BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nothing does not exist

I have grown pretty used to others simply accepting the points that i make so you arguing against me is positivley thrilling. I am truly enjoying having a intelegent discussion for once. While you make a excellent point in defense of nothing as the absence of a form of matter,nothing can also be defined as the absence of a thing in general. I was at first hesitant to use this form of the term nothing because the absence of any form of matter seemed like a more debate-able topic. The fact that there can not be no thing is not. There is ALWAYS something. A vaccum is a thing, it is a vacuum, empty space is a thing, it is empty space. We cannot even truly comprehend the idea of absolutley nothing. We can immagine space, darkness, etc. but theses things ar just that, things. Nothing if defined as the absence of something is in fact non existant.
Nothing does not exist

While it has been shown that the atom, which was considered the fundamental unit of matter is now just the fundamental unit of an element, and that those sub-atomic particles do break down into even smaller particles known as quarks, what can be asserted, is that there can be space between those particles as since evidence has yet to be found for matter between quarks, and the assumption of matter leads to having to flesh out the details of the matter, Occams' razor leads logic to dictate that the better assumption must be that there is in fact no matter between quarks. Secondly, there is a fundamental problem with the idea that the absence of matter, in a given unit volume, is impossible. Movement would be impossible, as the only way anything is able to be compressed, moved around, or change shape is only possible if there is space for such things to move into. If what you assert is true, then when I want to move my hand, it is already in contact with matter on all sides, all that matter must be directly, or indirectly connected to all other matter in the universe, and therefore my hand shouldn't move, but it does, therefore there must be absence of matter somewhere. Thirdly, if we say that this universe is the only universe, that must mean that there is nothing outside of the universe (absence of matter), if the universe is expanding, that therefore dictates that the density of the universe is decreasing over time, which means that there is space in between the matter in the universe. In conclusion, the absence of matter must be possible, because our lack of evidence towards the existence of matter everywhere implies that matter may not be everywhere, movement would be impossible without absence of matter, and our non-static universe leads to a decrease in matter density over time.
kid cudi vs linkin park and other similar bands

Again, Pro never responds to any of my arguments so they can be extended across the flow. Now I will make my final rebuttal to the new arguments Pro constantly brings up:Pro states:"many relate to kid cudis music and hardship, most of his songs are about his life but expressed through poetry and few are about his use with marijuana. in fact, his songs about marijuana are the most popular, so maybe people are more more interested in the drug instead of him as a artist"The very fact that the states that most of his kids are more interested in the drugs than him as an artist proves his music worse. At the point at which the quality of his music is simply to bring in kids interested drugs and evaluate it through drugs, the music is inferior to the music I am providing. There is no warrant about most of his music being about hardship; many are about drugs. However, we must look at the full spectrum in which drugs are commonly discussed in his songs. Pro then tries to prove he's good because he has a dead dad and raps about him. Now not to be mean, but that doesn't mean that the content of his music as a whole his better. The lyrics as a whole do not convey good messages. Now I am a KC fan, but a bulk of his music is drug related. Some of his more recent work is deeper, such as "The Prayer", but thus far he has not been proven to be an emotional or moral rapper. I have provided four bands that are keen in conveying messages about life and Pro doesn't respond to any but simply reiterates himself.
kid cudi vs linkin park and other similar bands

kid cudi is power full as it is expressive, weed is a part was a part of his life... http://www.youtube.com... kid cudi is a young music artists and should be respective for his music and poetry. many relate to kid cudis music and hardship, most of his songs are about his life but expressed through poetry and few are about his use with marijuana. in fact, his songs about marijuana are the most popular, so maybe people are more more interested in the drug instead of him as a artist. mr. rager the song below, is about his dead dad and how he managed with this change in his life as a 11 year old http://www.youtube.com...
kid cudi vs linkin park and other similar bands

argument 1 kid cudi used marijuana as a form of expression and relaxing from his pain.. his dad dies kid cudi has quit weed, and he his a support of this drug.. kids should not do drugs, bands such as pink floyed encouraging drugs sing about drugs but you dont see people using that against them the red hot chili pepers used drugs to drugs http://en.wikipedia.org..... its common for artists to use drugs kid cudi has more meaning to his songs it take a very open mind to appreciate art that he expresses listen to lyrics http://www.youtube.com...
Ultimate Team War II

