BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
mediascoop-crime reporting is sesitizing or sensationaling

I WILL SAY THAT MEDIA WILL ENLARGE ATHING AND MAKE IT A BIG ISSUE. THE CRIME WILL BE SOMETHING VERY SIMPLE.BUT MEDIAS WILL SHOW THAT CASE AS A BIG AND BIGGEST THING EVER HAPPEND. FOR EXAMPLE WE TAKE THE CASE OF THAT PRTISIPANT WHO FELL IN COMA STAGE AFTER HEARING THE COMMENTS OF JUDGES IN A REALITY SHOW. THEY MADE IT A BIG SENSATIONAL NEWS. AFTER THAT EACH AND EVERY PARENTS OF THE EVERY PARTISIPANTSIN EVERY REALITY SHOW , SHOWED A DELAY TO SEND THERE CHILDRENS.THE HUMAN BEINGS WHO ARE ALREDY AFRAID BECOME MORE AND MORE AFRAID BECAUSE OFTHESE SENSATIONAL NEWS.TO MAKE AWARENESS OF SOME THING IS GOOD. BUT THESE MEDIAS ONLY MAKE US AFRAID OF DOING SOMETHING. SO MEDIAS HAVE TO PRESENT A THING IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT HAVE TO MAKE A AWARENESS MAKE US AFRAID. NOW BEFORE ASKING ME ANY MORE EXAMPLES WHY DON'T YOU SUBMIT AT THE LEAST ONE EXAMPLE. COME ON DONT DISAPPOINT THE 'HE'
mediascoop-crime reporting is sesitizing or sensationaling

recently in news ,there was a news about sanyasine Himawal badranada who was said to create a havoc in police station by firing at the policemen. The media unneccesarly propaganded him for using a bocon light which he should not have done .also media unneccesarly propagand fake sanyasines who are doing antisocial activities. now give an example to support your argument
mediascoop-crime reporting is sesitizing or sensationaling

In the power of the he I seek he to wonder the tiddly tofty. He who shall be will be win without. Sensilization does not exist has never existed my opponents claims are nonsensical to the fullest extent he. For she hast deceived ye I say, deceived. In the name of __(your god/s)__ I say ye shall be beheaded at once! I ask my opponent to offer me ONE more relevant example JUST one more. If she can do that, I shall forfeit, if she fails to do so, I shall be victor I say. I say victor! ...conclude...
How to do Sandboarding

Get a sandboard. Choose sand dunes or sand hills that are open for recreation. Try almost flat terrain and skating exercises if you are a beginner. Practice on a small sand hill with very little drop. On the small hill, try the following drill to improve your ability to board on your heels: Strap both feet in. Go down the hill on your heels. You do this by pulling up on your toes. DonA533;t pull up too much or you're going to fall on your butt. Now let up on your heels so you can go down the hill. If you pick up too much speed or want to stop pull up on your toes again. At the bottom of the hill, unstrap one of your straps. Preferably the one that you strapped up at the top of the hill. Now make your way back up to the top of the hill. Repeat the above exercise, but this time working your toes, rather than your heels.
You can't beat me.

Well, as everybody can see, Pro is very pro at being full of himself. But anyways... Pro's mistakes: -Pro insists that he is the only pro in this debate however, Pro also interestingly enough left out that I am also a pro in bog snorkeling, cheese rolling, and dwarf tossing. My advantage: "But that is what cons do. They swindle their way into getting things... Cons only care about themselves." -Pro You know us too well. :) Dear Voters, Pro states that I'm trying to fool you, and you'd have to be extremely gullible to fall for the lie(s) I've put in this entire entry. Pro is trying too hard to fool you all more than I am, he's appealing, or even begging, to your emotions and not giving you a valid reason as to why he could beat me.
You can't beat me.

