BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Blender is better than 3DS Max

The community will help you learn, help you complete projects, and most will do really well. We have quite a few high class images, games, animations, and the likes that are made entirely with blender. I suggest you look around the gallery and such before you make your choice, but out of everything I have heard on this site and many others is this: "blender is just about as good as 3ds max, and with the new render engine, and all the new features, upgrades, updates, and bug fixes, it has got to be one of the best 3d animation softwares available, and probably the best open source" keep in mind, blender also has shortcomings, but as a user for quite a long time (almost 2 years, as I started 2 novembers ago) there is always a way around shortcomings, exspecially with all the addons, and such that blender has available also I persoanlly have used 3ds max, before i ever saw blender and i have to say, when i picked up blender, i learned the controls faster, and the hotkeys made more sense to me than in 3d max. also the blender game engine makes for a great way to test game concepts before you actually place into the game engine of choice. it allows for light controls, pretty fast fps, and really nice physics, just perfect for testing out game ideas, and additions. Source = https://blenderartists.org... Credit to Evil Moon MOose for providing the infomation
Racism: Our widening dividing gap

Well with any debate, there must be a clear and concise order of information that must be stated coherently in order to have a viable debate so that from my position I know which way I am arguing. But let us move on. According to the author, racism is not much of a problem, and I beg to differ. The reason people are often sensitive regarding race in conjunction with police encounters is because there is a feeling of racial discrepancy which has been proven with statistical evidence from various outlets. Racism is still a problem and will always be a problem because there will be a large section of people that will deny it exists because those people of that sector are uncomfortable in addressing the issue. If racism was not an issue why is Obama in the history of the United States the most disrespected president in U.S. history? His elected presidency does not mean racism evaporates because after all Obama has financial influence and like all things in the U.S. money talks. However racism still is a big issue in the United States that needs to be addressed.
Racism: Our widening dividing gap

MY original title talked about Modern Issues of Racism. I am expressing my opinion on the race subject by explaining it based upon the stereotypes that have been said and expressed. I have been trying to explain it. I felt that I should just cover a fine point of this subject. I thought about 2015- 2016 and covered items from the year compiled it together in my views. Though I am not the best with grammar or fluency, I feel like the point that I am getting across is simple. I would love to here your opinions on this subject. I feel that America isn't focusing on racism in 2015-2016 from both sides of it all. I am trying to explain my side of this and my views and ideas about this subject as well as I can.
Racism: Our widening dividing gap

The problem with the OP"s initial premise is, when discussing stereotypes the author needs to highlight a specific issue regarding stereotypes in relation to the Con view. The OP has highlighted several issues in one large paragraph. The OP has highlighted the debate title "Racism: The widening gap" but the OP has not stated their view which leaves more confusion. Since my acceptance of this debate, the author is ow discussing stereotypes which are a lot different than discussing racism and how it widens the gap (I am confused as to what the gap is in relation to the subject matter). I suggest in further rounds to not confuse the audience (along with myself) the author actually presents a premise in relation to the subject matter along with their views.
Racism: Our widening dividing gap

As we come close to an end of 2016, I wanted to talk about our current issues with race. Race personally doesn't bother me with people, but it does bother me when I get told who I am. Since the incidents of the shootings with cops in Dallas and in the southern states, I have been ready to voice my opinion. Though it is understandable the arguments pleaded with this. I believe that "All Lives Matter". I believe yes, that I as a person shouldn't have to punish myself because of the stereotype that all white people are racist. All Lives do Matter, and by saying that "All Lives Matter" I am saying not only White people, but ALL races. Do I think anything that the people who were the shooters were right, but that doesn't mean that the whole white race is held for the fault of. I have been told how racist I have been because I discuss racism. It is not right that any other person with a different race can be okay with this. Equality isn't the praise or recognition of anything because of bias. Equality should be the respecting of the rights that we are given as an American citizen and bystander. Is it completely right that these affairs are biased by the with-holder of this responsibility: no. The Civil Rights movement in the 1950s to 1960s was justified by the rights that were not respected. It was inhumane to completely demote a race and completely disembody a person for their entitled. However in our present, for the most part, we are respecting rights. The killings were not right ,but when has it been found in bulk in places with direct idea of racism. It has been the assumption and paranoia that the more recent shootings were race based. As a white person, I have been entitled to be "privileged". Yet, I don't come near to it. I don't go walking into a job interview and get automatically hired for it, nor do I walk into band audition and them automatically favoring me for my race. I guarantee that the idea of "privileged" is coming from the prejudice of the people who "privilege" their favor of race. Yet, a whole race is getting blamed for it. I mean with BuzzFeed's video about being a Black Woman, it talks about the troubles of being a Black Woman and the stereotypes about being a Black Woman. Yet when a white person posts about the stereotypes that they are racist, privileged, and other stereotypical judgements, they are being racist. Now what I think is happening between us all in America, is wrong. It is splitting us all up. We have conquered so much in our history books. But to hold grudges and to blame for the invisible stereotypes by and against an even smaller minority is inhumane. We need to take into an account of the majority of the minority who don't receive or give out the reasons for our protests. And understand that instead of punishing All, punish THOSE who are the Arbitrators of the idea. To take a look at the big picture and the people at the head of the problem should be the effort WE should ALL be taking
Was Jesus resurrected