DISABLE SUPERMAN Wonderwoman will slam the bracelets together to create a wave of concussive force capable of making Superman's ears bleed thus giving him Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers or a Skull fracture. Both enabling superman to do nothing as she she cuts him with her tiara. Wonder Woman's golden tiara has also doubled as a dagger and a throwing weapon, returning to her like a boomerang. It is sharp enough to cut even Superman.   ^ Wonder Woman: The Ultimate Guide to the Amazon Princess ^ Wonder Woman (Vol.2) #219 Wonder Woman (Vol.2) #219 Destory his Betrayal plan Professor X is capable of mental manipulation at a distance of 250 miles or greater. We stay within the 250 mile range when fighting thus making manipulation unviable Desrtoy part of his magneto plan Since Wolverine and Megatron are both metallic, Magneto can easily kill them by ripping them apart or something of the sort. Wolvering will just regenerate Destroy Borg Queen plan the Borg Queen, though a single person, possesses a Borg cube (spaceship) capable of supporting 129,000 Borg That's way over the 5 people we are allowed to pick. I mean if that were the case I could just use Mewtwo to control the whole world population and sacrifice/suicide bomb every single one of them at you tell your forces die. DURANDRAL Unfair advangtage http://www.mobygames.com... givng him that ability which you gave him or where he lives I would say it is unfair to say that he is a computer program or lives inside your borg ship and if the ship is destroyed he is destroyed. UNFAIR ADVANTAGE You use Cyclops, magneto, durandral, professor x, superman, and the borg queen. That is six people for our 5 on 5 battle. You fail to follow the rules you set you lose the fight. DESTORY THE BORG QUEEN Wonderwoman ties the borg queen up with her lasso of truth. Asks how to kill her. Does what the response is. DESTROY PROFESSOR X Goku or Wolverine hack and slash or use an array of energy blasts to destroy him Mewtwo uses psychic energy much like that of Jean Gray to destroy the professor. MEGATRON STRATEGY Creats a blackhole forcing himself and team pro into it allowing them to never be seen again MEWTWO Disables durandral using psychic abilities Can protect Goku or anyone thrown into the sun with the psychic energy shield
Verse 34:6 in the book of Exodus accurately describes God.

God is not just, merciful, or slow to anger. God is unjust. He punishes the children, grand children, and great grandchildren of anyone who worships another God. According to God, humans can be punished for something they did not do. [1] Again, God says that if the Israelites don't adhere to his law, he will punish them and their descendants with "great plagues" and "sore sicknesses." [2] He condemns all mothers to a painful childbirth for Eve's sin, and all human beings to toil and labor for Adam's. [3] God commanded the Israelites to slaughter every living thing they can possibly slaughter, leave nothing alive that breathes, take the people they haven't slaughtered, including women and children, enslave them, and finally, eat the spoils of their enemies - "Like God has commanded you." [4] He commits genocide by flooding the earth and destroying *everybody* alive. [5] He hardens Pharaoh's heart and removes his free will so that he will not free the Israelites, allowing God to continue cruelly and brutally torture all of the Egyptians - who were merely servants to a tyrant, and had no part in Pharaoh's decision. [6] He lays a three year famine upon David's people for Saul's sin. [7] "And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them" [8] And he is an unjust hypocrite for ordering Israel to commit genocide, actively helping them do it, killing innocent babies in Egypt, sending bears to tear 42 children to shreds and etc. [9] yet saying "Thou shalt not commit murder." ... And then Exodus 34:6 says "And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth..." He is called merciful but one need only ask a simple question - How so? It is as if the first sentence of the Torah (Old Testament) reads "WARNING – God is not El Rachum Veh Chanun (merciful and gracious), nor Erech Apaim (longsuffering), and he sure is not Rav Chesed (abundant in goodness)." And second sentence might as well be "But at least he is Emet - he is true - especially when he promises the brutal destruction of his people when they disobey him, and when they do obey him, the brutal destruction of their enemies (who in reality, by the way, have done nothing to warrant being called enemies)." As Richard Dawkins said, "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." [10] I await proof of God's mercy, grace, etc. [1] Exodus 20:5 [2] Deuteronomy 28: 58-59 [3] Genesis 3:16 [4] Deuteronomy 20: 13-17 [5] Genesis 6:7 [6] Exodus 7:3 [7] Samuel 2 21:1 [8] Numbers 11:1 [9] Kings 2, 2: 23 – 24 [10] The God Delusion, p. 51
Verse 34:6 in the book of Exodus accurately describes God.

My opponent, being the instigator, has burden of proof since he has not passed it to the Contender. He has not provided any arguments, so I have little to negate, and thus will use this round to clarify definitions: The God of the Old Testament is the same God as that of the New Testament, but I will only use OT evidence. My opponent has mischaracterized the God of the Old Testament. God is not "kind", according to the passage nor under any monotheistic religion's conception. God works for the good of each and every person, a concept that would later be described as agape. God is hardly "kind" to the Israelites, but He certainly is always doing whatever is in their ultimate good. I agree that God is just, merciful, and slow to anger (which is what longsuffering means in context). If my opponent plays semantic arguments on the wording of the verse, I reserve the right to clarify using alterante translations and Strong's. "...but in reality, if one even skims through the bible [sic], they will find this description to be false." My opponent has not supported his claim. I await his presentation of arguments in the next round.
Verse 34:6 in the book of Exodus accurately describes God.

