BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
does god exist or is he something that our ancestor imagine

i agreed that human decides what spirit are good and which spirits are evil based on past experiences. although this may be true, one might wonder why is that? Why can't all spirit be good or evil? for this reason they must be an explanation for why people think this way. sure past experience that humans have may decide what they think is good and what is evil, yet why 99 percent of the population agrees on what is good and evil? that is because there is some truth in what evil and good really i
does god exist or is he something that our ancestor imagine

If there are ghosts/spirits out there, who's to say they represent evil? On the flip side, who's to say they represent good? If people do have supernatural experiences that cannot be explained by science or logical reasoning, the explanation they do arrive at either propagates the force of "good" or the force of "evil", depending on whether the encounter was a positive or negative experience. Humans are furthering the construction of "good" and "evil", and are probably the origin of these ideas.
Michael Myers Vs. Jason Voorhees

= Rebuttals = Sadly my opponent hasn't attacked my arguments whatsoever. Also, based on their responses last round I can only assume they only read the first few lines of my argument before responding. That said I have a few points I would like to clarify before I extend my prior stated arguments. 1. I never said I hadn't seen the movies, I said it has been a while since I've last watched one. The women in my family (particularly my grandma and my aunt) love scary movies of any genre. Slashed, Psycho thriller, Paranormal you name it. Accordingly from the time I was very little and had to watch the movies with them, to even now when I no longer have to watch these movies with them, they watched plenty of these movies. Again that meant as a young child, I often watched scary movies. Everything from Friday the 13th to Freddy v Jason to Chuckie and arachnophobia. I watched them and then had trouble sleeping at night. Just because I don't like a movie, doesn't mean I haven't seen it. 2. In your opening statements you said, and I quote "Michael Myers is an unstoppable force that could not be stopped by anything and would crush Jason Voorhees". This hardly does anything to substantiate a clear framework for the debate. Meaning that my responses are more than viable, and are accordingly left as unrefuted. furthermore, you never attack my argument that these two characters are not in direct conflict with each other; which can only be taken to mean that if there is no clear clash of argumentation in this debate (which can only happen when you present your constructive arguments) the vote must go to me. 3. You offered no arguments in your first round for me to even respond to, and even now you haven't made any argument for me to argue against. We aren't even able to have Freddy v Jason debate if you don't make any arguments to validate your initial claim. I could have accepted this debate and said nothing; and so long as you hadn't made an argument to warrant Freddy being better than Jason; I would win by default. = Conclusion = My opponent hasn't made any arguments to validate his side of the debate, he has completely ignored all of the arguments I've presented, and there is only one round left in the debate. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to vote for the Pro in this debate; meaning you mus vote for the Con. I'm very sad to say that this round will be closing without any real debate, and I ask that although I was not able to present any arguments through-out the course of this round, that you give me the "arguments" voter all the same.
Michael Myers Vs. Jason Voorhees

= Opening Statements = This seems like it will be an interesting subject to debate, and despite the fact that I haven't really watched a scary movie in quite a while (and honestly I've never watched a scary movie by choice at all) I decided "what the hey! I'll do it!" = Debate & Clash = Now then, based on the debate topic my opponent has chosen, as well as my opponent's opening remarks I can safely assume that I will be defending Jason Voorhees in this debate. Furthermore, in order to win I don't necessarily have to prove that Jason Voorhees is better than Micheal Myers, I simply have to prove that Micheal Myers isn't better than Jason Voorhees. The reason being; first, because these two characters (Micheal Myers and Jason Voorhees) are not in direct conflict with one another (i.e. there is nothing to say that both cannot be equally liked, or equally as powerful.) And second, my opponent's initial claims do not specify this to be a debate of mutual burden. Instead it is assumed that my opponent believes that Micheal Myers is better than Jason Voorhees, and wishes to hold this debate to validate his opinions. However, as not to skew the ground of this debate, this argument may be rejected if my opponent can provide adequate reason to believe otherwise. Unless he is able to do so, we must stick with the framework that the Con offers in this debate. This being said, as of round one I have no burden to prove, as my opponent's initial statements are unwarranted. Nor do I have any burden to offer any constructive arguments myself, as shown through my prior offered framework. Furthermore my opponent simply offers us a claim of opinion, which has no place whatsoever in any legitimate debate beyond the "nuh-uh uh-huh" realm. = Conclusion = until a substantial argument can made by my opponent to validate his claim; you must vote Con by default. also, so I can say I've used evidence in this round, here are some links to a few Wikipedia articles on [1]Michael Myers and [2]Jason Voorhees. = Evidence = [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
0,5=information=not real