Firstly, I'm not saying that Jesus tomb was never empty, I'm saying that Jesus was not resurrected. And I don't care about the the disciples grammatically implied "eye-witness" testimony, or the dependence/independence of each other. I also don't care about the pre-burial of Jesus or the supposed post-burial and his disappearance three days later. The question here is whether Jesus' disappearance was indeed due to him being resurrected. Also, the bible is not a reliable source of history, and should not be used as one, so in the future, don't use bible passages to indicate reliability. ( If you want examples of its unreliability, read this: http://www.answering-christianity.com... ) Secondly, I'm not entirely sure about whether you proved that Mathew is somehow reliable or not, as I got easily lost in your many lines of argument, so I apologise if I ignored anything important (try paraphrasing your arguments better). But like I said before, the Gospel of Mathew seems to provide exclusive details that Mathew himself should not have known, such as the guards at Jesus' grave and the high priests supposed secret conversations. Therefore, if such details seemed made up, then guards being present in Jesus' tomb is unlikely. This would obviously give free reign to all grave robbers interested in selling part of Jesus body for money, which was common. And for your point about the robber supposedly leaving clothes and linen behind, does this's give any more credibility to Jesus being resurrected? I don't think so. Anyway, most info about Jesus is from the bible, which as I stated earlier, is horribly inaccurate and relies on mostly anecdotal evidence. Therefore, we really have no idea whether the disciples or Paul really saw ghost Jesus or not, as it's ALL from the bible! Nonetheless, I agree much of Jesus' resurrection story is mysterious, which is why it's so successful as a religion. But we really don't know if Jesus truly came back from the dead, or whether his disciples made it all up, or whether they attempted to cover up their skeletons in the closet with made up details to justify his supposed resurrection: We don't know. And one last point I found interesting when researching: Roman LAW dictated that part of the crucifixion punishment was the denial of a burial. Therefore, criminals were left to rot on the cross and not buried. Why do the gospels say Jesus was buried at all? This seems historically inaccurate. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org...] Finally, as a slight suggestion, could you please keep your arguments as paraphrased and concise as possible, as I find it difficult reading great wads of text due to my dyslexia. Sry
Was Jesus resurrected

Hello, I would like to challenge anyone on if Jesus really rose from the death as written in the scripture. It has been a common myth on the Internet to say that Jesus didn't exist. We have 5 non Christian sources mentioning the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, including the Talmud, Josephus, Tacticus , Piny the younger and Lucian. In ancient time if you had 2 independent sources mentioning an event it would be counted as a historical facts. A lot of historical facts are based on 2 independent sources. We have 5 mentioning the crucifixion of Jesus. However, this is not what the discussion is about. When it comes to Jesus of nazareth, there are 4 facts that every reputable new testament historian believe in. And those historical facts are: 1) Jesus was buried by Joseph of Armathia after his crucifixion 2) Jesus' s tomb was found empty by a group of women the Sunday following the crucifixion 3) Multiple individuals have experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death (not only his disciples but skeptics and even enemies) 4) The disciples genuinely came to believe in the resurrection despite having every disposition of it: - The Jewish theology prohibits a dying messiah, the messiah is not supposed to die - In Judaism, there's a general resurrection of everybody, there is not supposed to be the resurrection of one man - The Jewish theology certainly does not predict a single resurrection of the messiah after he dies - So the belief in the resurrection is unlikely to have been invented - Disciples were willing to get killed and go to hell for that belief in the resurrection And the fact is, that there is no plausible naturalistic explanation for these minimal facts. The theories like Jesus wasn't really dead when he was buried, or that the body was stolen, or that the disciples hallucinate, are rejected universally, and I'm willing to address them. So the only plausible explanation is the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the death" as accordance to the scripture.
ur mom gay

i AM MEMES. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nuclear weapons should be used on Canada