"And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth..." [1] In this debate, God is defined as - the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions, [2] except in this debate, God = God of the Old Testament. No Christian theology, for instance, applies. No arguments over semantics. My position is that this verse paints the portrait of a kind, just, merciful, "longsuffering" (patiently endures wrongdoings) God but in reality, if one even skims through the bible, they will find this description to be false. [1] Exodus 34:6 [2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Myspace Shouldn't Be Blocked.

Sorry, been busy lately. anyways, you bring up a good point; people will always be willing to break them. But that doesn't give us the excuse to condone them and look away. We still have to fight for what is right. Just because something is difficult to stop, doesn't mean we can forget about it. It's kinda like that one weird christ88 kid said on the comments; allowing myspace to be available during school will only encourage people to neglect school work and focus on myspace. Well, that's all I can write. If you come up with a new debate, I'll be happy to present an argument... if the topic is even remotely interesting. Just kidding!... but seriously, make it worthwhile...
Myspace Shouldn't Be Blocked.

Hi nerdyandnotsoproud! Well your intro made me laugh. Anyway, Myspace is a form of socialization that shouldn't be blocked. Yes, kids do need a form of free time after there work is completed or a sense of a free day. It's not like getting on it during school hours can be stopped anyway. A lot of kids no proxies or just get on with their cell phones, which are also not allowed powered on on school campus during school hours (different topic). It kind of relates to the use of marijuana or prostitution (not in the same sense), you can't stop it, so don't try. You can enforce it, but the millions of people out there are still breaking the law. Just like the kids still text during class and get away with wearing the clothes their not supposed to. Considering most kids can still get on, why not let all the kids welcome to Myspace instead of just a few.
Myspace Shouldn't Be Blocked.

From reading your first post, I'm guessing you have a myspace. And may I also assert that you are probably a hopeless nerd who spends hours online chatting to friends until your brains turn into goo?... Just kidding! Actually, I just described my typical day, except I make fun of my "friends" on youtube and annoy them until they block me. Well, maybe that's not exactly my typical day, but it has happened! Personally, I don't like myspace, largely because I have no idea how to use it, but I honestly don't care whether you are into it or not. Anyways, now that my waste of an intro is over, let's get to the real point: Should myspace be blocked? Well, students go to school primarily to learn. Myspace doesn't grant any educational value, and it certainly doesn't help a student with his or her studies. Schools were built to educate its pupils in the best possible environment. Distractions such as myspace, can really deter a student's ability to concentrate and function properly. Myspace is fine for socializing, but it is just becomes another form of a distraction when implemented inside of a school. I'm not against using myspace, I just think it's inappropriate to have access to myspace at school. After all, school is for learning, so there's really no need for myspace on school grounds.
Nihilism is an ethical fallacy

The crux of my opponent's argument is unveiled in his closing statement - "A belief that reveres nothingness can scarcely be regarded as just, or even remotely plausible." There are several immediate and obvious problems with this statement. The plausibility of nihilism is not even an issue - the point has long been made that there is no grounds upon which to rationally criticize individuals' preferential choices. What my opponent contends (erroneously) is that because nihilism "reveres" nothingness, it is incoherent. This is obviously not so, and exposes the depth of his misunderstanding of the concept. The reason my opponent contends my rebuttals are "bordering on tautology" is that his original argument is filled with unwarranted inferences that themselves make no sense, reducing any counterargument to explaining basic definitions, which of course looks like a tautology when you don't understand either half of the definition. Immediately, my attention is drawn to my opponent's egregious misstatement that the "true nihilist" would be incapable of joy. This is simply not so, as there is no necessary connection between joy and meaning. It is trivially easy to recognize that something has no inherent meaning, but still experience an effect arising from it. My opponent's position requires a demonstration both that joy requires meaning AND that meaning implies causation; and he has done neither. Lastly, my opponent has contended that nihilism is a fallacy without introducing any sort of criteria for a fallacy it meets. His sole contention is that nihilism disproves itself. The only possible line of argument on this point is that nihilism would ALSO be meaningless, but even its own meaninglessness does no indicate that it is fallacious. Simply because nihilism makes unusual preference choices about what to "revere" does not mean it is fallacious (or unjust, or implausible). NEGATED.
Nihilism is an ethical fallacy

