BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does the Christian God Exists

I am looking forward to hearing the 9 words to prove the existence of God! Also it seems that this debate will lean heavily towards where morals come from which happens to be something I have researched! So here Goes. .. Our morality is a part of our Darwinian instinct. It has evolved through the increase of human population. There was a time when morality was necessary for your well being. You were more than likely to see the same people again and again. It was in your best interest to be moral because the people you were nice to would more than likely return the kindness. The same system exists today, it has just been perverted by clinging to obsolete objective morality (that which you would find in the bible) It is like not letting go of your dead relative. . it stinks up the place and eventually contaminates the "drinking water"! The same type of evolution can be said about Sex. At one point procreation was of supreme importance. . now it is detriment to the health and well being of our society. . yet we still engage in casual sex. . It has been perverted through the increase of population and exists in the pornographic state for that reason! (I owe Richard Dawkins for my theory) Morality can be manipulated to mean just about anything. That is why you can find some pretty horrifying ideas of justice and morality in the Hebrew texts. This becomes a problem due to the cherry picking of morality by whomever is analyzing the bible! So you end up with a time where people do not stone their neighbor for working on the Sabbath but think they can use the bible to oppress homosexuals! I have recently discovered that the word we are actually looking for is ethics. Ethics is why I know (regardless of the bible) that "kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach is worse than kicking a woman who is not with child in the stomach! " -Sam Harris In this debate I plan to show you that the objective morality that comes from the bible are inferior to basic ethical principles like "Do unto others what you want done to you" .
Does the Christian God Exists

I wish to challenge any and all agnostics and atheists to an all out speed debate. I Octo have nine simple words that will crush all of atheism and hopefully point thousands to Christ. Frist though(before I reveal the nine words) I wish to debate anyone who thinks they can make me doubt my faith and win the vote. Here's my first argument we all as humens have a sense of morality. Even if someone has been told all there life that murdering a person is right it has been proven thousands of times that that person will have a small inkling that murder is wrong. So where did that sense of morality come from not from humans. If it did humans would not do anything bad or evil. So where did morality come from. Not from evolution that biology not morality. Defiantly not experience for how would we know what was good or bad to begun with. Well I think the answer is that something bigger than us had to have put that morality something that was totally good.
PC over Mac

INNER-WORKINGS Now starting with the inner workings part i do not mean basic personalization such as desktop back ground i am more referring to one actual hardware/ software modifications such as an improved processor and different programming but that is only a very minor aspect of this debate that I will not get stuck on. GAMING/COMPATIBILITY Moving on to gaming now of course not everyone games that is a given but it's the fact that is not available at all on Macs, and to continue this several other programs are not available on the mac as well including Microsoft Word though it is a fine program on Macs it is never truly up to date with the Windows version. Overall for this contention Macs can get lots of programs and yes they work well but the main part is you can not get all programs on a Mac. VAULE It is a fairly obvious and well known facts Most Macs are actually decent value, but they are not cheap. And they cater to a wealthy, high-end clientele. If you want a true value computer you need to look to the Windows world. You can pick up a decent family or office PC or laptop for $350 or even less. Even the "bottom of the barrel" Mac is about $500 so in the end Windows are the value computers. DEVICES The simple fact is that Apple produces only five kinds of OS X computer. Two types of laptop, the Mac mini, the iMac all-in-one and the Mac Pro. They are all fine products, and they will satisfy plenty of people's needs. But not by any means all of them. There is no competition among Mac OS they are all made by Apple and yes they are fine products but there is no drive to innovate no drive to upgrade a the systems and the devices. There are no tablets that run Mac OS ( IPads dont run Mac OS) there are no tablet/computers there is no versatility. So overall Macs are good computers but PC's are better
PC over Mac