An interesting argument, DucoNihilum. Interesting indeed. However, I would submit that your argument is faulty. Dropping nuclear weapons on Canada would prove to be counterproductive to the U.S. First, nuking Canada would create a massive radioactive wasteland, replete with black rain (similar to that which fell on Hiroshima for over 12 hours in August of 1945), nuclear fallout, and nuclear winter throughout most of the northern half of the United States. At the very least, every single state that borders Canada would be destroyed; Washington, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, etc . . . and likely at least the next level of states bordering those to the south. This would not be beneficial to our economy, much less our social and political structures. Second, nuking Canada would destroy natural resources that we could otherwise use via more peaceful means; trees, fresh water, minerals, Canadian Bacon, farmland and rich planting soil, and similar primary resources. This would likewise be a significant detriment to not only the American people, but to other nation states that trade with and benefit from Canadian exports. Third, the political fallout from the nuclear obliteration of Canada would be arguably as damaging as the physical act itself. The United States would lose every single allie it has in the world, and would likely expose itself to attacks by Canada's (and, prior to said nuclear attack, our) allies via invasion or similar nuclear exchange. So if the nuclear fallout did not destroy the U.S., the act would inevitably destroy the the country economically, politically, and socially in an international context. This is assuming the U.S. is not simply nuked in response instead. So, my child, you must come up with a better rationale for nuking Canada. I eagerly anticipate my opponent's next posture.
Nuclear weapons should be used on Canada

I strongly believe that nuclear weapons should be used on Canada for the following reasons. * Canada has milk in bags. This is clearly fishy. Why would anybody want their milk to be in bags? It's no more efficient, in fact, it's down right insanity. Do you want to support insanity? * Canadian girls are often more attractive than American girls. Most Americans can see those girls, perhaps look at their photos over the internet, but they can not date them- however attractive they might be. This harms American productivity, and should be stopped. * Canada is very cold, several nuclear weapons would, at least temporarily, rise temperatures in some regions- specifically the ones in which the bombs were going off in. * Maple Syrup is very important for Canadians, while being highly overrated. Syrup tastes way too syrupy, unless it's in a soft drink. * Their flag has a leaf on it. Enough said. * They steal our jobs. * Their heads look weird, just watch south park. * They have no real army, so they're not much of a threat to us anyways * New photos could be taken of the blast, which would look awesome in fine art museums. * The blasts would melt a lot of the snow, this snow would melt into water- which could be collected and shipped elsewhere to help with the water shortages around the world. * Nothing very big has happened in the news for a while, this would be some great entertainment. I must reiterate my point that Canada should be completely destroyed VIA nuclear weapons.
This house believes that the insanity plea is just

I'm so sorry my opponent is completely correct in saying I am new to DDO and that I was not careful enough in reading what the first speech was for this I completely apologize, i am accustomed to a regular parliamentary style debate so i just assumed that opening arguments began in the first speech. I was wrong and i apologize sincerely so to briefly refute points my opposition has brought up 1. Equability: In refutation to my original point he has said that it just so happens to be a particular race. This simply is not true because we see that with a certain race comes a certain amount of privilege and agency. So what i am trying to say is that it cannot be simply coincidental that white women tend to get off with the insanity plea more often then African Americana men. By allowing a particular race to get off of crimes easier then another we are not achieving the weigh mechanism of today's debate as my opponent phrased it Judicial pragmatism because it goes against the one of the main ideals of our justice system equality 2. Accountability; My opponent states that people are not just "getting off" that their in their own prison in a way. This again is simply factually incorrect my evidence for this is JFK's assassin John Hinkely Jr. was deemed "not guilty' by reason of insanity. He is now deemed "cured" and is living in a half way house like any other recovering addict or mentally ill person. HE ASSASSINATED A PRESIDENT and hes getting off with 10 years in mental facility, i simply do not see how this is net benefits to the American society or justice system if we are allowing a Assassin to get away with murder! Before i close my portion of today's debate i would simply like to address the issue that while i did go first (by mistake and im so sorry) my opponent still must present his own arguments and not just refute mine would have to do this even if he decide that he is now the negation. I have shown you how my points uphold the weigh criterion and my opponent has not even offered his own arguments. Thank you for reading this and i urge a strong vote in favor of the negation
This house believes that the insanity plea is just

