BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nationality Status for Srilankan Innocent Tamil People!

I have a fleeting feeling that this guy used Google translate to do his dirty work for him... You cannot demand a nationality status for a conquered peoples. This is ridiculous - it's like proclaiming the Byzantium descendants in Turkey a status as a seperate peoples from the country. The internal conflicts in Sri Lanka are due to the peoples'* hands themselves, as they are declaring succussion from their fair conquerors. The Tamil peoples can easily live a peaceful life. This shouldn't be difficult, as in the 2nd century BC, Buddhism was introduced to the Tamil people, and it still today remains the major religion in the area of Sri Lanka. In the words of Angela Merkel, "Moscheen etwa werden stï¿½rker als frï¿½her ein Teil unseres Stadtbildes sein." (Mosques are now more than what we saw before in the makeup of our cities' scapes.) All they need to do is make their blatantly obviously Hindu presence less potent with the other peoples of Sri Lanka. They can come back home, they just need to camoflauge themselves. *The descendants of the 2nd Century BC's Sri Lanka inhabitants
Nationality Status for Srilankan Innocent Tamil People!

Many of the Srilanka Tamil People Who Temporarily got Settled in Various Country During their Own Country Problem are still in trouble. The Reason for stating that, it is their own country problem, is the Tamils fought for their regal rights are living that land for generations together. After hundreds of year, the Tamils in Srilanka in their own land, where discriminated by the Rulers. In the beginning the Tamil raised their voice in Gandhian Way only. But due to so many reasons and others influence especially religious force played a major role and they tied they Government hand and they were forced not to do, any good to the Tamilians. Later the fight took a different shape and the country lost their wealth in fighting, rather they should have saved money by bringing Harmony in the Land. If the government would have done so, I am very sure Srilanka must be another Singapore for Neighbouring Countries. These things are not our main issue. OUR MAIN ISSUES ARE When the innocent Tamils in their own land will get a peaceful life! When the Tamils in their own land will be equally treated as other Srilankan Nationals. When the Tamils who are now stationed in other Countries can come back home. When All the Srilankan Innocent Tamils will lead a common life as other Natives of this Universe. AT SOME POINT OF TIME, FOR EVERY ISSUE ARISES, EACH AND EVERY NATION, HADSORTED OUT THE ISSUES, RATHER THAN EXPLORING THE SAME OLD STORIES. THEN WHY SRILANKA IS NOT GIVNG IMPORTANCE TO THE UNIVERCEL TRUTH OR VALUE?
You are homo dude

WOW 5 rounds of this debateMy friend eriel here wanted to have this friendly debate with me online to show that I am a homosexual person. This debate is for fun and we do not have anything against homosexuals...with that being said, I say "goodluck to my opponent and let's start this debate!"Although I have no evidence to back up my contentions, neither does my opponent.TERMShomosexual: a person, usually a man, who is sexually attracted to people of the same sexARGUMENTS1. I have never been interested in the same gender that I am. 2. I have a girlfriend3. I don't have a boyfriend4. My opponent has numerously called me a "player"(though I am not) because of the number of girls that I talk to and therefore, he proved that I am not a homosexualI will leave it at that and await my friend's response
The Global War on Terror is a Worthwhile Response to Acts of Terror

Soz am i debating for or against it sozCan u be the pro and i be conHere is my simple argrumentThe U.S.A started the terrorism in the middle east so if they are the ones paying it is their fault. They were the ones who created the taliban to oppose the U.S.S.R but when they retreated they left them on their own.Also the Iran-Iraq war was caused for no reason, it was started due to the U.S.AI finish my debate here and might forefiet all other roundsFrom,TheAwesomeRuler
The Global War on Terror is a Worthwhile Response to Acts of Terror

Unjustified, irrational fear is the goal of fear-crimes such as terrorism. Giving in to this fear is not a worthwhile response to acts of terror; it is, in fact, an important incentive to terror. Fear is the tool of the terrorist at least as much as the coward is his unwitting ally. The terrorist is the person who uses weaponized fear as a tool with which to subdue his opponent. If he uses weaponized weapons, then he is no longer a terrorist; he is a swordsman, or a cavalryman, or a rifleman. The terrorist attack attempts to cause fear. If the response to this attempt to cause fear is to have members of a society scream about in terror, and attack everything in sight like mindless cattle, then the sower of fear has placed a dangerous saboteur within society. He has morphed his fear-seed into chaos, and has found voices who are trusted by his enemies to tell them how terrible he is. The terrorist cannot hope for better than to have his crimes inspire the fear-industry to employ the coward-lobby to inspire the war-profiteers to monetize the effects of his terrorism.
Has the Catholic church been involved in the predominant amount of sexual abuse cases in the media

