BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
911 was an inside job

When it comes to such a high risk secret such as this people are not going to be so willing to come forth and blow the whistle if they have anything to lose. Think about it like this, if they were so willing to have 3000 people murdered for whatever the reason might be what would they do to someone that blows the whistle? What would they do to that persons loved ones? There are some people that don't even think the government could pull off such a massive secret but that's just it they were caught on many different occasions and many people do call them on it such as Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, and the men and women that were at the scenes. There are primarily two reasons people don't believe it was an inside job. 1. People don't want to believe their own government could do such a thing so they automatically dismiss any claim that they are responsible. 2. They don't believe that such a secret could be kept. The government has had a long history of being caught in wrongdoings but how do you punish those that are in power? Those that are the ones handing out punishment and making all the rules? Could a group of civilians march up to the white house and demand Bush be punished? No they cant. People generally cant accept that they could be deceived on such a massive scale but take Chris Angel for example. He pulls off the most amazing deceptions possible right in front of a person and its called magic. Now we know that magic isn't real but somehow this man can perform acts that are typically impossible such as levitation. He is a master at deception so my point is if one man with limited resources could pull off such tricks wouldn't it stand to reason that the government could too with their unlimited amount of resources? This is just an example but it proves that the impossible can be done.
911 was an inside job

"I too share that sentiment "a shred of a soul" but I fear that those that do have one are not the ones that get to make the changes" Yeah I can agree to this. When it comes to more technical things, while I too think that it seems odd and fairly false, I also know two things to be true about people who could do this sort of thing. 1. If people had enough power to murder 3000 people, pin it on someone else and nobody bat an eye for 3 years, and those who do bat an eye are a small amount of people, none of whom are political figures or celebrities, so the batting of eyes doesn't get traction in the media. 2. If this was true, I think (just my opinion, of the two of us you're probably older and thus more educated) that the evidence of this would be brought to public eye within a decade or so. Or discovered by an international anti-terrorism system of some sort. And that the people who conspired to make 9/11 a thing would face justice for their crimes of killing 3000 people, as well as all the deaths that have happened since & because of 9/11. The fact that they're political figures can only take them so far. One crucial thing I think is missing (or at least I haven't heard of one) is whistleblowers. In every other situation where the US government has done something against America's interest, a whistleblower or a hacker group will find it and release it to the public. However, I don't think this was the case with 9/11, and haven't heard of anything like it since. All the people that would be needed to do something like 9/11, you'd think one would come forward. I mean all the cover-ups, all the bombs, all the fake identities, all the false evidence that would be needed, so many people would be involved. I have no doubt that 1% of those people would have guilt enough to come forward.
911 was an inside job

I too share that sentiment "a shred of a soul" but I fear that those that do have one are not the ones that get to make the changes. JFK is a prime example. I will do my best to show you what evidence can be mustered in the time frame and characters allotted for this debate but in order for such a skeptic to be convinced they must give the evidence serious attention. The collapse of building 7 This building was not struck by a plane and the official story from NIST was that it feel into its own foot print because of office fires cause by debris from the twin towers. Videos taken of the building do show office fires but nothing on the scale of some major skyscrapers in the past which did not fall despite being ablaze for over 12 hours in some cases. Throughout history there have been only 3 buildings to collapse into their own footprint because of "fires" and they all fell on 911 in one city. Anyone that wishes to check the validity of that fact can easily do so online. Building 7 showed even more clear evidence of a controlled demolition than the previous two towers. The center of the building has been caught on camera giving out before the sides which is a textbook controlled demolition hence all the experts signing a petition calling for the truth. Larry Silverstein himself used the term "pull" which is a demolition term but the problem is it takes weeks for a demolition like that to be planned. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be...
911 was an inside job

Considering the first thing, about the terrorists, this is a subject I myself have also puzzled over. There is a lot of coincidence surrounding 9/11, and it leads to a lot of speculation. While I don't 100% believe the official report, this doesn't mean I think it was the US government. I think it was a taliban group, but the means by which the US government supposedly got around to telling us I guess I'll never know. In my opinion, all the scientific evidence suggesting more was going on in 9/11 than just planes is legit. I don't think this exactly means it was the government, I just think there's more than the media was telling us. Which is usually the case, I'm no stranger to the news doing that. But I still remain on the stance that I'm not convinced. To both sides. The media still hasn't convinced me it was 100% truthful to what happened, and nobody has convinced me the US government did it. It's an event with a lot of mystery and unanswered questions, but I like where you're going with this. Maybe you can convince me it was in fact an inside job, but for now I'd like to think the US government has a shred of a soul.
911 was an inside job