Is it really necessary to know the "inner workings" of a computer when personalization is already set up for you on a Mac? It lets you set up everything at first (I guess you have a secondhand Mac, which means it's probably old, which means you aren't getting the full experience) . Plus, the OS has a completely different use than for that of the PC; it's like comparing apples to oranges if you want to compare the bare OS on each one. As for the gaming issue, I mean, aside from weird teenagers like you as all you think about are video games (yes, I fell into that pit once, and I'll never not like the original Oregon Trail) , you seem to miss the fact that most users actually don't use gaming systems. And, of course, the only reason for that anyways is that you have two different types of community here: The microcoders (PC) and the macrocoders (Mac). The gaming world requires microcoding, and PC users generally code for the PC (until one very intelligent and polite and politically correct person comes along and codes for Mac for us) . That is the only reason whatsoever. Again, to the OS, Mac has the flexibility to support mirrors of Windows (yes, I know, who wants that vile stuff, but whatever) , Linux, the whole Opera deal, the whole Chrome deal (and when I say "deal" I mean the operating system) , and Unix (seperate). And you are incorrect when you say that the Macs have only one "body" to work with. They are flexible as well; yet, I assume, you only have one Mac. Your move. :)
PC over Mac

O.k. let us begin with personalizing of the computer software itself it is almost impossible to access the real inner workings of the OS. Next is the gaming aspect it is a sad truth ( i have a mac as well as a PC ) that you simply can not get as many games on mac as you can PC. Also the variety of the OS is astounding i can go from my HP desk top to my Toshiba laptop and then go on to my Samsung second lap top. This variety gives more of a character to the OS it is not simply constrained to one "body" like a Mac is.
Climate Change is man caused

Thank you for clarifying on that. I think you were hoping to win the debate just on that title, which in itself speaks indefinitely. I have to clarify some things, because I don"t think we have a debate here. First, the title is plain wrong. Climate change happens regardless of human activity. It "can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations." (the same EPA source as my opponent). The last time CO2 levels were as high as today, it was around 15 million years ago. During that time, species still thrived. Second, burning fossil fuels is the most cost-effective, and the least damaging. Yes, I said least damaging. I won"t get into how because that is not the subject of our debate. Here are just a few: [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3] http://www.newscientist.com... Long gone is the time when most scientists scratched their heads about ice caps melting. Yes, 2014 is the hottest year. Yes, climate change is happening. But at the same time, we are putting planks for a global cooling, in a sense. As of right now, I can safely say we are utilizing more renewable energy than at any other time in our existence. As for my opponents sources, I don"t see any of them mentioning that. I"m sorry, but the subject of your sources (yubanet, epa, time, scientific american) either state what global warming is, or are in redundant in stating "2014 is the hottest year". None of them are the subject of human activity causing global warming. If you still insist of debating the topic, I would be glad to, although as I"ve mentioned, there really is no debate.
Climate Change is man caused

Thank you. I do not think it is only human-caused that title is put there, because I wouldn't want to put such titles as, "Climate change is sorta man caused". What I am arguing is humans do have a fairly large affect on the rate it is going at. Now for my reliance on NASA for my source, well I used it specifically because it is more well known than than the other sources I found and if you want them then tell if so in your statement and I will happily send you some of them. A scholarly article written by Thomas R. Karl (a climatologist that is the director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration"s National Climatic Data Center.) states, "The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition." Now another source I used which granted is from the EPA (but I didn't want to use NASA for my only source) states that the temperature is rose at 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit last century, however it also states small changes in the average temperature of the planet can translate to large and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather. Also 2014 was the hottest year on record according to multiple sources (listed bellow) and the 21st century is officially up to date the hottest century. I wish my opponent luck Sources Karl, T. R. "Modern Global Climate Change." Science 15.1 (2003): 1719-723. Print. "Basics." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 15 Apr. 2013. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://www.epa.gov...; Hottest Year/century on record sources: "21st Century 'hottest' on Record as Global Warming Continues - UN." UN News Center. UN, 2 Feb. 2015. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://www.un.org...;. "2014 Was Officially the Hottest Year on Record." Time. Time. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://time.com...;. "2014 Officially Hottest Year on Record." Scientific American Global RSS. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Climate Change is man caused

I look forward to this. Let's get something clear. I am not arguing against global warming. I do agree it is a proven fact, but to indefinitely say it was 'man-caused'? Wrong. To avoid confusion, my position is this: The lack of consensus among public and scientists, lack of funding, the failure to account for other measures, and for the opponents arguments I have yet to credit, global warming cannot be deep-seated to only the actions of mankind. My opponent is insistent on using NASA as his source, so I hope James Henson, former NASA scientist, can explain himself when he says "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought" [1] [1] . http://www.giss.nasa.gov...
Climate Change is man caused

