cheese into my face, and expects me to counter it. Im done playing simon says. My opponent says that evolution isn't true, by saying that god wouldn't create it. But no one can scientifically prove evolution wrong. No one has proved god right scientifically, only the bible can tell us that, and the bible is straight from the hands of god.
Evolution

I am not arguing against evolution, so most of the last round is a Red Herring from my opponent. My argument assumes evolution, but argues against the idea that God is the founder. My opponent claims that I have provided no argument in favor of the claim that God even cares about animals. Lets assume God does not care about animals. If my opponent concedes evolution, then humans are animals! We are part of the great ape family of animals just like the Chimapnzee[1]. If God does not love animals then he does not love us which means he cannot exist, because that is a contradiction; God is defined as a being who loves us. If Pro tries to pull a "separation" move, then it will be clear he is special pleading. The resolution is negated. Sources [1] http://anthro.palomar.edu...
Evolution

My "Rational Thinker" opponent is trying to base on the fact that god loves animals, he doesn't have any proof that god gives any care for them, instead he made them for us. This is our world, you cannot deny it, God can take it away from us at any time, but its still ours. This site below states reasons to believe in Evolution. I don't want to argue someone who won't give me any proof. Read this and rethink your ideology, "Rational Thinker" https://www.apologeticspress.org... 99% Percent of all animals going extinct perfectly explains the Ideology of the fossil record. The fossil record explains Evolution very well. Explain to me what this site says as well: http://www.agiweb.org... See if you wont change your views
Evolution

"God made this world, but he made it for us." Bare assertion. "God probably wasn't behind the hands of Evolution, although he created it." Bare assertion. "No one really know's science, unless they are a scientists." This is not necessarily true. I have a fair amount of scientific knowledge but I am no scientist. Regardless, my opponent spent the rest of his argument defending evolution and ignoring my argument in the first round. 99% of all species that have ever lived are no extinct. They suffered horrible deaths and this is due to the evolutionary process. This setup is not compatible with how loving beings act. This means the theist has to do some serious stretching to make this idea work. However, all of this dead and suffering fits nicely into an Atheistic universe without having to stretch anything. Therefore, Evolution not being grounded in God is the bets explanation.
Evolution

God made this world, but he made it for us. God probably wasn't behind the hands of Evolution, although he created it. Nothing humans have ever done says Evolution isn't true. Everything humans have done says its true. It has not yet been proved wrong. I beleive that Evolution has to be true. No one has proved it wrong. No one really understand's evolution. No one really know's science, unless they are a scientists. We don't have to burn a lamb on a golden table every time we say, "God-dam*it!" The only way to tell if the bible is law and we have to obey it, is if it were written by god itself, and its not. God didn't write his workings into the bible, and what was never mentioned, is science. Science is a reality, and it governs our world. It keeps our very feet on the ground. Without knowing how science works, we would probably all be dead. If god were really here anyway, then by know he would have stopped evolution. Evolution explains the world around us in the best possible way. How did the world get the way it was? With its fossils, and its rock, and its DNA. No one can prove that wrong. God would not put those their to make us sin, because he doesn't want us to sin. So how could they have got here? NEWSFLASH!!!!! EVOLUTION!!!!!! It explains the situation better than anything else, as a matter of fact, there isn't anything else. There is nowhere in the bible that explains that, I mean zero, 0, ZIP. If the bible is the only thing that governs our lives, then why doesn't it say everything. Anyone who says that Evolution is a sin, they don't know. As humans, we have the ability to expand our knowlege. We have total dominant control over our world. God can interfere with it, but its our world right now, and as humans, we have the right to expand. We can be curious. We are the the top. We have the right to explore the mind and workings of God. That is not a sin. And if that is not a sin, then god wants us to die. Andromeda is going to crash into us. The sun will burn out. In the end conclusion, we have the right to explore the reaches of god and our universe. Evolution has to be correct, otherwise the world wouldn't make sense. The world has to make sense. Don't tell me thats a sin! Excuse me, I have some science homework to attend to.
Evolution

Believing God assisted evolution is as useful as believing invisible fairies assist gravity in keeping things to the ground. It is an unneeded assumption as the theory works without that assumption. Also, lets take a look at the two competing hypothesis: (i) Atheism (ii) Classical Theism Atheism predicts that reality is not governed by a loving being. Theism predicts that reality is governed by a loving being. If we look at evolution, this process has lead to 99% of all species that have ever lived to go extinct and suffer deaths on a massive scale. This is easily explained under the Atheistic hypothesis, as we would expect reality to not be governed by a being who cares about his creatures. Thus, we should not be shocked at the mass suffering and extinction caused by the evolutionary process if Atheism is true. However if theism is true, then it is baffling to think a loving God would create life in such a cruel way, because this is not how loving beings usually behave. The theist would have to make excuses as to why God as to why he would allow this, making the theistic hypothesis as a very weak explanation for evolution as it has to pile up extra assumptions. For the reasons above, I think the most reasonable conclusion is that a God is not responsible for evolution.
Should Guns be banned in the U.S.

Notice Con has not responded to the constitutionality point, as he can not ratinally interpret the second amendment to where it grants individual gun rights.He has also did not respond to my point on availability in regards to gun bans. I would like to call his source into question. "Brieitbart" appears to be a secondary news website with a great conservative bias. The site is analogous to some Alex Jonesesque blog. Also why didn't con just link the study and not some conservative interpretation . Chicago had the MOST homicides of any US city. So even if crime overall decreased, increased gun don't seemed to have decreased homicides.Also the Armed forces keep this country safe, not citizens with fire arms.Ferguson riots are an unjustified non-sequitur. In no other country that has instituted a gun ban has riots occured. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Should Guns be banned in the U.S.

According to an FBI report as gun sales increased, violent crime decreased. http://www.breitbart.com... Chicago has the highest crime rate and strictest gun control in the country. Studies show that 40% of prisoners who committed violent crimes got their guns illegally, instead of making the country safe you'd just be making it so that we'd have nothing to defend ourselves from criminals, sure there will be pepper spray, tasers, and knives but a gun has much more range and stopping power, and the cops rarely make it in time to save victims. If there was a gun ban that doesn't mean gun owner won't be willing to fight for their right to bear arms. 1/4 of Americans own firearms, and Chicago has the highest crime rate (except Detroit) and strictest gun control in the country, imagine Ferguson style riots all throughout the country. Men with guns are what made this country free, and men with guns will keep it free. So would you rather have the ability to defend and support yourself, or depend on the government to.