As you stated it benefited certain people, much like politicians that swing their vote one way that would benefit large corporations but that's for another debate. Im here to show that the evidence presented to us on the events of 911 paint a drastically different picture than the official report given. The two towers 1. We were told that 19 terrorists hijack two commercial grade jets and slammed them into the twin towers and their passports fell through the explosion and fire and landed on the sidewalk to be picked up with almost no damage. We are to believe it went from inside the plane, through all the chaos to land unharmed. http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... 2. Explosions were heard by rescue workers and civilians in the basements of the towers. http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... 3. NIST reported that there were no fires hot enough to cause molten steel and yet rescue workers witnessed molten metal flowing through channels where they were working. http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... 4. All 3 towers were in freefall. This could only be possible if there were no obstacles to obstruct the top of the towers fall. Explosions can be seen the length of the towers. http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... 5. The president knew the attacks were going to happen, the previous administration had issued a report on the possibility that a terrorist group were planning to hijack American aircraft and use them as weapons. http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... Couldn't find this video in round 2 so ill throw it in here (who benefits) http://www.youtube.com... http://youtu.be... (relevant to every category)
911 was an inside job

While I've always agreed with people who say that 9/11 did benefit certain people, I've never agreed that it meant they did it. In my opinion, there were certain people who wanted all of these things, 9/11 happened and they took advantage of it. But if they had that sort of power, the kind of power to bomb multiple buildings with multiple planes (remember it wasn't just the twin towers that were attacked that day), and then have absolutely f all in terms of evidence, one would think they wouldn't be in a sort of situation in which blowing up buildings and killing people was necessary. For the sake of argument, let's say it was necessary. What about after? If the government and corporations were doing stuff like this, why would the US be in such awful financial debt right now? Couldn't they just do something like that again and save themselves?
911 was an inside job

Why is a very difficult thing to determine since the crime was committed under the vale of secrecy and misdirection though there are some rather compelling theories as to why. 1. OIL The attacks of 911 were the cause of a pre-emptive strike on Iraq under the false claim that they were harboring terrorist and yet they had never made any such claim. Bush had also claimed that we were invading to seize WMD's and yet there were zero found. http://youtu.be... http://www.cnn.com... (war was fought for oil) http://youtu.be... (Bush laughs about finding no WMD) http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... (Retired ARMY General) http://youtu.be... 2. Control over the middle east and American citizens As stated in the above sources the American government has had its sights set on the middle east for some time. Controlling that part of the world would yield huge strategic advantages to America over every other country. It would drastically increase our power in other words. After 911 Bush enacted the PATRIOT ACT which is a blatant violation of our constitutional rights. Then Obama brings into power the NDAA bill which gives the government the ok to indefinitely detain any American citizen without any proof of a crime being committed. These are supposed to be used to help defend American citizens but we have been warned throughout history not to sacrifice liberty for security. Our freedom is being chipped away in the name of national security. http://youtu.be... (Patriot act video) http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... Al Qaeda is being sold as a dangerous terrorist group that's soul aim is to wipe out America but is that true? Most people don't know how they came into existence. The group was originally created by the CIA to commit guerilla warfare against the Soviets when they tried to invade Afghanistan in the 80's. http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... (Tim Osman) Next round ill present my argument for the 2 towers
Atheism vs. Christianity

I would like to wish Dave a happy belated birthday! However, due to my work schedule, I will be unable to complete this debate because I am preparing for a major exam just around the corner. I will like to say that the failed prophesy argument is one that I am still unable to refute. I am able to refute the rest, but till further research into the topic, I will have to concede that Ezekiel made a false prophecy.
Atheism vs. Christianity

Resolved: Atheism is more probable than Christianity. For purposes of this debate, we will be taking a literalistic approach to the Bible and will be using a Calvanistic doctrine of the Bible. If my opponent disagrees or would like to add any clarifications, please do so in round 1. Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access. (2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion. (4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. (5) Forfeiting any round will result in a 7 point loss. Rounds: (1) Acceptance(2) Opening Statement ONLY (3) Rebuttal(4) RebuttalOther notes:(1) 72 hours to argue;(2) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. (3) If one side explicitly concedes or violates any terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other;(4) By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
Evolution Exists!

