BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is the grapevine of telepathy, no more real then a dilution of the grandeur of schizoaffective.

What is Is the grapevine of telepathy, within delusions of grandeur schizoaffective ability? https://www.grammar.com... or a blessing in disguise? So it seems that within our genetic code there is/are all of the abilities from all walks of lives existence throughout nature be it to the simplest of organisms to us the so-called dominant species. Science has shown us that this is so and what we still argue within a factual evidence bias of the arc of the covenant vault within the worldwide realms of existence with no more than rational reasoning and logical reasoning, is that but the left and right-hand side at war within the polar region of our mind? For as to say war is not about who's right it was and is all about what's left to go to war within the polar region of our mind. This is an impairment as to say embarrassment upon our own species if one was to consider a greater purpose to this menial mega existence that we delve within the realms of children's play and consider us to be smarter then the average bear. For I see that bear wearing out a set of people clothes. What the f$ck are we when us is not we and we is not us. No more than a divided concurred species of rats that race to the ends of the Earth as to find the cheese before another does. If us not we consider that telepathy maybe just around the corner of what we, yes we not us have left behind as to free us from one and others personal realms. As to say dilution of the grandeur within the schizoaffective. Freewill I don't know you I only know of you. Forth if I ever knew myself at all?
people should stop being racist

I know this is about races but I bet even Adam and Eve had their "thought" about each other. There really is no way to stop the racism and therefore just should be let go. People will always have options about others and thats purely nature. Hopefully one day it wont come to the point where its a big issue again like the segregation situations long ago but we cannot stop peoples thoughts on one another. Thank you for the debate! This was actually one of my first real debates and I had fun! :) Good luck!
Advertising on internet websites harms the brain.

Advertising on Internet websites doesn't "harm" the brain in any way. You mentioned how we are forced to watch :30 second advertisements instead of being able to focus on content? Well, most sites, such as Youtube, have the option of "skipping" the ad, so you don't have to watch it unless you find it particularly interesting or engaging. Also, even if you aren't given the choice of skipping over the advertisements, who says the actually negatively impact your brain? In fact, I might even go so far as to say that they help you pay attention better, not worse. Because if we are trained to be able to focus even with distractions, then we'll naturally become all the better at focusing right? And it's not like advertising was solely invented by the Internet anyhow. Advertisements have been appearing on signs, magazines, and comic books long before the days of the Internet.
Advertising on internet websites harms the brain.

Hello all! I would like to open with the concept of neural plasticity, our brains are creating and destroying synapses almost all the time, scary huh? Secondly, children that have had the wonderful opportunity to "grow up" or mature in the modern day world have had more difficulties in school and other areas that involve attention than that of prior generations. When browsing the internet, we generally type what we want to search, click "go" and viola! But in modern day computing it might not be that easy. Now, in order to continue on reading a webpages material content or even finish that informational video you were watching, you must stop focusing on the content and view a :30 second advertisement to throw your brain off. This is unlike any other form of prior learning (ex. oral, hand-written books) and must be taken with caution. Again, before advertisements went hay wire, our human brain had the opportunity to interpret information for long periods of time without interruption. *note* Einstein was even said to be so intelligently gifted because he had the ability to focus on specific ideas for immense amounts of time.
Media is too sexual and explicit for society.

My opponents case is that the media has a grip on our people and its causing harms to our morals, then she goes down how each one has twisted our morals. That summed up all that in a sentence. I will refute this. 1. Media does not manipulate us, we manipulate media. Media uses tactics we like, the advertise to make things appealing to the market. So one must ask when did the transition from morality change from strict morality to this loose morality? I will tell you simply over the years our society moved away from strict morality in everything. Just as interacial marriages are not frowned upon anymore, as well as blacks are not descriminated agaisn't anymore. Back when they were I am sure media advocated slavery because that was our moral standard. However that isn't our moral standard anymore, it has changed our morals went from slavery good to slavery bad. So on and so on. Our moral standard now is exactly what the media portrays, we like hot sexy women, slender and sometimes half naked. Thats what appeals to society because thats what the majority of our society likes. Media didn't just go lets do moral ideals to immoral ones, it appeals to its market. 2. Morality is subjective what you believe is moral isn't what the majority and/or others deem moral. Someone might think is ok to be a trashy skimpy "girl" (censorship). Conclusion: We affect media, media doesn't affect us.
The U.S should send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries.