Although I agree they ARE involved, I do not believe they are the predominant percentage of sexual abuse as a whole but ARE in the media because of the sensationalized portrayal by the media for ratings purposes and the inherent betrayal both to people of faith and the children, and some adults, involved. The Church, and by extension its clergy, is suppose to be the moral compass for followers of that particular faith. When they fall to temptations and lead a life astray or opposite the teaching they themselves preach and hold church members and others accountable too, it is a huge blow to peoples faith in both the clergy and the religion that the clergy practices. That the majority of victims are children, further erodes faith.
Has the Catholic church been involved in the predominant amount of sexual abuse cases in the media

I suppose it would appear that the Catholic Church have been involved innate in a inexcusable amount of sexual scandals highlighted in the media! for what seems to be an age. Is there something inherently poisoning the fabric of the church? or is the religion itself to blame I suppose its hard to debate anything else. Does the church conduct or condone this deviant behaviour? or does it attract these type of predators? Questions that aren't easy however I feel this issue has not had the attention it needs. Thousands of unanswered cases in Europe, America, Asia and Africa. Has there been an intentional cover up from governments all over the world particularly Europe and America? Has anyone got a view? what would be the consensus?????????????
Has the Catholic church been involved in the predominant amount of sexual abuse cases in the media

?I'm not supporting the catholic church ? Im fact I am atheist lol I agree that they dominate the media but I have pointed out the psychological and social reasons why. I argue that your view that they dominate the sexual abuse STATISTICS is false & is biased by your beef with the Catholic Church, perhaps with the religion itself. People who go against all that they are suppose to stand for- purity of spirit and body - plus they judge others to this standard in order for those people to be accepted into Heaven when they themselves have fallen from grace will always pull in more viewers. Sex traffickers rarely make it into the news unless they are connected to a drug ring,terrorist,or a lot of the workers die and the bodies are found.
Has the Catholic church been involved in the predominant amount of sexual abuse cases in the media

Give me a break your comparing the church with sex traffickers and you don't see this as a problem? Wow I'm surprised anyone would have the audacity but hey nothing surprises me now when it comes from people who support and encourage the catholic church. Don't you think the fact you are having to compare them is just a slight problem. Thousands of cases are listed over the web but I suppose its all rubbish rite!
Is God real

existence define my arguments, I have no beliefs. matter can only transform, never be created or destroyed, make the matter that is an apple into nothing, I dare you, so matter has no begininnig and no end, witch rules out god, because anything that is created has a beginning, and matter is eternal transformation is from something to something, god can only come after nature, as super nature is in contrast with nature, and god is simply information, and the myth is false because he can not have created everything when he must come from nature, ye the big bang theory is false, atleast the part about time having a beginning, matter is space, and space is time, and matter can never be created or destroyed
Is God real

The Merriam Webster Dictionary definition of logic is a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something but who is to decide whether there way of understanding is well logical and if the origin of your imagination is nature then where did it come from If your an evolutionist then where did life start well dust but your an evolutionist everything has a origin where did the dust come from no dust no Big Band no Big Bang no planet no planet no rock no rock no sludge no sludge no life no life no nature no nature no imagination. So if nothingness had a beginning then how is it so hard to believe that God has none then he created nature then inspiring your creativity.
Is God real

it cant be unintended unless its not intended, so its not a natural cause if god intends it, and nature comes before supernature and machine. supernature is in contrast with nature, and super nature is imaginary, wouldn't you agree the origin of my imagination is nature? the natural world? as far as I know I was born by my parents, mother+father=child natural cause is random, not intended, intend is supernatural or mechanical if you push me off a cliff I might die, cause=you pushed me, effect=I fall and die(logic), if we remove the cause and effect relation, you didn't push, and I didn't fall and die, this that logic disappears, if you eat a poisonous mushroom, does it matter what you think is going to happen if the mushroom is poinsonous enough to make you really sick? my old definition of logic was the implication of matter against matter, but emotion is caused by thought(mental emotion, not joy and pain), so logic is more then just that, so cause and effect is logic is true because what isn't logic, what isn't causal
Is God real

The two cycles of the Sun being day and night is a reflection of positive and negative thoughts. Negative energy represents separation, emotions, and the moon. The moon is a slower cycle than the Sun and closer to physical experience. The moon represents water, and the sun represents fire. The moon is a reflection of negative energy in contrast to positive energy of the Sun. the interaction between the sun and the moon results in life experience also known as earth. I am earth, without earth for me to stand on I couldn't be here, so I am the earth beneath me, illuminati=light now, I am my eyes, my eyes are matter, so I am the light I see, I am... (cause+(and)effect=(is)logic natural cause=random(not intended) randomness+logic=chaos(all natural change in eternity including evolution) optional debate subject, just to expand a bit)
Religious beliefs are false.