Wrong again. An atheist HATES GOD. I don't go to a catholic school I go to a public school. Obviously Catholics believe differently than Lutherans. Ha the big bang theory misses points. First, Lets say you created the worlds first camera. You know are famous for being the fastest runner in the world. as you were running in the forest you tripped and got caught in some brushes. You went from first to 5th place. One of your competitors( lets name him Pete) stops by and helps you out of the brushes. Now being free, You run your fastest to the finish line. You pass four people, leaving the Pete in the back trails. You cross the finish line with Pete in second. Everybody is cheering you on. If Pete never helped you you wouldn't have made it. In your speech you never thanked Pete for helping you. Evolution is you and GOD is Pete. GOD gave us brains and we don't even think to thank him for that simple thing just like you not thanking Pete. GOD gave free will so he lets you believe what you want. When judgement day comes around guess who isn't going. You because, you never thanked him for anything. Second, GOD is a creationist ( as you put it). He created the heavens and the earth. Simple giving a place to live. But, how do you make a house? Cement. How is cement made?combination of calcium, silicon, aluminum, iron and other ingredients. Where do those things come from? etc. It ALL ends up coming from one place. Earth. Now humans couldn't have made the earth, they didn't exist until AFTER the earth was made. A big bang would have set wood to fire or would've burned down don't you think? We have free will and being given free will, We believe what we want? Using that as answer to every question related to this. I will not force you to believe nor, will GOD. That's simply the power of GOD-GIVEN free will.
Evolution Exists!

First of all, an agnostic is not someone who doesn't believe in Gods existence. That is an atheist. An Agnostic simply claims that they don't know if God exists or not. Secondly, do you go to a Catholic school? I do. We are taught evolution and the Big Bang Theory. If you really take the creation story in the book of Genesis that literal then you are more of a "creationist." If you really want to take that story that literal, then you must believe in the fact that the earth is only 6,000 years old? No you probably don't. The reason why we have a 7 day creation story is simple. The Israelite were under Babylonian rule. The Babylonians had a 7 day creation story, so to spread the Israelite faith they also taught a 7 day creation story so it would be easier for the Babylonians to understand and believe. It's that simple. Now I am just saying this, I am a true believer of God, my priest is a true believer of God, my Theology teacher is a true believer of God and we all believe in the Big Bang and evolution. We believe it was the way that God created us. Did you ever hear the phrase "To God time is not existent, he is outside of time. To God 1,000 years is like a day, and a day is like 1,000 years." God could have created us in 1 quadrillion years for all I care, to Him that would be like a day. Please don't take the creation story word for word. My last point is: Evolution DID happen, the Big Bang most likely happened (although the Big Bang is missing some critical evidence) Proof of evolution has been discovered through fossils and DNA. If us humans evolved from monkeys then so what? We are quite different from them anyways. You must keep in mind that Science is fact, it can be proved. In my opinion God is real as well, but we can't take everything He says to literal. That is the main reason why the church has gone through many problems, and why it is facing problems with sexism to this day, especially on the topic of not letting women become priests. If you take anything too literal in today's society you are making a fool of yourself. Remember that God wouldn't have told people 6,000 years ago that they were created through evolution and the Big Bang, they just didn't understand science back then.
Evolution Exists!

Evolution does NOT exist. In the eyes of an agnostic (someone who doesn't believe in GOD) they have no other way to explain how the world came to be. The Big Bang Theory and Evolution just doesn't fit right in the eyes of a true believer in GOD. If evolution exists then why are our modern day monkeys, chimps (or whatever has been said to evolve) evolving now? An agnostic says " It takes generations for a monkey to evolve." Monkeys don't even live that long! And the only thing they have that is close to a human is opposable thumbs.
The G-d of the Tanakh created the earth

