BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Flag Burning. Decision to Address This Issue upon the Majority view of people to support it.

Greetings to the Pro and all whom read this debate. Good luck, have fun and please keep it clean. I've been noticing in the 'Major Issues' section of most people that Flag Burning is largely supported. Obviously, this indicates a freedom of choice ('pro choice') and opinion. However, doesn't this issue also indicate a large degree of respect? And Responsibility? I think that we have heard that with each right and freedom we possess does come responsibility, no? As in flag burning, the responsibility and respect that come with it seem to be neglected. Does the flag not represent our patriotism? does it not represent our morals, views and freedom? So, if the flag represents our freedom, what is meant by burning it? You wish to burn away society and make it socialist? Communist? Is burning a flag actually going to affect anything (other than indicate disrespect)? Obviously not. Now when addressing this argument, we will obviously be distinctly separating the willful protest and other reasons for burning a flag from the respectful retirement of a flag that comes with ceremony when a flag is worn or soiled.
It's better to sleep facing up then sideways

My opponent does make another interesting point. If sleeping on your back will keep you from getting bullied at school because it will make you less ugly, then by all means please sleep on your back! I certainly woudn't want you to get bullied because other students thought you look ugly. On the other hand, I think that if someone is so worried about their looks and getting bullied that that is their problem, not how they look. You shouldn't care how you look! It's the people teasing you should change not you! From a Christian perspective, I would advise that you just turn the other cheek. It doesn't matter what they think about you, they probably aren't worthy of your attention.Now back to the issue. While sleeping on your back may make you look pretty, it certainly isn't worth any back problems you might receive in return for your good looks. Like I said before, when you are sleeping on your side, you are actually sleeping along with the curvature in your spine. It's natural. I never thought I would be able to put out this message in a debate about which position is better to sleep in, but don't worry about what people think about how you look, they really aren't worth your time. You will have your treasure in heaven, and that is what matters the most.Thank You
It's better to sleep facing up then sideways

It is good to have a better back which means a healthy back. But it's good for a lot of people to sleep up because they're are some people who will criticize a person for how they look because they have wrinkles. Like ar school, a teenager wodnt want to get bullied because of how they look because they sleep sideways. They would want to look good so that they look like the bulky and won't get bullied anymore about how their face looks. No one ever got bullied for having a bad back, because people slouch all the time so a bully wouldn't mind. And wouldn't tease people for having a bad back. I agree that having a healthy back is good. But it's better not to get bullied because of how your face looks.
It's better to sleep facing up then sideways

Thank You for your response. I won't deny Pro, seeing as how I have no idea whether or not sleeping on your back makes you prettier. I will argue the fact however that having a strong and painless back is more important than having a pretty face and a painful back. 1) Sadly we live in a society that judges the individual on appearance, so while Oprah and other women may sleep on their backs to stay "pretty," I must point out that being pretty will not get you far in life if you have back problems.2) A strong back means a healthy back, and having one gives the individual endless oppurtunities in life. Most physical labor requires stregth of body and mind. Being pretty with a weak back won't help you in the labor field. Being able to defend yourself in a mugging requires some strength, and having a pretty face may sadly make you a traget when you're alone on a street. My opponent makes an interesting point when she says that sleeping on your back makes you look young, but with a bad back, you certainly won't feel young. Thank You
It's better to sleep facing up then sideways

On a website, it said something about sleeping up is better for your face if you care about how you look. and since a lot of people care, im just gonna say , sleeping up makes you have less wrinkles that makes you look younger which everbody wants to look younger . http://www.realself.com... this is the website where i got my info. Even oprah talked on this website and said, ' whats your secret to looking so young?"
It's better to sleep facing up then sideways

My opponent's argument that it is harmful to a child's teeth may not be false, but it is not a normally occuring incident. My argument is that sleeping on your side not only isn't bad for you, but it is natural! Sleeping on your side is natural to the curvature of the human spine, it is even said that laying on your side in the fetal position can relieve stress on your back. Sleeping on your back, while not being completely natural to your spine, is also a pain if you snore! Scientists are unsure why, by sleeping on your back may make your snoring worse. In another case, sleeping on your left side can actaully relieve heartburn. . http://www.fitsugar.com... Laying on your back may actual induce back pain! While laying on your side is actually beneficial to your lower back. . http://bettersleep.org...Even if teeth were the risk of sleeping on your side, braces are much cheaper in the end then to have to pay for back problems you may receive for your whole life.
Science is not evidence against the existence of God.