You will not beat me since I am the pro. I chose pro for this debate because, I am pro at being pro. Since I am pro, I'll be conducting myself in a professional manner. I am pro at being professional. Now lets begin. Your mistake -You chose con FACT: I am the only pro in this debate. Your advantage -You will be able to see my argument before I see yours. But that is what cons do. They swindle their way into getting things. My advantage -The people, the voters, I love them. Cons only care about themselves. Voters -Don't let the con fool you. That is what they are good at. They cheat and lie. Con-people don't respect the voters, they deceive and try to sneak their ways into winning debates. Vote with your heart. I'm trusting you voters!
god is information

I'll accept this challenge for fun... 1.) know=now=true 2.) future=belief=imagination=false Both of the above have been submitted by you on multiple occasions here on DDO. [1] You have claimed that only your physical experiences of "now" is true, and that the memory of those experiences is the past or "truth", and the beliefs pertain to your imagination of the future, which you call false. You claim to "know" that you will find something in the future, which is false by your own reasoning. [1] DDO Debate and Debate Comments of "false=anywhere beoyond my personal physical experience of now" http://www.debate.org...
god is information

Before responding to the expanded arguments, I believe that my opponent is still arguing from the standpoint of his own mind. His arguments are solely based on his own perceptions. Please note that my opponent has ignored my requests for definitions for the use of his words. "i dont assume this.. i assume there is another person sitting on a computer somewhere typing with me as a matter of relevance, but imagination is false, beyond what i know is what i dont know" You DO assume this. You assume that your senses are correct, which is normal. You could possibly be dreaming or something, so it is no 100% guaranteed that this is true. "i have no beliefs" OK, so what haven't you blundered into the path of a speeding car, then? You would stop because you can *imagine* the potential scenario to determine the most likely outcome, and then act according to that conclusion. If you had no "beliefs" in the way you use that word, you could not predict the consequences of an action. "without my senses im dead, so sensory experience is life. there is no life in my imagination" To *you*, you may be, but to *me*, I still can observe that you are alive. Again, this is derived from your perception and not from anything else. "if you felt the string on you that was true, and you imagined it was bug or whatever, belief" The same kind of thing can be seen if you "know" you saw something, but later, it was confirmed that there wasn't actually anything there. When you "saw" it, it was untrue in reference to reality. The same basic argument apply to the rest of your statements in round #5.
god is information

i dont assume this.. i assume there is another person sitting on a computer somewhere typing with me as a matter of relevance, but imagination is false, beyond what i know is what i dont know i have no beliefs know=matter=physical experience without my senses im dead, so sensory experience is life. there is no life in my imagination in order for know to be false it would have to be imaginary, and i cant know imaginaiton, imagination is unknown memory is truth, know is true, the matter in my physical experience never becomes imaginary. it can not be destroyed if you felt the strong on you that was true, and you imagined it was bug or whatever, belief future is the opposite of past, false is the opposite of truth, imagination is the opposite of memory unless its absolute, i dont have a brain, its not easy or natural to cut open a head, so as far as i know, i dont have a brain. nature flows in the path of least resistance physical experience is matter only now is real.. a blind mans reality, is not of colours and light. reality is true, false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now
god is information

You're arguments and reasoning are displaying shades of Solipsism. "Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist." [1] You are a bit more open in that you accept your perception to be true, but you assume all outside of that is false. You only believe the information that is being attained by your senses, so you believe that you heard the words of someone over the phone, but cannot believe that they physically exist because you cannot see them. If you are deprived of all your senses, does reality cease to exist for anyone but *you*? "memory(truth)+physical experience(true)=imagination(false)" How can you assume that either memory or physical experience is a constant "true"? Is should be very well know that our current perception can be erroneous (seeing things that aren't there, feeling something crawling on your skin when it was just a string), and that our memories are not infallible. This statement is unsound if applied anywhere outside of your own mind. "physical experience+imagination=memory" Physical experience is "recorded", and is reconstructed by the imagination to recall the memory, I believe. Once any time has elapsed, there is no difference longer between memory and physical experience, with "physical experience" meaning the instant that the information is received by the brain. Your use of these terms in unclear, and I am forced to interpret what you mean. Before this goes off on too much more of a tangent, you can justify that god is false in your own mind, but you cannot prove that god is false in reality. Your arguments are hypothetical situations are only applicable to within a mind, and not to reality itself. Even if you justify the falsehood of god in all minds, that is still separate from reality. Things can clearly exist in reality beyond our current perception and knowledge. Your use of true and false seem to be your own. I will request definitions for your words, once more. [1] Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org...
god is information