Accept all of those terms except that Google docs are a violation of conduct and the debate structure that you established. Since I did not agree to those two rules they are void since they were not agreed upon, I say freestyle debate. I also want to point out to my opponent that I am a Karaite Jew, not a Christian, the idea of blind faith is not a part of Karaism so please don’t expect these nonsense. THE TORAH CANNOT HAVE BEEN MADE UP Unlike every other religion in the world, Judaism started with a national revelation, meaning that this revelation from G-d which started our sect was revealed to an entire nation. For example, if I came out of nowhere and said I am a prophet of the L-rd, and that G-d gave me this book, you would not believe me. But if G-d descended upon the entire United States of America and told everyone that I was his prophet, you would probably accept my book. This is the reason why Jews believe in the Tanakh, it says why in Exodus 19:4: “You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.” This could not have been introduced in any other way, for example, say I came out of nowhere and tell a crowd of people that all Americans were once slaves in Mexico, and that G-d appointed me to be his prophet, so I parted the Mexican Gulf, and we all hat to fight off 10ft tall Chinese people, and I made it rain Big Macs to feed all of them, and that they all saw G-d give me this book publicly, they would say “But we never lived in Mexico, and you never parted the Mexican Gulf or made it rain Big Macs, and we never saw G-d talk to you!” That would be it for my book, no one would accept it.
The G-d of the Tanakh created the earth

I will take this time now to place a few more rules before I begin my arguments. The posting of ANY link, whether it be of the Google Doc form or not, is in fact a rule violation. Attempting to use "Faith" or any other non-factual source of information will be considered a rule violation. Kritiks are a rule violation Using more than the alloted number of characters set IN THE DEBATE set forth ON THIS SITE shall be considered a rule violation The use of the word "The" in ANY FORM after round 1 shall be considered a rule violation R2 Shall only be used for Opening Statements ONLY R3 Shall be used for Arguements ONLY R4 Shall be used for Rebuttals ONLY R5 Shall be used for Closing Statements ONLY ANY Violation of rules shall be considered a full forefeiture That is all, thank you for instigating this debate.
Wearing Ugg boots is not a fad

< > When the majority agrees on one thing, it is basically a rule that it is correct. When you say everyone, I assume you mean about 50 people. Therefore, it is highly improbable for them all to be incorrectly informed. <<1) My word is my proof. 2) I am included in the majority. 3) I think it'd not. 4) My word is my proof.>> Okay this is unbeliavble. You are defying all rules of a good debate. 'My word is my proof' counts for nothing. You shouldn't have even bothered writing this. < > The reason all stores are selling them is because of the increasingly high customer demand. They are selling them because many peole want to buy them. I would usually say thank you to my opponent, but your debate was sort of a waste of time. You could actually have convinced some people if you had debated properly. Better luck with the next one.
Wearing Ugg boots is not a fad

< > How do you knoow that everyone isn't wrong? < 1) How can you prove that uou don't usually give into fads? 2) It doesn't matter about YOU; we are talking about the majority 3) You say 'don't USUALLY'; this could be one of the times you do 4) That is supposed to be the justification of your argument?? How can you not include any proof?>> 1) My word is my proof. 2) I am included in the majority. 3) I think it'd not. 4) My word is my proof. <,Actually, there are very many people wearing them. There is not a single shoe store this season which is not selling Ugg boots.>> How do you know its not that the stores are selling but people not buying?
Wearing Ugg boots is not a fad

I would like to start with pointing out that your opening argument is incerdibly weak and stupid. < > If EVERYONE is saying it, then it is very highly probable that it is correct. << don't think it is because I wear Ugg boots and I don't usually give into fads>> There is much wrong with that statement. 1) How can you prove that uou don't usually give into fads? 2) It doesn't matter about YOU; we are talking about the majority 3) You say 'don't USUALLY'; this could be one of the times you do 4) That is supposed to be the justification of your argument?? How can you not include any proof? <> Actually, there are very many people wearing them. There is not a single shoe store this season which is not selling Ugg boots.
Je ne vais pas me contredire (I will not contradict myself)

Atheism/Agnosticism, you cannot know anything about supernatural events being supernatural. Furthermore, almost everything defined as supernatural can be answered with scientific knowledge. Furthermore, God would not be a supernatural event. The question clearly said event. God would be a supernatural being. A being =/= an event. I applaud my opponent for their trickery on this second contradiction. And since there is really no way I can refute it....I must concede this.