1=1=something= some+thing = real Information = perceived+reality = subjective = 0(zero) - objective So, I agree to Pro. Information = not real. Here is where I disagree. 0,5 is data, not information. http://www.diffen.com... Information is data with meaning, but this 0,5 has no unit or relevance to anything in the real world and thus is not actually information and it has no subjective reality beyond the data that is the number that it is. On top of that 0,5 is the European way of writing 0.5 and that's not even an integer so it's not even a relevant piece of data in the first place as data should be made to be an integer as much as possible.
Puppy Mills

Because my opponent did not define what a puppy mill is, I will provide a definition. A puppy is simple to define. It is defined as: "a young domestic dog" [. http://i.word.com...] A "mill" however could mean multiple things, but because most mills deal with an aspect of wind, I will define windmill. Windmill is defined as: "a mill or machine operated by the wind usually acting on oblique vanes or sails that radiate from a horizontal shaft" [. http://i.word.com...] Adding the definition of puppy and (wind)mill, you get "puppy mill," which is a mill operated by the wind for puppies. Why are puppy mills a bad thing? A puppy mills is essentially a toy for puppies! This puppy loves his puppy mill: . http://us.123rf.com... There is nothin wrong with puppy mills, and are actually beneficial to the puppy's health.
Puppy Mills

While what you describe sounds awful, that is not what a puppy mill is used for. My definition from R1 stands unrefuted and I will continue with that definition. It is impossible for puppies to be bred Ina puppy mill. Puppy mills are far to small for puppies to be bred in. This puppy is three times the size of this puppy mill: http://us.123rf.com... Con contends that puppy's are not fed in puppy mills. While this is true, that is not the purpose of puppy mills. Cons argument against puppy mills is that puppy's are not fed "in" (puppies can't fit in puppy mills) puppy mills is irrational. It is like saying Mozart is bad for babies because it doesn't feed them. Con also implies that there are cages in puppy mills. All of my research shows that there are no cages in puppy mills. In the picture in the link above, there are no "cages" in the puppy mill the puppy is holding.
BajanCanadian is a better gamer than Tobuscus

I totally agree with what you are trying to say, but come on, this is video games for crying out loud, but I have one last thing to say to end this argument. Of course, BajanCanadian learns from his friends, but if you ask me, this is not the reason people watch Youtube. Of course, people want to be entertained by watching others do wacky things while playing video games, but also, they want to learn from the best, and I stand here to say that Tobuscus is the best! Tobuscus educates viewers about their games, and does not have to learn from others, and use their advice for themselves on Youtube, as you are claiming BajanCanadian does. Plus, you don't try to make people enjoy it. It is about if it is enjoyable. Now, I am not a full, alleged Tobuscus fan, but I believe that he can be very good at video games. I will now restate all my arguments: 1. Tobuscus plays a variety of games, including songs, parodies, and cartoons, while BajanCanadian limits himself to a single game. 2. Tobuscus does not need friends to spread his popularity. 3. Even though the greatest players are not able to learn, I believe the main idea of Youtube is that they can watch games and learn from the greatest players, like Tobuscus. I rest my case.
BajanCanadian is a better gamer than Tobuscus

Well I do believe that the fact that someone who is the greatest cannot learn more is a pile of crap. Even the greatest person can learn more. For example Einstein although a genius didn't know everything. If he knew everything he wouldn't have worked so hard to become an achiever. Even Notch has to try hard to make minecraft perfect for all players. To be honest the greatest person is the one willing to learn.
BajanCanadian is a better gamer than Tobuscus