unknown=alien=false=unicorn false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now matter being real. the only distance that matters is whats rechable by my physical body, not by my imagination i can create whatever in my mind, but i need memory to have free will memory(truth)+physical experience(true)=imagination(false) imagination+memory=physical experience physical experience+imagination=memory this is a bit confusing but its like what enables they enable the existence of each other, this is on the top level they are 3 different sides, i can only see 1 side of the pyramid using my eyes truth is not true, and false is not truth etc, they are seperators, not each other even thou they can not exist without each other, if i dont have the perception of a future and a past i cant be selfaware i know you are light on my screen and a story in my mind possibiltieis are imaginary, i could be a bot trying to make you think i am human, or a human trying to make you think i am a bot belief is automaticly false as i dont know is true if you say my neighbour can stand outside my door! lets go an SEE.. etc only know is real, imagination is the opposite of reality, reality is true, know=true=personal physical experience of now sure, all gods that have ever been worshipped, are information, false physical is the opposite of mental, thoughts are mental, does mental not exist? lies dosnt exist? true can not exist without false, 1+1=2 not 3, if i take 1 pen in my hand, and put another in it, i have to imagine a third pen in my hand, which is a false answer only now is true, if its not now, its not true for me to say that there is a unicorn around the corner is false, is absolute, can i see a real future in my mind? no, therfore its false, as i dont know btw im not saying false has no relevance even if i remember the hammer, i still dont know if its going to be there when i get home, its in the future.. future is false, false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now
god is information

"so god is true?" It is unknown, and unknown does not necessarily equal false in reality. "imagination is false" Please elaborate on your definition of "false". Your imagination is an image based on your previous experiences, or "knowledge/truth" as you describe it. One cannot visualize a purple, four-armed monster without having previous experience and knowledge of "purple" and what an "arm" is. You memories are formed the same way; they are reconstructed images based on your previous experience, or knowledge. The monster is obviously untrue because it was intentionally constructed from fragments of your experiences as an abstract image. If memories were separate, then one could not misremember them. So, in your format, imagination=memories "false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now"" "only know is true, and i dont know god" So, by this logic, I do not exists *to you*. This does not mean that I cannot exist. "my point isnt to disprove god thou, thats easy, my point is to prove the christian god is a unicorn" Disproving god to yourself may be easy, but that does not disprove god in reality. You did not state or indicate that you were referring to the Christian god, which would have totally changed the dynamic of the debate. I will insist that we stick with the general concept of god, or at least present meaningful evidence supporting your claim. "imagination dosnt exist? i am imagining a unicorn, and im about to catch it i think! its right around the corner" Imagination does not physically exist; it is a product of the physical function of the brain. Just because your imagination doesn't exist, doesn't mean it is necessarily false. You cannot prove that it is absolutely false for a unicorn to be waiting around that corner. "i can believe that i lef the hammer under my sink and when i get home and its not there I GET PISSED BECUASE IT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE THERE, just a tiny god :)" memoryX00;true, memoryX00;false. Memory is prone to mistakes and cannot be deemed entirely true nor false. I'm not sure what point this is supposed to make... Your turn!
god is information

so god is true? imagination is false false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now only know is true, and i dont know god my point isnt to disprove god thou, thats easy, my point is to prove the christian god is a unicorn imagination dosnt exist? i am imagining a unicorn, and im about to catch it i think! its right around the corner i can believe that i lef the hammer under my sink and when i get home and its not there I GET PISSED BECUASE IT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE THERE, just a tiny god :)
god is information

