BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
War has been more of a positive factor for Human development than a negative

I believe that throughout History, war has had a positive impact on Human development throughout the ages. During most wars the rate of discovery for major technologies and the like have boosted. In some cases war has caused the destruction of old ideas and allowed new ones to be ushered in, hence allowing the progression of enlightenment to be enhanced by a larger amount. Therefore, despite the destruction, death and panic caused by war. It seems that despite it's negative effects, on a broader horizon than just one restricted to life and the belligerent factions in the war it would appear that war has allowed the world to surge in its understanding of science, society, life, technology and so on and so forth. A good example for this would simply be how war has allowed Empires to be built, these empires have allowed countries to become so powerful that living standards were improved, it also allowed medicines from varying cultures to be collected together in order to discover the most effective medicines. It has resulted in countries boosting in scientific spending in races for superior technology between nations. Because of this, I have concluded that, at least from what I see, War and battle has allowed Humanity to progress more than peacetime.
RE: Riddle Challange (WITH EXTENDED TIME!)

What invention lets you look right through a wall?1. an xrayor2. a drillWhat has holes but holds water? Jug/Jar?If not, you got me on this one.What has wheels and flies, but is not an aircraft?A space shuttleWhat is in the middle of nowhere? H You break me every time you say me.SilenceWhat is the beginning of eternity, the end of time and the beginning of every ending?EWhat is big and yellow and comes in the morning, causes children to morn on the first day, and gives mothers hope?I really dont know this one When there’s more of me the less you will see. Darkness
RE: Riddle Challange (WITH EXTENDED TIME!)

What invention lets you look right through a wall? What has holes but holds water? What has wheels and flies, but is not an aircraft? What is in the middle of nowhere? You break me every time you say me. What is the beginning of eternity, the end of time and the beginning of every ending? What is big and yellow and comes in the morning, causes children to morn on the first day, and gives mothers hope? When there’s more of me the less you will see.
RE: Riddle Challange (WITH EXTENDED TIME!)

okay saying it now 10 minutes!, i will post riddles in like 3-4. This is a Riddle Debate the rules are very simple. 1st round will be acceptance and in the second round I will ask a total of 8 questions, My opponent must get all them correct or he shall Forfeit all 7 of his points. (select winner option being used) He must not use the Internet either. In the finial round I will reveal the answers and weather or not he has gotten them correct or not. He/she will end the debate by a simple thank you comment. ~Lannans rules
The United States judicial system is seriously flawed and/or my opponent is InfaRedEd.

"Plus my opponent is not even very creative. Two sets of twins in the same family is not that unusual." I don't know of any relatives of mine that are twins that live in Spring, TX. Besides, creativity is irrelevant to the debate. "At least now he can't claim to be triplets." Yeah. 'Cause I'm not. My opponent has conceded the resolution three-fold.
The United States judicial system is seriously flawed and/or my opponent is InfaRedEd.

My opponent is InfaRedEd; thus, the resolution is affirmed; thus, I win this debate. I urge a PRO ballot. As for teenagers from Spring, Texas, I don't know who monkeysrock or monkeysrock2 are, but I do know that I am myself, and mongoose is my twin. http://www.debate.org... I knew there was a reason I added an and/or clause.
The United States judicial system is seriously flawed and/or my opponent is InfaRedEd.

Well explain this: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... and I see now that http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... have just joined us, also from Spring, Texas. Yes with four votes you sure can lose this debate and all your debates and get 86d to boot. I would investigate all members from Spring, Texas. A lot of teenagers there. Please contact your state attorney general.
The United States judicial system is seriously flawed and/or my opponent is InfaRedEd.

I affirm the above resolution. United States judicial system - http://en.wikipedia.org... Seriously - extremely (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Flawed - an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness http://www.merriam-webster.com...) InfaRedEd - http://www.debate.org... Okay, I think that our judicial system is seriously flawed, but for this debate, I am only going to cover one. 1. The Supreme Court According to "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution", the Founding Fathers had intended for the judicial branch to be the weakest branch of the federal government. Until, of course, Marshall devised the idea of judicial review. http://en.wikipedia.org... This now makes the judicial branch the most powerful branch, as it has the power to interpret the Constitution, using any wording flaws they choose. Additionally, the president has the power to appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court for life, with approval from Senate. Because the Supreme Court usually only reviews highly controversial subjects, the only thing that really matters is whoever was president at the time a Justice died or retired, as long as he also had control of the Senate. This potential abuse of power is a serious flaw. Thank you for reading, and thank you to whoever accepts this debate.
god hates children

Here’s what Pro would have had to establish to link child suffering to a god’s hatred. A god exists. It controls who suffers and who doesn’t without interference. If you cause or allow someone to suffer you must necessarily hate them. Even if I were to concede that this debate was about the god of the bible (I don’t) he did not establish any of these. Pro’s concessions. Con concedes that god does not exist when he says statements like, “God does NOT exist.” if there is no god he can’t hate children. God prefers suffering, “I 100% agree with you that your god DOES in fact prefer suffering.” A god who prefers suffering would obviously not inflict it out of hatred. A god would likely not feel emotions making it impossible for him to hate children and negating the resolution, “What perfect god would have “emotion ... What? From a supreme deity?” - Thanks to Alex Jones for setting this up. His most inspiring quote was, “Just why did you accept this debate IF AS YOU CLAIM you are an atheist? Oh I get it, it was for you to “think” you could throw your meat wagon around. But in turn I slapped you in the face with it and you just can’t handle that type of rejection.”
god hates children