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." It is because of the critical importance of preserving justice in the United States of America that I stand resolved: "This house believes that the insanity plea is just." Initially, I would like to point out that the first round was acceptance, meaning no arguments were supposed to be made in Round 1. In fact, the first four words of my speech were "first round is acceptance." With all due respect, either my opponent did not read it carefully enough, or is too new to DDO to know what an "acceptance round" is. That aside, all arguments that my opponent made about how "I wasn't fulfilling my burdens" are false, because no arguments were supposed to be presented in Round 1. ~Definitions~ Even though I was supposed to be presenting all definitions for the debate, I eagerly accept my opponent's definitions, as all are accurate and correct. One emphasis point may include the fact that justice is based off of morality. We will look at that later. ~Value/Criterion~ I absolutely agree with my opponent's value of Net Benefits to American society and justice system. To shorten that phrase, I will call it judicial pragmatism. ~affirmative case rebuttals~ As I previously mentioned, all of the arguments of me not fulfilling my burden should be dropped, due to the fact that the first round was acceptance, which was stated clearly in my first speech. If I had not stated it in my speech, I would understand why my opponent would make these arguments, but because the reality is on the contrary, these presented arguments are inexcusable. Thus, she should not "win" on that fact alone. ~Contention rebuttals~ 1. (It's not equitable) I checked out statistics on this point and they are indeed correct. But the deal is this: It shouldn't matter what race or gender they are; what matters is if they are insane. The fact that the majority of insanity pleas belong to a certain race DOES NOT mean that they aren't insane. My opponent I believe is interpreting this as "this race gets by easy," but that is not true. IT just so happens that the particular race has the most insane people. This argument is not a legitimate reason to vote Con. 2. My opponent is making it sound like insane "criminals" are released if found "not guilty," Not true at all. In fact they do go to a type of prison, just a prison that has a hospital where they are treated for insanity. Until their insanity is gone, they are still for all practical purposes "behind bars." b. Not enough support to stand. Only truly insane people get by with insanity plea treatment, not anybody that is not insane. The reason? Extensive lab reports. So in the end we see that Con's arguments do not stand. U must ask yourself; should kids who didn't know that knocking over a candlestick was wrong be charged with arson? ITs the same with insane people: They don't know better. Thx! Sources in comment section
This house believes that the insanity plea is just

Firstly I will address definitions, secondly I will be addressing the affirmatives case, and finally I will be presenting the negations case Alright so to define terms The insanity plea: Defendants found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) are those whom a judge and/or jury has found to be so mentally-disordered during the commission of a crime that the individual should not be held criminally responsible for that crime. This does not necessarily mean that all mentally-disordered persons are not criminally responsible, nor does it mean that criminal responsibility requires the individual to be perfectly healthy. Mental disorder does not equate with being not guilty of one's crimes. Unjust: not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. ok so todays round is a fact round. My weighing mechanism is Net Benefits to American society and justice system. So what I am essentially saying here is that whomever can show that their argument better supports justice in america and the well being of american society as a whole should win todays debate. As some brief background information the insanity plea is used in 35 US states (Cirincione and Jacobs 1999), found that on average only slightly over 30 defendants are acquitted of crimes by reason of insanity each year in the United States. That out of the way I will now be addressing the affirmative case, So just to briefly start off my opponent hasn't really followed up with his burdens. Ok so the affirmative team has the burden in parliamentary debate to provide a weigh criterion, a definition of what kind of case it is, and definitions to clarify the topic. My opponent has neglected to do these basic burdens and thus I should simply win on the fact that i have followed burdens, this is also why my definitions and weigh criterion should stand over his. He also has not really presented any case there are no reasons in his speech of why the insanity plea is just he has no points, my own contentions 1. Its not equaitble a. What I mean by this is the simple idea that there is evidence showing that those who win the insanity plea are those of a certain race, gender, and/or occupation. We see that the defendant is often judged by his or her socio economic standing as well. to see my example pleas view this . http://www.insideprison.com... b. 2. Road blocks true justice a. families and closure. A great example of this is in Sept. 14, 2006 James Masino killed Jim McNally. Now hims wife knows that James killed her husband but she will never receive the satisfaction go knowing that he is behind bars because mason has been found to be not guilty by reasons of insanity. b. Not truly insane I will be elaborating on my sub points b in my second speech as I seem to have run out of characters
Are test scores the most accurate indication of an individual"s competency

No, Test scores are not the most accurate indication of an individual's competency. Competency: the ability to do something successfully or efficiently. Test scores simply measure one's ability to do well in school or to succeed at math, Science, Or another subject. They give no indication of that person's other talents, Such as musical ability or artistic ability. Then, Those people think that they are incompetent because they failed a test and settle for a lowly job which they did not have to settle for. More accurate ways would be to measure one's competency based off of one's ability. For example, Measure instrument players ability according to their ability to play instruments, Etc. And encourage them to build that talent to become better at it.