The U.S should send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries. Definitions: child labor = children working regularly in unsafe environments often underpaid. third world countries = developing nations. aid = medical aid, schooling, and basic comforts of life such as: beds, clothes, and hygienic items. Observations: The use of forced child labor in third world countries basically forces children to work in adult environments. If a limb is cut off then the child is fired without pay or medical care. Contention 1: Child labor demands a impossible quotas that children cannot reach and are thus deducted pay. This in turn demands children to work harder to exhaustion. Many of these children live in slums with only the bare necessities while the factory owners live in a comfortable lifestyle. These owners are living at the cost of the children's sweat and effort. Many of these children are living in filthy environments with disease. By sending aid these children are living in an improved lifestyle and thus the poverty is slightly relieved. In turn Contention 2: Education is the key to success. Sending teachers and basic educational items will educate the children and thus giving them a thirst for learning more. This gives hope to the poor and with hardships most children develop an ambitious personality to do better, and eventually impact society. For example Marina Silva de Souza, a rubber tapper in the Amazon in Brazil, worked day after day tapping trees with her father. They were part of a group of rubber tappers. She was usually sick and her father sent her to learn how to measure and to arithmetic to make sure the contracters do not cheat them at age 15. After this brief expereince and her weak health condition, her father deciced she should move to the city and begin a formal education at age 16. There she worked hard and mastered elemntray, junior high, high school, and a college degree by age 20. Only 4 years! Education opened her eyes to the situation of Amazon forest where her father worked. A group of ranchers are planning to raze the forest for farm land. She allied herself with a another rubbertapper named Chico Mendes. From there the rubber tappers set up peaceful demontrations and set up roadblocks. The world was watching and one day Mendes was murdered. This did not stop Silva from acheiving her goal. Her personality and determination ralllied the tappers and went on with the demontrations while the ranchers harrassed the tappers. Soon the ranchers backed off. Marina Silva ran for poltics and won, she continued to voice the rights of the tappers and laborers in Brazil. Another example is Cesar Chavez, living in poverty and working in the fields he only recieved 8th grade education. What he ended up doing was founding and leading the La Causa in a strike grape pickers and other farm owners using unfair labor. So as you can see education the children will make an impact on and improve society. Overall in the end the U.S should send aid to child laborers in third world countries because they will impact and improve society.
Excise/sales taxes should be illegal

Now, the reaason Excise and sales taxes should be illegal in my opinion is that it is taxation without representation for many peoplet. Tourists have to pay these taxes when they purchase items here in America, and people under 18 who are working and buy their own things have to as well even though they are not allowed to vote. Why should people who can't even vote for or against these taxes be subject to them? Taxes should only apply to people who are represented in our government, which taxation without representation was something American founding fathers absolutely opposed. This is one thing I believe the founders were right about. Additionally, excise and sales taxes tend to affect the poor most, since the poor spend the most percentage of their money, which anyone can confirm with a google search[1]. Since they are the ones who spend the most money, it means these taxes are regressive, in that they tax the poor more than the wealthy and middle classes. I think we all agree it doesn't make sense, nor is it fair, to tax the poor more than the rest of the population. Sources:[1] . https://www.google.com...
Excise/sales taxes should be illegal

I will be arguing for the above resolution. My opponent will argue for the negation of it. Rules:1) no ad hominem, personal attacks, insults, be civil2) The total number of rounds that should be used for argument in this debate is the total you see minus one. This is to keep the total number of argument rounds even between us, since I am not using round 1 for argument.3) The last round of argument should just be rebuttals/defense and/or conclusions. There should be no new arguments in this round. New information and facts are allowed as long as they are used to rebut your oppoenent's argument or defend your position. Definition: According to the IRS "excise taxes are taxes paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline."[1] Source:[1] https://www.irs.gov...
Scientific evidence does not support Evolution

I will be arguing that that evolution has not been proven scientifically and any evidence used to support it could be reasonably explained from a creation viewpoint. Since the theory of evolution is taught in schools as science, and creation is presented as religious, the burden of proof is on con to show that evolution can and did happen. Science - Knowledge gained from observation, experimentation, and demonstration (Can be proven). Evidence - The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Religion - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods (Can't be proven). Round 1 - Acceptance, Con explains position and provides evidence for evolution. Rounds 2 and 3 - Pro attempts to refute or explain evidence, Con attempts to defend evidence. If Con has any problems or questions about the definitions or debate structure, he can say so in the comments.
Love is Merely Necessary