I think there's been a lot of repetition with little change. Whether or not your perception is flawed or not, once it goes through experimentation, the flaws are ironed out. If some tribe thinks the sun is God, then an experiment involving research regarding the sun will fix that. Experimentation demands revision of the original hypothesis. "Actually I'm just debating that science is not evidence for God." No, you're debating that science cannot disprove God. I'm going to finally stop beating around the burning bush and say what's already in the comments; you can't prove something DOESN'T exist! That's the first law of science! It's common sense. We could spend the whole day listing things that don't exist. Innocent until proven guilty. That's how it goes. Until you can prove your existence, you don't exist. We've had an argument, that is proof of our existence. Hell, the people who will vote on this were presumed to be spam scripts and refused the right to vote until they verified their identity, presumed innocent of humanity before guilt. The Scientific method is not a way of interpreting reality. It is the basis of accepting existence and allows us to quickly determine validity and credibility of ideas. It is partially true that what science knows may be wrong, but because science uses factual evidence and testing, that partial truth is less than a percent. Belief implies less than evidence. It implies faith. The best thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it because it is impartial and unbiased. A lack of evidence is precisely that; a lack of evidence, existence. The lack of evidence for Sharky the omnipotent shark deity is proof of his lack of existence. You must provide proof, otherwise your lack of proof is evidence that you've been pulling the idea of God out of thin air. But I don't know why you'd support the existence of this "God". Your new definition implies that this God isn't even sentient, you're just saying everything is God. I'm God by your definition. So are you. So are the voters. So is Sharky the omnipotent overlord who you can't disprove (well, scientific method can). Why would you worship this God when it isn't even a defined entity. If God is everything, then everything is God. But everything didn't create the universe, God did, but everything is God... Do you not see the flaw in this circular logic? Ultimately, this debate proves that debating the existence or lack thereof of any deity is a waste of time. Neither of us will change our stance. No other conclusion can be drawn. You'll just keep demanding proof against something you can't provide proof for and the viewers will comment about the futility of the debate. I mainly accepted this, because many take no one accepting their debate as a sign that their side is right. We inevitably just have to agree to differ. If you'd like to bring up any other debates regarding religion, but not the existence of God (morality etc.), send a challenge my way. Until then, I'll be waiting, Duncan.
Science is not evidence against the existence of God.

You cannot fail to make an observation. If you see the sun going across the sky, that can only be wrong if it wasn't the sun. Your hypothesis may be wrong if you think that the sun revolves around the earth, but after experimentation the hypothesis fails. If you believe that your God exists, yet it can't make it past the scientific methods, then your God has already been disproved by the first chapter of any decent school textbook. You asked for proof that God doesn't exist, but if you're just going to ignore the basics of science and then declare that your God hasn't been disproved, then I'm wasting my fingers away bothering to reply. You repeat that the existence of something is not dependent on our understanding of it. But there's as much evidence that a sentient shark who can't swim and smiles upon us all exists, and just as much evidence that he murdered your God. Science can disprove the giant shark though; the observation that the world was created, the hypothesis that Sharky the shark did it (sign up for the church of the Sharky today), but since we can't experiment to see Sharky, in scientific terms, he doesn't exist. Even if you say that not everything can be observed, you really lack any kind of imagination as to what observe means in scientific terms. Hearing is observation. Feeling the gravitational effects of dark matter is observation, but nothing has detected a sentient being capable of creating the universe yet. You can't just say there is beauty in the world to prove the existence of God, you have to account for bone cancer in children too. (Stephen Fry) When you have experiments that would validate God in the scientific method, reply. Until then, I'll be waiting, Duncan.
Science is not evidence against the existence of God.