There is a difference; it isn't just a black and white situation. While it is true that the claim that either exists is an unfalsifiable claim (and therefore cannot be proven false), there is [arguable] evidence that exists for god, and there are millions of people who champion the notion that God indeed exists, whereas, regarding other fantastical things such as unicorns, there is no significant amount of evidence and we are [virtually] all in agreement that they do not actually exist. Another difference is that the belief in unicorns is irrelevant to one's existence. If unicorns somehow are proven to exist, then it will likely have little effect on people beyond "Well, whaddya know!". When it comes to god, one's belief is more important because it directly related to one's existence, specifically, in the notion of an afterlife or other judgement by said god. For clarity of the debate title, do you believe that: information=false
MESSI is the king of Barcelona not RONALDINHO.

Round 1 is usually for acceptance.Here's my case. 1. Ronaldinho played for FC Barcelona from 2003 to 2008.[1]2. Ronaldinho scored 110 goals in 250 appearances and he was the key player in Barcelona’s Champions League conquest, as well as two Liga titles and two Spanish Super Cups.[2]3. Ronaldinho won his first league title in 2004–05, and was named FIFA World player of the year for 2004 & 2005. This award is won by Ronaldinho 2 times whereas Lionel Messi has only won once. [3]4. Ronaldinho led Barcelona which progressed to the Champions league final, which they won on 17 May 2006 with a 2–1 defeat of Arsenal. [3]5. Ronaldinho led Barcelona to victory in 2006-07 Spanish Supercup, 2005-06 Champions League, 2005-06 League, 2005-06 Spanish Supercup, 2004-05 League. [1]6.Ronaldinho had opponents who magnified his peak even more – he was up against Zidane, Figo. Messi has much more help at Barcelona.[4]Sources[1] http://arxiu.fcbarcelona.cat...[2] http://www.fcbarcelona.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.fifa.com...
Richard Dawkins

"I claim that Atheist Richard Dawkins is a religious fundamentalist.Now ,we all know about christian and islamic fundamentalists.We see the havoc which they continue to spread daily.But what about Atheism?It is my arguement that this too is a fundamentalist religion which meets all the required criteria,especially as preached by Mr.dawkins.Leave aside Darwinism.Let us for the sake of arguement accept that Darwins theory is irrefutable scientific fact(which is what i believe).what Dawkins claims is that Darwinism proves absolutely that god does not exist!WHAT?HOW?This is clearly a religious statement,in that it requires a leap of faith and is not backed by any proof WHATSOEVER.Another aspect of fundamentalim is a stubborn ignorance regarding other religions.Dawkins is incredibly dismissive of ALL religions except his own.When he argues,he assumes that all christians believe in a corporeal God sitting on a cloud somewhere.But that is another arguement."Fundamentalism refers to a belief in,and strict adherance to a set of basic principles".....Namely that 1:There absolutely is no God.2:Darwins theory is proof of this.3:Whoever does not accept this is stupid or mentally ill.4.You cannot be a TRUE DARWINIST if you believe in or are open to the possibility of an intelligence beyond the realm of our own subjective experience.SCIENCE IS THOU GOD,THOU SHALT HAVE NO GOD BUT SCIENCE.Richard Dawkins.True believer." I will again define 'Religious Fundamentalist': "For religious fundamentalists, sacred scripture is considered the authentic and authoritative word of their religion's god or gods. This does not necessarily require that all portions of scripture be interpreted literally rather than allegorically or metaphorically - for example, see the distinction in Christian thought between Biblical infallibility, Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism. Fundamentalist beliefs depend on the twin doctrines that their god or gods articulated their will clearly to prophets, and that followers also have an accurate and reliable record of that revelation." SOURCE: [1] This definition makes it quite clear that a religious fundamentalist: a) believes in a god or gods b) takes scripture regarding that god as that god's word Your own post admits that Dawkins is an atheist, meaning he believes in no gods. Hence, he can't be a religious fundamentalist. You can call Richard Dawkins ignorant, over-zealous, over-certain, delusional, or anything else you wish to throw at him. Frankly, I don't like the man myself. But if there is one thing he is not, it is a religious fundamentalist.
Richard Dawkins