Recall your statement "Not only is he the greatest player. .. " and look at what you just stated to Debate. Org. Your statements, ". .. but also helps him learn off others which is a good quality. " and "For example when he first started his hunger games series he, and I hate to admit it, wasn't very good. .. ' has just contradicted the fact that BajanCanadian is the "greatest player". Why would he need to learn if he was so great? Tobuscus does not have to learn from friends. Therefore, I continue to prove that Tobuscus is much better. Now let's say BajanCanadian only became popular because he had his friends make him popular. Tobuscus, however, did not need friends to become popular. All he needed was, as I stated last time, a wide variety of fun games and song parodies, etc. , which makes him the popular Youtuber he is. Gabeuscus was probably the closest thing he could consider a friend to spread his popularity. In conclusion, your arguments are full of flaws. Also, there are a few errors in your grammar, including spelling "come" as "com" and not capitalizing "working", so next time, make sure to check what you are doing.
BajanCanadian is a better gamer than Tobuscus

Well that may be true but when tobuscus plays he usually does so alone whereas the BajanCanadian does so with friends which helps him not only entertain viewers but also helps him learn off others which is a good quality. For example when he first started his hunger games series he, and I hate to admit it, wasn't very good and then after a few episodes he played with some friends and at that point he started learning tricks off his friends. I myself have seen this scenario many times in his videos. Learning of others is a great way for life and on the computer screen. working with others also helps him become more noticed. When people start getting noticed not only does it boost his self-esteem but also makes him bolder and more confident. plus who doesn't love it when friends com up with a great slogan IN BENJA WE TRUST FOR BACCA WE MUST
BajanCanadian is a better gamer than Tobuscus

I am against what you are trying to claim, for I am certain that Tobuscus is much better than Bajan Canadian. Just look back to your statement "...he is the greatest minecraft player..." I believe this statement will, no matter have good it sounds, be the downfall of your argument. The reason I believe this is because Bajan Canadian is only limited to Minecraft videos. Tobuscus, however, plays many different game that amuse his watchers, which is much better than only one game every single time. Tobuscus also does cartoons, songs, and live parodies, which makes him much better. To be honest, I do not think anyone cares if you are great at parkour and can jump from brick to brick, but if you entertain the viewer. In conclusion, Tobuscus has a wide variety of funny, animated videos that makes him much better than BajanCanadian.
BajanCanadian is a better gamer than Tobuscus

Who doesn't love Mitch (BajanCanadian)? he is the greatest minecraft player in the and absolutely funny! Not only is he the greatest player but he does it for the viewers, his pvp skills are unbeatable, He is great at parkour and top class comedian. Although this is just a short argument it is pretty clear who is the greater player. If you need more convincing just watch some of his video's. He top's Notch!!!
Gay marriage

Gay marriage is not marriage hence,the main aim of gay marriage is sexual pleasure.If in doubt,why cant they reproduce?People who engage in gay marriage are those obsessed with pornography.If you want to show love,show it in a way that you appreciate the person,show concern about his situation and not because you want to satisfy your selfish,immoral interest.If caught in my country,you would spend seven to fourteen years imprisonment and this will make not to join some groups or contest for political positions because you have been convicted of a crime. Gay marriage is not the so-called enjoyment.People who engage in gay marriage do this due to peer pressure,the need to become famous and so on.Which act can they perform apart from sodomy,kissing?People who engage in gay marriage still have sex with females why?Gay marriage is futile,time wasting and future consuming.These questions are for you: -If human rights could be accepted without controversy,why is gay marriage still being debated in different part of the world. -Is gay marriage normal?
Gay marriage

Firstly,marriage is a legal association between a man and a woman to be husband and wife.Gay marriage is a type of marriage between males.With these definitions,you will agree with me that in life,everything has advantages and disadvantages.In the case of gay marriage,the disadvantages surpasses the merits.My reasons for saying this are below. One reason for being against gay marriage is that it offends God.In the bible,Angels were sent to destroy the city of Sodom and Gomorrah because of its wickedness.What were the examples of this great wickedness?Gay marriage is among them and this was what made the angels more angry.The question is do you get angry at good things?No,of course{Gen.19:24-25}. Another reason is that marriage is meant to be for males and females.If God is/was in support of gay marriage,He would have not wasted his time in creating females or He would have destroyed the females.What you,my learned opponent is trying to say is that God is stupid and ignorant for creating females. Also,gay marriage violates procreation.Jesus Christ did not come into the world through a man.He came through a woman because women are supposed to give birth not males.Gay marriage does not bring about procreation.Instead,it brings about the so-called pleasure.Albert Einstein is not a product of gay marriage.Shakespeare is not,Aristotle is not and so many great men. It also denies an adopted child motherly care and affection.Due to gay marriage,a child is brought up under so-called fathers.There are things a child need from a mother and a father.This shows that gay marriage is a waste of time,future and natural fertility.
the right to bear arms