My position on climate change is that not only do I believe in it but I believe it is man caused. I will start My opening argument to state that global warming is a proven fact and anyone that disagrees with me is ignorant on this subject. 97% of scientists believe that climate change is primarily human caused. Also the arguments stated by Human-caused climate change deniers are pointless and not fact driven. I wish my opponent the best of luck. Sources(s): Shaftel, H. (Ed.). (2012, January 5). Global Climate Change: Consensus. Retrieved February 3, 2015, from http://climate.nasa.gov...
The Death Penalty Should be Banned in America

Thank you and again good luck I would first like to define the type of death penalty I am advocating for as a swift and painless death (or at least as swift and painless as possible). I am not advocating for torturous deaths such as electrocution and hanging. The first contention I would like to bring up is that some people are too dangerous to be kept in prison. We cannot risk people who would be given the death penalty, such as terrorists and serial killers, escaping captivity or making parole. The only way to make sure they do no more harm, as harsh as it sounds, is to kill them.
Open Rap Battle: Team Deathmatch

Thanks, Shyre for giving The Wordsmiths an easy victoryyour skill and ego are contradictory you say you got God bars? the rap says otherwiseI'll show you a deity on the mic with no disguiseI'm not hittin' you with any trick or surprisemy d-ck comprises half of your sister, no liescall someone who can really rap, your little piddly ship has capsizedwhile I slap silly, you're so worthless we should call you Billyyour Adventure just got real Grim, and I'm feelin' killyas you read this you get hot and nervous like you ate a chiliyoYou're a f@g right?I heard you're the no-gag typeyou're holding so many d-cks it looks like you're blowin a bagpipe, haI can't acknowledge your accoladesyou haven't even had a prominent rap display, you "dominate the sentences-of-apprentices"Of motherf-ckers that have been rapping for half a daythis weak sh-t should get you DQ'ed no hesitationyou're downing until the alliance revives you with mouth-to-south resuscitationYo, this guys cheatin'he pretends he's unbeatenthis man's a phonyI denied him with the side arm like the Heisman TrophyThe fakeness has you pickin' rookies for the animal rapnow watch me beat this p-ssy to a calico catI stay loyal to the soil while you're a municipal sourceI'll hurt 'ya with inertiawhen I swing you 'round this ringlike it was centripital forceNow I'm on a black op, let's gowrap a tank top on your fropopped a shot and watch your rag-top explodeIt'd be hard to find a harder lineif you carved a minefor carbon linesand even if your stars alignmy bars will shinelike a motherf-ckin barber sign
Open Rap Battle: Team Deathmatch

*thanks for accepting the battle cakerman* My name Shyre, but you can stylish cuz I style on my foes, imma crisis bars of a god, aint no body like this you're at war, with the fcking finest I'm a god and you're fcking peasant rapping against you is a cheap asss present cuz ur bars i weak that pusssy i eat my foes i reap fcker, i can beat you in my sleep This a fcking a warning. if you choose to continue i'll go ape shite go hades on ur asss n'd rape shite So listen This is the first we met won't be the last, i bet my rhymes make you wet you'll never be a threat
school uniform choice

Hello 1st please be patient to my super horrible English/grammar 2nd let start :) why don't let parent have a right to choose between school uniform and non-school uniform to their children? since everybody have their own experiences and reasons that why they support school uniform or non-school uniform an uniform is expensive -> choose to not buy it an uniform is cheap -> choose to buy it kids get bullied if they don't wear uniform? -> choose to wear it when school adopted school uniform education, discipline, overall improve -> add conditions to unlock the choice has average grade above 3.00 for example
High School should be terminated and replaced with an alternative.

My opponent as you can see has forfeited the last round thus vote me for conduct. Also in order for this time of policy to win the round he has to address the problems I present of it and he didn't for round 5 so my arguments still stand. He tried to even change the scope of debate by claiming he wasn't advocating for a nation wide implementation but viewers if you read through the round he doesn't really push this until round 4. It seems he realized he couldn't support this being effective nationwide because of lack of market availability so he tried to change what he was advocating for. But yes vote me because I prove his plan cannot be utilized and because of the FF.
High School should be terminated and replaced with an alternative.

Hello, welcome to my debate. First round will be acceptance only. If you choose to participate in this debate, you will be arguing that High School should remain exactly the way that it is, and that there should be NO changes to the education system. This is not meant to be a competitive debate; I am just looking for someone to help me refine my new education system that I have come up with, and point out the problems with it.
Faith is active and visible, not something that just occures "in your heart".