I must apologize to the readers for my opponent's conduct. Not only has he elicited no original thought, but he has sought to undermine my acclamations with little more than subjective banter that borders on tautology. Nihilists believe in the abscence of meaning from all existentialism, and by extension, life. If life is a meaningless husk, devoid of all meaning, then surely those who follow these doctrines must hold life with littler regard. Life is not merely a state of being; rather, it entails the thorough enjoyment of it, an appreciation that validates our existence. Although my opponent is either incapable or unwilling to acknowledge it, to refuse to acknowledge that life has purpose is to betray our very humanity, for what then is there to live for? These nihilistic precepts defy morality, for morality is not the preconceived myriad of notions nihilists would so fervently attest to, but is rather an inherent, unspoken conduct by which we must all live, lest we relinquish our very humanity. Again, my opponent's patent and woeful misdirection resurfaces, as he fails to realize the true intent of my words. Life, as defined earlier, requires an appreciation to achieve true validity. Nihilism advocates that life itself is devoid of meaning. As such, it maintains that no joy can be derived from any action(i.e. the proverbial sunset mentioned earlier). A true nihlist, as defined by the laws that govern their dogmas, would be incapable of joy, for joy is a sentiment predicated upon action, and actions are derived from thoughts, which are only carried out with intent driving them. Ergo, any such sentiments of joy would be beyond the scope of nihilists. Nihilism is then, by all indications, a self-debilitating practise which disproves itself. Nihilism is, indeed, an "untenable ethical position", for it is morally and logically insubstantial. A belief that reveres nothingness can scarcely be regarded as just, or even remotely plausible. Negated? Hardly.
Nihilism is an ethical fallacy

My opponent seems to be, albeit circuitously, asserting that nihilism is an untenable ethical position. His assertion arises from a misunderstanding of nihilism as a moral and logical position. He has several claims, all in error. Considering the very small character limit, I will respond in my favored method: >> "Nihilism claims that life is a meaningless sentence" Actually, nihilism claims that there is no intrinsic meaning in life. By it's very nature, nihilists could not proscribe life as a "sentence" because that would import a negative meaning to something they hold meaningless. This doesn't mean that nihilism is a contradictory proposition - it means you have mischaracterized it. >> "Life is the height of reality, for it is quite literally all we know. To so easily dismiss all that we have experienced... as not real... is to betray the very value of life itself" HUGE problem here. Nihilism is not anti-realist, although there are some that hold it to be true that there *could* be a *possible* universe with no concrete objects. Nihilism does not hold that objects and experiences are not real - it just holds that they do not have intrinsic meaning. >> [Nihilism is] "taking a view on existence from a purview that allows for no happiness, no contentment, no joy, and no life." Well obviously life is immediately disqualified, as you have to be alive to be a nihilist. The question then becomes if you can generate happiness, contentment, and joy via a meaningless medium. Take for example a sunset - the particular arrangement of photons that we see carries no meaning whatsoever. However, it is still capable of producing feelings of joy, contentment, happiness etc... The knowledge that events are random or that arrangements are meaningless does not destroy the feelings associated with that phenomenon. >> [Nihilism] "betrays all morality" Unless you re a non-cognitivist. NEGATED.
Nihilism is an ethical fallacy

The Government maintains that the premise of nihilism is one which betrays the existentialism of preconceived morality, and is therefore a self-debilitating notion. The concept of nihilism is one which advocates the message that all individuality must be suppressed, for life itself is meaningless. This betrays all morality, and all logic besides, as it neglects to acknowledge truth. To state that this life is meaningless is to discount all of man's achievements, both social and cultural. Life is to be cherished, for it is our only true opportunity to exist. The assertion that life is a meaningless journey which we as humans have the misfortune of undergoing is not only unenlightened foolishness, but is taking a view on existence from a purview that allows for no happiness, no contentment, no joy, and no life. This is highly out of step with not only religious views, but a vast number of the agnostic sects who hang on the fringes. Nihilism claims that life is a meaningless sentence, and yet many nihilists claim to coexist with religious folk. This is a technical and ethical impossibility, as nihilism by definition advocates that life harbours no meaning, whereas religion, and the pursuit of self-enlightenment on the whole - this most human of traits - are the epitome of reverence for life. This applies not only to the religiously inclined however, for even, nay, especially atheists, who believe that nothing waits for them in the afterlife, understand that life is to be cherished. Life is the height of reality, for it is quite literally all we know. To so easily dismiss all that we have experienced, all that we have accomplished, as not real, on grounds that defy both logic and morality is to betray the very value of life itself, and in so doing to betray one's own conscience. The Government therefore maintains that nihilism is as erroneous and fallacious a practise as any, one which reeks of moral and logical ineptitude.
Waterboarding

Waterboarding creates no physical pain, does no bodily harm and results in no lasting damage. It simulates drowning. It is frightening. Will we next be prohibited from jumping out of a closet and shouting, "Boo"? Victory against Islamic terrorism will be achieved not on the battle field but by information gathered, and then counter intelligence acting on the information gathered. Waterboarding is a necessary evil when facing an opponent such as Islamic terrorists. It has saved American lives and we should not cripple ourselves.