My opponent argued that love is necessary to create a distraction from the inevitability of the end of the universe. He did not refute my proposition that love will continue life and create more pain with every new baby born. If we stopped love, the human specious would not exist anymore (which is inevitable anyway, at some point they will die out when the universe ends), and misery and suffering would be no more. However, my opponent would rather humans continue the suffering by creating more children. Love is harmful and selfish. Why would you want to bring a child into the world so it can suffer, and would have to rely on things to distract it's own misery.
Love is Merely Necessary

My opponents arguments hinge on inevitable death making life meaningless, Life continues, from the vantage point of infinity it is neutral phenomena, but the goal of this phenomena the purpose, is to continue. Love makes us feel content and euphoric because it is the method passed from parent to offspring of pushing individuals focused on their life as an individual towards the goal of life as a whole, to continue. You are going to vote Pro because I've clearly proved that Love is Merely Necessary, and remained topical throughout. My opponent sees love as a distraction from big thinking's daunting of life's meaning, I've proved love is a distraction from individual thinking's daunting of life's meaning. It is necessary to love in life.
Love is Merely Necessary

Love and reproduction only cause more pain. When humans bring a child into the world, the child comes into it crying. As it grows older, it realizes that one day it will eventually die and cease to exist for eternity, and also that the universe will cease to exist at one point. This overwhelmingly wretched truth is too much for humans- so they go about their monotonous and repetitive lives to forget about the meaninglessness of it all. They create a lie that says they can create their own happiness, even though they will perish one day and be forgotten for eternity.My opponent was correct that love necessarily results in procreation, which as I have shown is a terrible thing. Why bring a child into this wicked world? Love is self-refuting.
Love is Merely Necessary

Merely is an important word, if it is necessary than neither have proved. My place will be to show LOVE SERVES NO NECESSARY FUNCTION AND IS ONLY A NECESSARY BEHAVIOR Contention: Reproduction is the purpose of life A) WITHOUT REPRODUCTION LIFE WOULD NOT EXIST i. Life would be finalized in one generation if none reproduced ii. Existing is purpose behind function of bio B) LOVE IS A FUNCTION i. Love binds organisms together in mutual euphoria and contentment ii. This is good for children iii. It also serves as our gene selecting guide C) THE GENE IS MEAN i. Genes are passed on ii. Genes define traits iii. we inherit traits that help us pass them on LOVE IS MERELY NECESSARY TO THE FUNCTION OF LIFE OR IT WOULDN'T EXIST AS A TRAIT IN MAN
computers are taking over the world

Who wants to guess what my opening statement will be? >< And yet the same is still true of the wheel. If the wheel was suddenly to vanish from our society most trade would break down. Everything that required cars, bicycles, trains, trucks, motorcycles, airplanes (yeah they have wheels too) etc... to ship would no longer occur. We would be back in an age where our only means of shipment was that of boat. And of course, transportation would literally break down also. No one would be able to get anywhere. The loss of the wheel would have a huge impact on our society, and the most likely consequence would be mass deaths of many people because food was not shipped to their remote cities. But the fact is, much like the computer scenario, some of us would survive, our race would not go extinct. We would live to fight another day, and we would rebuild. Therefor it is rather obvious that neither the wheel nor computers are taking over the world. Even under Nado's definition which goes something along the lines of, "being responsible for our existence", computers are not taking over the world. Under the normal definition of taking over, "gaining control" they are quite definitely not. I rest my case.
computers are taking over the world

You are simply enforcing that our dependence on computers is growing steadily. How would the human race survive if suddenly we had no electricity and no computers, doesn't it seem that the very bases of our civilization would crumble because the very thing that depend on to regulate our lives in hospitals, and to keep our food fresh, would be gone and we would be lost. I think that this is the definition of control over our civilization, that if we were to lose computers then we would not be able to cope or survive. Good fight, Mogget
computers are taking over the world

And yet the same is still true of the wheel. As time progresses the wheel has advanced. What started as a rough roundish stone tablet has transitioned into all sorts of advanced alloys and compounds. What could at one point only move a vehicle 5 mph can now move vehicles in excess of 500 mph. Yet this is by no means all the wheel has done. Let's take a look at modern day engineering, gears are nothing but adaptations of the wheel. Ball bearings? This current age, never mind the new age, is an age of dependence on the technology we have built. We would not do well without the wheel, without super markets, without electricity, without clothing, without heating. Yet these things by no means have taken over the world or are in the process of doing so. The same is indubitably true of computers. While they are helpful and we are becoming increasingly dependent on them, they are not taking over the world.
UK Green Party can do more harm than good.