Hi, As you already know i am now your opponent in this argument. I would first like to start off by stating a fact, One that may or may not be useful for my argument. "According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, There are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), With China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists). " Could it be that they were already born in to a family of atheists and were never shown any type of religion in any forms making it so that they would not even consider the fact that any of the religions could be true? Certainly there was a time in your life where you considered the belief in god, And goddesses. Most atheists are influenced by their family or partners to believe in what they believe, It is fully your choice in what you believe or don't believe. So in conclusion for my 1st argument, Religious beliefs are not false.
Religious beliefs are false.

Recap: my contestant stated that due to lack of complete evidence for the BBT, It should be subject to an amount of doubt. My opponent has also conceded that my arguments are able to consistently counter those of her: "it seems that no matter how much evidence or explanations i [sic] can provide there is always a way you will find to bring that down". I am uncertain of the implications of this concession in regards to the future of this debate. No additional arguments have been provided by my opponent, However. The BBT may be a theory and is unproven, But it is the most likely model of the universe based on tangible evidence. By measuring the expansion of the universe and that rate, We are able to determine that it is expanding from a single origin. Thus, The BBT is born. Furthermore, It strikes me as ironic that you require evidence for the BBT, But believe in religion, Which has no tangible evidence.
Religious beliefs are false.

In your argument you said that "The origin of this singularity is unknown" So how do you know that it came from a singularity that you don't know where that even comes from. Though i can agree with you that not all things are known so, Lets just keep it simple that there is no longer an explanation of whether religious belief's are false because it seems that no matter how much evidence or explanations i can provide there is always a way you will find to bring that down just like scientists to flat earthers (i'm not a flat earther)
Religious beliefs are false.

Religious beliefs are not false. Just like how not believing in something isn't wrong. In your argument for round 2 instead of giving evidence of how i am wrong you decided to review and correct me on what i did wrong. Though it is always good to give someone feedback that is not the point of this website, In this website you are supposed to debate with a person on a specific topic. Now for my real argument. . . Our universe contains too much order for our existence to have been created out of chaos, Hence the Big bang theory that claims "hydrogen started to form stars and galaxies. After billions of years the Earth (and us) formed from the atoms made inside stars - every atom in your body more complicated than hydrogen was made by a star at some point in the last 13. 8 billion years. In all that time, The Universe has continued to expand. " If hydrogen created all of this then the real question is what created hydrogen? Did it just come out of nowhere? In all Religions comes a creation story. For christian people (I am christian) We believe In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. For Islam people they believe "Allah "turned to the sky, And it had been (as) smoke. He said to it and to the earth: 'Come together, Willingly or unwillingly. ' They said: 'We come (together) in willing obedience'" (41:11). Thus the elements and what was to become the planets and stars began to cool, Come together, And form into shape, Following the natural laws that Allah established in the universe. " The Hindu people believe "Allah "turned to the sky, And it had been (as) smoke. He said to it and to the earth: 'Come together, Willingly or unwillingly. ' They said: 'We come (together) in willing obedience'" (41:11). Thus the elements and what was to become the planets and stars began to cool, Come together, And form into shape, Following the natural laws that Allah established in the universe. " Those are the top 3 religions in the world. So who are you to say that all religious belief's are false? Considering the fact that you don't believe in anything may be the reason you started this debate. Without any evidence provided it seems you may or may not be stumped on what you could use for your argument. If you need help there is always google. Unless your opinion is good enough evidence for you to use. I look forward to seeing your evidence against mine. Thank you for this argument. P. S Don't correct me on my argument, Just provide your argument.
Religious beliefs are false.

Recap: My opponent suggested that atheistic beliefs may be caused by environmental, Familial, Or peer influences, Citing atheism statistics. My opponent claimed that some atheists may have not critically considered the prospect of religion, Presumably leading to a narrow-sighted view of religion. Despite not having provided arguments for the validity of religious beliefs, My opponent nevertheless strides on to conclude that "[r]eligious beliefs are not false. " It is interesting to note that the object of this debate has not been addressed by my opponent: it concerns solely the validity and credibility of religious beliefs and not the virtue of considering them. I have no points to make; religious, Or any, Claims must be backed by compelling evidence which has not been offered. I await my opponent's response and anticipate that it will be focused on the object of this debate.
Resolved: A fetus' life may be legally sacrificed to protect the life of the mother.