Many people quote Eph 2:8 to say that we are saved when we believe, and no action is required on our part. I find this contradictory to other Scripture. I would challenge my opponent to prove that Scripture indicates no action is required on our part to fulfill the faith portion of the passage referenced above. I, on the other hand, will prove that Scripture is very clear that there are certain actions commanded of us before we are united with the cleansing power of the Blood of Christ (saved). Please do not accept this debate unless you believe in: the fundamental truth of the Word of God, our need for a savior because of our fallen nature, and that Jesus is that savior. Con may begin debate arguments in round 1 along with acceptance of the debate.
wich has better multiplayer, Call of Duty: Black Ops or Halo REACH

My first point for this round is that you can count on the halo games to be a good single player and multi-player experience. The call of duty games have had their ups and downs, but halo is rock solid. You know what you are getting when you buy it. Halo doesn't fuddle with what works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Call of duty tries to fix what ain't broke, and in doing so, makes a shallow experience.
wich has better multiplayer, Call of Duty: Black Ops or Halo REACH

I will now begin with my points. #1 Yes, halo is not realistic, but it is not supposed to be. #2, in halo, I don't have to listen to 10 year olds raging because I just killed them. And, in halo, people are running around the map instead of sitting in one spot with an overpowered gun like a noob. And plus, COD's create a class can work against it. People who just joined are at a disadvantage than the people who are level 40 or something. In halo, people start a match with the same gear in regular matches like team deathmatch.
Hilary Clinton has more experience than Barack. Obama.

The topic of this debate was originally whether or not Hillary Clinton has more experience than Barack Obama - now it seems to have turned into a debate as to whether or not Hillary Clinton is the best Democratic candidate for President. I don't believe that your comments on Clinton's vote for the Iraq war are germane to the topic at hand, so I'll stick to the parts about whether or not experience should come into play in a decision between Obama and Clinton. You said: "experience, considering these two individuals, ought not to be a decisive factor in the race", and "Experience without vision has gotten this country nowhere" I certainly agree that experience without vision is less than ideal, but experience is a necessary prerequisite to being an effective President. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Hillary Clinton would be more effective in getting things done than Obama given her years of experience inside the White House and in Congress - she's in a unique position among all of the candidates, having been privy to both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. I'm not arguing that Obama is a better or worse candidate than Clinton, but I do disagree that experience shouldn't be taken into consideration, because institutional memory is an important part of governing, especially in a system as complex as the U.S. Government. As far as the comparison between Giuliani and Obama, I have two things to say: (1) I think the media focuses more on Obama's inexperience because he has so few years in politics, whereas Giuliani has been an established political entity for quite some time, and (2) the issue is at the forefront of the Democratic primary because Hillary Clinton (Obama's main competition) prides herself on her experience, where as Giuliani doesn't have a similar dynamic with any other front-runner.
Hilary Clinton has more experience than Barack. Obama.

It is not my central contention to make the claim that Obama has more experience, but rather that experience, considering these two individuals, ought not to be a decisive factor in the race. What Clinton has shown herself to be most skilled at since emerging from her role as first lady is political acumen, rather than legislative foresight. On the most important vote of her career, the decision to take this nation to war, she clearly demonstrated a lack of sound judgment. Clinton voted for H.J. 114; the national archive short title of which is: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, and continues to stand by her vote while others have conceded error, making the argument that it was not a vote for war, but rather to enable the President to continue diplomacy. This position has proven less than convincing for informed liberal voters. In the minds of the liberal public there is a blurring of lines between the service of Bill Clinton, and the supposed role that Hilary played within the administration. When given the one task and responsibility you mentioned; that of pushing forward a healthcare agenda, she failed politically, from which point forward her role became more traditional. I.e. tours of the west wing of the white house. Experience without vision has gotten this country nowhere; if by experience one means the ways of Washington. If by experience one means the conventional wisdom of our day, the type that nearly pushed us towards "world war III with Iran," before the intelligence community started talking directly to the American people. When George Walker Bush took office he surrounded himself with tons of experience, old timers, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Powell, ect, and the world has never been the same since. In further reference to the race thing, the media has never seriously put to question Rudy Gilliani's "experience;" and I believe there is something to that. That one can go from dealing with the fire chief, and the city council member from Queens, to negotiating with Vladimir Putin over missile defense?