Ok, here we go. Your first point is half right. I'll give you that. Science has always worked on a strict system when it comes to new ideas, and those who do not use this system are usually conspiracy theorists anyway. But science works on a framework when it comes to new ideas. http://en.wikipedia.org... If you see something in the world, that is an observation. If you have an explanation for something, that's a hypothesis. You carry out experiments that could aid or hinder the proof of the hypothesis and repeat until you have confirmed something from the experiment. your findings then become a theory. Theories can remain so for quite a while, and should they become irrefutable, they become laws. So let's plug God into the scientific process, as it's formally called. 1; I see the world around me. Something or someone must have made this. 2; I think an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and invisible being called God made the world. 3; There are no experiments that can prove God's existence. 4; Therefor, my hypothesis is flawed. The scientific process disproves God's existence as he fails to make it past testing. You can feel free to repeat the method on anything you like, but Science itself refutes the existence of God as something that cannot make it past testing has no hold in the scientific community. You cannot sit before me and say that scientific methods today can be wrong. The scientific method means that a scientist spends the whole lifetime of a theory trying to prove it wrong and only accepts it when he can no longer find flaws with it. The word theory is often misused in today's society, as a theory actually has testing behind it, not like a hypothesis. A simpler way of putting it is innocent until proven guilty. You have to prove your theory guilty of being true before it can be accepted. You can't prove something doesn't exist because the scientific method assumes that it is innocent of existence until then. Until you can actually follow the scientific method, don't lecture me on what's real or not. Science is measurement, records and discovery. Religion has always opposed people becoming smarter because they become less dependent on their priests after they realize the lies behind it all. You may demand solid proof of God, but the very method of scientific discovery is evidence enough against you. Science is about learning and understanding. You say that science not put to use is but knowledge, but we put the science to use learning more and more about the world. If God did exist, we would have noticed by now. You're right. Nothing can change the facts. That is why scientists use facts, and religions use faith. I have disproved your God with the first chapter of any decent science textbook. Your move. Don't keep me waiting, Duncan.
Science is not evidence against the existence of God.

ResolutionScience explaining the world without reference to God, is not evidence against His existence. DefinitionGod - The Creator of the universe. Rules1. This debate will be based upon logical arguments and reasoning. Sources should be minimal if at all necessary. 2. Con must accept the above definition of 'God' for the duration of this debate.2. No semantic arguments.4. First round for acceptance only. For VotersI ask that you choose tied for "reliable sources" when voting. This debate is meant to be based primarily on logic and reasoning, and sources should be unnecessary. (Should sources turn out to be of importance to the debate, I shall revise this request in the last round. )I hope to enjoy a stimulating debate with my opponent.
Certificates are more important than hands-on experience to prove a person's self-worth.

Yes, you are right about the source that individuals can give their own opinion and that it might not be proven, but if you re-read my statement, the meaning of "self-worth" that was defined as "self-esteem" that was double-quoted by me was actually not sourced from 'wikihow', but it was sourced from the "Oxford" dictionary, and I doubt that individuals could give their opinion nor change the meaning. One could have self-esteem to get an honorary achievement, but it is only short-term. When I say self-worth, I am talking about in the long-run. I don't think the duration of one's study (perhaps a few years) could entirely build one's self-worth for the rest of their life compared to a life-long hands-on experience with the real-life situation where a person experiences real-life situations and gain knowledge on their own. Looking back at your statement, as I mentioned earlier, yes, certificates do prove one's achievement and acts as a stepping stone but I don't think it proves self-worth in any way. It doesn't mean that one has high self-esteem because as we know, certificates nowadays might not necessarily be a good grading system as an individual might just be plainly mugging or memorizing just to pass and get high grades. In addition, there are many bogus certificates nowadays which could be obtained easily and not necessarily any cert proves a good graduate. If you were an employer and you have an option of hiring two individuals, one with a certificate and no experience, the other with a certificate and experience. Which one will you hire? Let us talk about the teaching profession as an example. I disagree to your point about certificates prove that one has learned something for a lengthy period and will stay with them for the rest of their life as I think in life, we never stop learning and learning is not only a matter of a few years and hands-on experience will keep a person learning throughout their entire life. Learning for a few years to get a certificate does not prove anyone's self-worth. Self-worth has to be built slowly, it is not a one-off thing. Are you saying that hands-on experience will not stay with an individual for a life-time? To me, experience last for a lifetime as it is specified and experienced on your own,thus, it is individualized.
Certificates are more important than hands-on experience to prove a person's self-worth.

Thank you for your reply there. Just a pointer there, quoting from a source does not prove much. Even worse the source you quoted from is a source where any individual can give their opinion and that might not be proven, so next time you decide to quote double check your opinion. The piece of paper you speak of shows that a person has received an honorary achievement and has been recognised for doing so. Don"t you think that without having self-esteem one could have done such? No. Having that certificate does not only represent an achievement but also tells something about your character. In modern day you would not find individuals with certificates but ones claiming to have hands on experience in that field. About 65% of them have been said to be university dropouts thus proving that a certificate is a much better way of showing self-worth. Not everyone can survive studying for a period of time so by having a certificate proving that you are a graduate actually shows that you have much pride in yourself and have a high self-esteem. Hands on experience is just a now thing but having learnt something for a lengthy period is something one shall keep with them for the rest of their life.
Certificates are more important than hands-on experience to prove a person's self-worth.