I claim that Atheist Richard Dawkins is a religious fundamentalist.Now ,we all know about christian and islamic fundamentalists.We see the havoc which they continue to spread daily.But what about Atheism?It is my arguement that this too is a fundamentalist religion which meets all the required criteria,especially as preached by Mr.dawkins.Leave aside Darwinism.Let us for the sake of arguement accept that Darwins theory is irrefutable scientific fact(which is what i believe).what Dawkins claims is that Darwinism proves absolutely that god does not exist!WHAT?HOW?This is clearly a religious statement,in that it requires a leap of faith and is not backed by any proof WHATSOEVER.Another aspect of fundamentalim is a stubborn ignorance regarding other religions.Dawkins is incredibly dismissive of ALL religions except his own.When he argues,he assumes that all christians believe in a corporeal God sitting on a cloud somewhere.But that is another arguement."Fundamentalism refers to a belief in,and strict adherance to a set of basic principles".....Namely that 1:There absolutely is no God.2:Darwins theory is proof of this.3:Whoever does not accept this is stupid or mentally ill.4.You cannot be a TRUE DARWINIST if you believe in or are open to the possibility of an intelligence beyond the realm of our own subjective experience.SCIENCE IS THOU GOD,THOU SHALT HAVE NO GOD BUT SCIENCE.Richard Dawkins.True believer.
Richard Dawkins

My opponent has asserted that Richard Dawkins is a religious fundamentalist, and it is my task to show otherwise. As there are no arguments to rebut, I will define a few terms and await my opponent's first argument. Fundamentalism: "Fundamentalism refers to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life. " SOURCE: [1] Religious Fundamentalist: "For religious fundamentalists, sacred scripture is considered the authentic and authoritative word of their religion's god or gods. This does not necessarily require that all portions of scripture be interpreted literally rather than allegorically or metaphorically - for example, see the distinction in Christian thought between Biblical infallibility, Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism. Fundamentalist beliefs depend on the twin doctrines that their god or gods articulated their will clearly to prophets, and that followers also have an accurate and reliable record of that revelation. " SOURCE: [1] I await my opponent's arguments and hope this is an enlightening debate. [1] - . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Richard Dawkins

I apologize to my opponent for not wanting to argue semantics in this debate, but I was left with no choice. You called him a religious fundamentalist, I defined religious fundamentalist, we now both agree that he is certainly not one. Please note, voters, that my opponent has conceded to Richard Dawkins not being a religious fundamentalist. Thus, I've fulfilled my burden and all votes should be to PRO. I suggest that next time my opponent wishes to discredit a professional on a public forum, he do some research into the slanderous terms he's throwing around.
Richard Dawkins

I have no wish to debate semantics.My point is that ,while he does not believe in a God,Dawkins certainly shares in common the arrogance,blind faith,religiosity and intillectual dishonesty of religious fundamentalists.I find it ironic that he has so much in common with those he despises.I suppose he could better be described as an Athiest Fundamentalist.I can debate the various points i have raised aswell as my own belief that Atheism is just as faith based and more insidious than any other belief system.Hence my use of the term "religious".I concede your point about fundamentalism defined as belief in a God.I should have made myself more clear in my opening arguement.I was just making a point and do not wish this debate to become about definitions.
The NFL is too soft

I am not at all saying that I want the players to be injured but it is just ridiculous how players are penalized for some hard hits that are clearly incidental. It slows down the pace of the game and gives the offense an unfair advantage because now more than ever there is a high possibility for a roughing the passer or unnecessary roughness penalties. The NFL is arguably more popular than ever before, but these safety issues will only become stiffer and the game will slow down to a snail's pace