The UK Green party seeks to help the environment primarily. They strongly disapprove of using taxpayer pounds to fund wild conservative military campaigns, all of which leading to further environmental degradation. I do not see the so called urgency in defense you are referring to. ISIS will be presumably controlled by Americans, Kurds, Saudis etc while UK remains somewhat isolated from the region so no military action is necessary. The percentage we spend on military should be cut and given back to the community through education and entitlement programs. What UK needs to focus on is traditional socialist values such as giving everyone the fair chance that is desperately needed right now. Our economy is tanking and can only be resolved through redistribution to get money flowing back into the economy from the 1% to the masses who will actually pump it back into the economy. This Idea is something Conservatives have been strongly apposed to, and Green Party members highly supportive of. Not to mention, they are the only ones looking out sincerely for the environment and without them nonsensical legislation may be passed and there will be a lack of innovation towards renewable energy. Overall, I see no harm in the Green Party and you have only listed things military related, which I have already shown are not necessary.
UK Green Party can do more harm than good.

I apologize for missing the second round! The Greens will for sure be the only ones looking to push much needed environmental agenda. The country is going to waste and hopefully they will be able to save the rapid degradation. I am a firm believer that must we must act now and push this agenda first because it will be too late very soon. In addition, I still believe the Green Party's policy of redistribution is greatly attributable to the UKs success in the future generations to come. Conservative policies have shown to not work since early european philosophers, to Hitler, and to Reagan.All failed at the expense of their people while socialist/communist countries have prospered such as ussr and china.
UK Green Party can do more harm than good.

Brighton and Hove is a classic example of what can happen if more power is shared with the green party not only that, but how devastating they can be even for the environment they seek to almost solely to protect. This article is written by Notes from Broken Society" First and foremost, there has been a failure of vision. What does the Green Party in Brighton and Hove stand for? Ask that question and you will get a range of answers – 20mph zones, higher parking charges, meat-free Mondays. Those are policy positions; probe further and ask for the strategic vision, and you will for the most part be met by silence. Or, more likely, ridicule and anger. Like Liberal Democrat community politicians – whom in method and approach they often resemble – they have discovered the hard way that Government is hard and testing, and requires something more than pure oppositionism. " From this we can gather Green parties lack of ambitious meaningful vision on future projects or projects in general that are actually beneficial to the public effect there control. Another major disruption of which the green party are the main instigators is their approach to local planning issues. The planning department within the City's council often recommend a planning application for approval only for it to go before the Green led council and be refused. They regularly go against the recommendation of these planning experts yet these green councillors are simply layman with no specialist housing or planning knowledge. They are following some delusional agenda that goes completely against Government directives to create housing. These refusals are in the majority of cases appealed and are considered by an independent body which regularly overturns the council decision and approves the planning on appeal. The cost of these appeals has to be paid for by the losing side ie. the Brighton and Hove City Council. This is unnecessarily costing the rate payers of the City hundreds of thousands of pounds every year. As a result they have become despised and a laughing stock and there is no way they will be voted in again. Locals have learnt their lesson and it has been a hard and bitter pill to swallow. (Picture) . https://notesbrokensociety.files.wordpress.com... (The Article) notesbrokensociety. wordpress. com/2014/01/26/no-confidence-an-epitaph-for-green-politics-in-brighton-and-hove/
UK Green Party can do more harm than good.

I think you are under playing the threat of foreign powers, ISIS as we know is now lauching various attacks on european soil who are we to know when the next attack may be or when or how big it will be. ISIS aside The Week Magazine published on the 28th February an article called Russia's War games, it basically said that the military chiefs of the UK stated the England had entered a cold war with Russia. Why at a time of conflict would green party even dream of scrapping trident and all military forces possibly putting the 64 million inhabitans of this island in danger. The argument is of course the expense of war and granted in costs a lot but so will the plan to build 500,000 homes from scratch in fact it's so expensive the leader (Natalie Bennett) couldn't even mention how they where to obtain this funding. Here is the interview: ; Natalie Bennett failed to deliver the method of how they would fund a idea of building 500,000 homes. Not only does she do female politicians a disservice and females in general but she did not even reading up on the subject in the interview yet again proving the Green parties minority effect and just how chaotic it would be for them to gain any additional power. Green party lacks clear vision and knowledge of future policies As i will adress in my next round Brighton and Hove is a classic exapmle of the disorganised chaos created by the green party. As we know the econmy is already on the rise and as part of a Conservative goverment it would be a priotry.