Thank you for your reply. Yes, I agree to your point that an unqualified person could never be called in for an interview and it is strictly based on the Curriculum Vitae but however, as stated in the Oxford dictionary, "self-worth" is defined as "self-esteem" and I don't think self esteem could be built up in a short period. Therefore, in my opinion I think a certificate indicate an achievement but does not prove one's self-worth and my statement was not a blatant lie. I don't think self-worth could be proven in a piece of paper as it is something that needs to be experienced at the point in time, also can be seen in http://www.wikihow.com... I fully think that in the long-run, self-worth could only be proven through experience than just a piece of paper. A piece of paper may just be a stepping-stone, and it is unable to prove one's self-worth. I hand over to you.
Certificates are more important than hands-on experience to prove a person's self-worth.

A friendly greeting towards my opponent and I hope we will have a honorary I welcome my fellow opponent I believe that certificates are more important than hands -on experience to prove a person's self-worth. Self-worth is the sense of one"s own value or worth as a person. In modern day presence is not required as much and you curriculum vitae tells it all. Do you think that an unqualified person could be brought in for an interview just because they stated that they have hands on experience in that field? A certificate is a document that states different achievements that you have made in different things. It is an honorary document received when you have performed an honorary job with that said, don"t you think that it is in your interest to rearrange your statement. Why would one receive a certificate indicating an achievement but that is not considered as proving your self- worth? My fellow opponent, I believe your statement is just a blatant lie. Hands on experience may be considered as a way of proving your reliability and a way of proving your dedication but the other elements of self-worth all come in having that piece of paper stated in your CV. I must say I am very interested in your reply.
I'm anti Gun Control change my mind

All you have to do is look at our homicide rate compared to the homicide rates of other industrial nations like Canada or Australia, All the hand gun deaths all the mass shootings, We should get rid of all the guns and the second amendment, There is no way to convince you of what narmal people can see so easy. You are blidned by ego and selfishness, You blather on about a freedom you never possessed or deserve, You don't have a right to endanger other people in or society with your guns.
I'm anti Gun Control change my mind

How dare you! There is so much blood on the hands of the Aemrican government and the American people, Your cities are war zones, Every day there are mass shootings in your churches synogoues schools theaters and bars, You are not safe anywhere! And you glut of guns flows out of your nation onto the streets of Canada, Mexco and even into Europe. Anders brevit who lived in Norway what was the safest natio on earth got his illegal magazines for his gun online from the united states, Your disgusting gun culture pollutes the world. I can say this from 1976 to 1980 i lived in a clean safe north american city. . To do that i have to move to toronto canada to see what american cities might be like if we have better social welfare universal health care and strict gun laws. . You can own a gun in Canada but you must be licensed all handguns must be registered as must all restricted military type rifles. . The homicide rate in toronto to this day is 1. 8 per 100 000 compare that to an american city like detriot where the homicide rate is 45 per 100 000, There is no argument to justify the mayhem the maerican mentality causes, The second amendment which only originally gave states the ability to raise militias to check the power of the central government(actually a good idea to this day) never said anything about the individual right to possess fire arms or any weapon. . It is obsolete dangerous and should be abolished The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, On the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The Right to Bear Arms, " Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990.
Humans were not meant to leave earth

RESOLUTION: "Humans were not meant to leave Earth"My partner is PRO, and I will be CON. I argue that "humans weren't not meant to leave the Earth". BoP is fully on PRO, yet I feel that I should clarify some things. Taking the "meant to" part in my consideration, I conclude that my partner believes in a higher power (from now reffered to as THE POWER), be it God or evolution or aliens, that had humanity in mind for something. I will assume it's unproven existance. THE POWER gave us a brain. That brain, after quite extensive thinking and approximately 120,000 years of calculating things that are somewhat off topic, gave us a spacecraft. THE POWER obviously meant for us to leave, because otherwise we wouldn't have had the brain to create a spacecraft. This is my logic. We can make it, we can use it. No higher power involved. Awaiting further posts. ..
Humans were not meant to leave earth

We humans occupy a infinitesimally small part of the cosmos and we don't even have the slightest idea of the scale of the universe we are dealing with. Upon that we have ventured out to explore the entire cosmos with tiny little specs of dust called spacecraft's .my argument is do we really have the knowledge of the entire cosmos that we have the 'permission' to explore.arent we aware of the fact that exploring the cosmos disturbs the harmony of its existence.