I would first like to apologize to my opponent if I am not a superb debater, but you asked for holes to be pointed out, and that's why I accepted this challenge. "If a fetus has not yet been born on American soil, it is not yet an American citizen, and has similar legal status to an Alien applicant for U.S. amnesty, even assuming we consider it to be a human life." -Not true. I am not going to post the different cases, but different cases have shown that in instances of murder a fetus is treated as and defended as an American Citizen. An aborted fetus is not offered citizenship because it wasn't "born", and it's life was legally taken, however, in instances where the mother has been murdered they have gone on to issue citizenship and in some cases a SSN for logistical purposes for the government, and for memorial purposes for the family. "The mother's right to live should be valued above the fetus' simply because the is a United States citizen, whom we have an obligation to protect first and foremost." -A US citizen has no more protections of life and liberty than any other person. Though you have provided the law showing how the mother is a citizen, you have not shown any laws differentiating in importance of life of a citizen over an undocumented immigrant. Being undocumented does not mean you have less right to live than a citizen, and you have not proven this.
Resolved: A fetus' life may be legally sacrificed to protect the life of the mother.

Trying out a new argument I've developed, help me check for holes... The fourteenth amendment to the U.S. constitution states that "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This presents the citizenship criterion known as JURIS SOLI, the right of the soil. If a fetus has not yet been born on American soil, it is not yet an American citizen, and has similar legal status to an Alien applicant for U.S. amnesty, even assuming we consider it to be a human life. As a government, the U.S. has a mandate to follow its own social contract, as laid out in the constitution. The mother's right to live should be valued above the fetus' simply because the is a United States citizen, whom we have an obligation to protect first and foremost.
No more complicated answers to simple questions!!!

Hello what are you talking about you have misunderstood my entire debate the example I gave about the election process was not an example at all it was what the debate was about the complicated answer to the simple question of how to pick a president any second grader could have gotten that. So if you are reading this vote Pro because of his obvious stupidity. And if PublicForumG-d wants a redo say so in your last round.
No more complicated answers to simple questions!!!

The title it self should be self explanatory so all I need do is provide the question and answer that I am talking about so here it is: Question: How should we pick our next president? Complicated answer: First we must elect the reps for the democrats and the republicans by letting the nominees slowly campaign across the country. Then hold primaries one by one giving each candidate a number of delegates until they get up to a certain number and become the rep for their party. Then there are the super delegates that basically undermine the public's opinion. Then the real election where we have the popular vote and an electoral vote the electoral voter looks at the vote of the people then cast their own ballots it's supposed to represent the area where the popular votes they are looking at came from but they don't then a recount and a new president is chosen. This is way to complicated this is how it should be. How it should be: All nominees' campaign across the entire country at once then one big primary is held no delegate's most individual votes become the reps of their party then we hold elections no electoral votes popular vote wins sweet and simple. You can't tell me that this plan is at least better than the one in place now. We need a simpler plan be it one like mine or another either way this way of picking presidents needs to change.
Modified Storytelling

The drawing progressed nicely and smoothly, it seemed to flow effortlessly from the pencil to the paper. If possible, it actually looked better than the sketch in the book. The gentleman who hovered a comfortable distance away approached. "Excuse me, I wondered if I might see your drawing?" Luis-Noel turned the paper toward the man and looked up expectantly. The man took glasses from his shirt pocket and put them on. He placed his hand near the drawing and looked back at Luis-Noel. "May I?" Luis-Noel, not used to manners or courtesy shrugged and nodded. The man picked up the drawing and looked at it as if he were examining every detail. He looked atthe drawing for far longer than expected. Luis-Noel began fidgeting impatiently. "It's not done, why do you care anyway?" "How long have you been drawing?" "All my life, why?" "Your work is exquisite. Allow me to introduce myself, My name is William Carl Sanderson. I am a recruiter for the Pittsburgh Art Institute. I am always on the look out for talent. How would you feel about going to school for art?"...
Modified Storytelling

Luis-Noel continued on to a public library. After hesitating a moment, he went inside. Still uneasy with technology, he went to the old card catalog. Dissatisfied, he browsed the 700s section looking for an art book. He spent much longer than he intended to, but didn't seem to mind. He selected a book of sketches and went to a quiet table. He took some scratch paper from teh recycle bin, and found a couple of pencils at the computer desk. He opened the book and skimmed through the pages. He settled on a picture of a raccoon in a tree with a black