Sorry about the forfeited round. I'm not paticurly interested in this topic, but I'll do my best and feign interest :D After watching a documentry called "trigger happy", I was convinced that ownership of guns is directly related to high school shootings (and I know how stupidly obvious that sounds!) Giving people the ownership of guns only encourages them to use them. It it relativly easy to get a gun in america. You simply have to be an american citizen, apply for the licence,and in three days you can buy a gun. The only reason the high school shootings occured is that the mentally sick people had easy access to guns. Sure, they would have probably used other methods of killing people had they not had guns, but it is incredibly easy to kill someone with a gun. Its easier to run away from someone with a knife to someone with a gun. Yes, some people will probably use guns only for self defense, or for hobbys such as shooting deer, but others are not mentally mature to handle a gun. These people will just misuse it. Even if you were using a gun in self defense against a robber if you hurt him and he hadnt stolen anything, you could get tried for attempted murder, while he gets off with tresspassing. Guns are often used for suicide. They have a 98% chance of killing you instantly if you attempt to kill yourslef with them. Ending your life in such an abrupt manner means its not possible to give any help or to stop it. And theres always the cahnce you could get shot by accident. Being shot by a gun could kill you or leave you paralised. So I consider the ownership of guns simply not worth it. My apologies once again for the forfeit, it was completly unintentional, I had very little time and the server went down.
Islam the master of religions and the most complete

Alright then, i first want to say that i challenge you to bring me any mistake in the Qur'an or Suna, just 1 mistake. Second, Islam is pretty clear One book to follow and nothing else pretty simple, while other religions have lots (and i mean LOTS) of books and complicated stuff to follow. Third, The prophecy's and the knowledge in the Qur'an all proven true.
R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. “The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.”(1)“5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. “(1) “State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.”(1) Burden of proofAs I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. Debate Format4 rounds/5,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) Sourceshttp://www.ncsl.org... Comment if interested.
Man is the measure of all things, there is no further reality

Due to character constraints, I will post arguments this round and rebuttals in following rounds.Arguments 1. The Constructor is Reality If reality is a human construct and nothing more, how does one explain the existence of the human? Is the human that is constructing reality not also reality himself? Who is constructing the human? The human cannot have constructed his own person and existence, or else we have an illogical circle of causation. There must be an outside source. Something brought the human into existence, and therefore a reality would have existed before humankind. 2. Perception vs Reality In his opening, Pro states, "knowledge about science, religion, art and society is through man..." Although this statement is true, it does not take into account the difference between perception and reality. We perceive certain things about the world around us, and our perceptions form the basis of science, religion, etc., but these perceptions do not necessarily reflect reality. Many times throughout history, humanity has discovered that its perception of reality has been incorrect. We discover another truth about reality we did not know before, and it changes our perceptions. Reality did not change. Our knowledge and perception of reality changed. The earth did not suddenly become a sphere. Once we discovered the reality of a spherical earth, it changed our perceptions from those of a flat earth. 3. Conflicting Realities If reality is a human construct, then what happens when two humans have conflicting ideas about reality? If my reality is a world in which humans are evolved animals that must fend for themselves, and another human's reality is a world in which humans are created children of a god that looks after them, which reality is truly reality? They can't both be. Humanity would have to agree on the nature of reality in every minute detail in order to prevent the possibility of conflicting realities. This is just not the case. 4. Other Perceivers The idea that humanity alone is responsible for reality rules out the possibility of other conscious, self-aware life forms. We do not know and cannot prove that there are not other, non-human life forms that are also aware of reality and coloring it with their own perceptions. Whether they be gods, aliens, or self-aware animals, we may not be the only perceivers, nor the only constructors.