I for some odd reason decided to read the gibberish you posted for your RD3. You are confused because you accepted a debate for something in which you should have not accepted in the first place as you had no business in doing as such. Not only that, but you are clearly outmanned and outgunned both on the intelligence and edumacation ratios. Just why did you accept this debate IF AS YOU CLAIM you are an atheist? Oh I get it, it was for you to “think” you could throw your meat wagon around. But in turn I slapped you in the face with it and you just can’t handle that type of rejection. Now here’s how things are… God does NOT exist. That’s step #1. Step #2 is the mere belief in this god that creates all the hate and as stated in the printed bible as quoted of this supposed non existent god… evil, anger, wrath, rage, vengeance, fury, jealousy. And yeah, man believes in EXACTLY that from HIS made up god of the bible. And this made up god in the bible as printed in text form for everybody to see truly hates children with verse after verse after countless verse. There. All better? But then again no god would EVER use text nor faith as forms of communication as compared to using actual evidence like getting off his lard butt and talking---to---us. Duh. Which has NEVER HAPPENED. And this so-called god with his superior ego complex would NEVER pass that opportunity up. So what part of that is confusing? Now who is mentioning "gods"? It has nothing to do with anything. This entire debate is about the god of the bible as specifically stated in RD1. And you wonder why I want to have nothing to drool with you when you drop ship and go to the dead heart of slumberland?
god hates children

Didn't read it. After your fiasco in your solid proof of proving that your god is not a god to not have the ability over suffering, you do not have the ability to debate. Also since you, nor anyone has the capacity, namely you, to overcome the verses presented to ultimately show that your god truly does hate, abuse, cannibalize, rape, thrust swords through children etc etc etc and since you in any way disagree with them which is utterly impossible to and thus only shows you cannot understand the English language, it proves you to be as whacked out as your mentally deranged and sicko god. Is it any wonder why I didn't read what you had to say? You have no defense. None.
god hates children

Pro completely missed my point. His response did not refute my position in any way.For the record, I’m not a theist. Pro has assumed that he is arguing against a biblical theist position but he isn’t. The resolution simply claims that god hates children. Which god? The God of the bible most certainly doesn’t and the resolution is open to any number of gods. Our main point of disagreement is our definition of god so here are a couple standard definitions from websters site:1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.-an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.Pro is focused on the first definition and the subtext of his arguments are directed at disproving an all powerful or all loving god and not at proving his resolution is correct. His comments are essentially directed at the god of the bible but there are many other gods.Does Poseidon or Vishnu hate children? Con has simply asserted that the god of the bible hates children because he could prevent their suffering but does not. He has not established that in any way or explained why we should focus on the god of the bible.Pro is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He supports the idea that god must not be all powerful and all loving given the suffering that many children endure. This is a concession that a god that hates children is only one possibility when looking at the variety of god claims available. An argument against the god of the bible's existence does not help to establish that god hates children and it’s a bizarre leap to connect these thoughts.Pro has not defended the resolutionS/he has argued that god could not be both all powerful and all loving given human suffering. This is a Trope among atheists and a common argument against the god of the bible. However, it does nothing to prove that god hates children.Look at Pro’s comments, “ If not true than your god is not a god and is not in control of everything, is not all knowing, is not all powerful, does not know everything, is not omnipotent, and most certainly is not perfect. So which is it?”Pron continues to support my argument. If god is not all knowing or all powerful it’s less likely that he hates children. Pro is arguming against the existence of the god of the bible and not that god hates children which is indefensible as a resolution. Pro has not even established that a god exists so there is no reason to believe that he hates children.
Animal Experimentation for the benefit of humans.

The fact of the matter is that to make advances in the field of medicines, animal testing is a must. Restraining or banning the testing by animal activists will not help in any way. It is up to us and all individuals belonging to animal organizations and medical research to ensure that the same is carried out in a safe, ethical manner causing as little pain and discomfort possible to the animal. If animal testing was to be outlawed then there would be very little scope of obtaining information that would be very necessary to eliminate suffering and premature deaths in both humans and animals. We are all animals...it just so happens that we are at the TOP of the food chain!
Animal Experimentation for the benefit of humans.

It is an ASSUMED fact that all of these things helped us discover all of these things but, in reality, it is chance that all of these things have worked. Experimenting on animals is NOT anything close to experimenting on a human. The physiological makeup is astronomically different. "Each year in the United States, an estimated 70 million animals are maimed, blinded, scalded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated, and otherwise hurt and killed in the name of science, by private institutions, household product and cosmetics companies, government agencies, educational institutions, and scientific centers. Substances we use everyday, such as eye shadow, soap, furniture polish and oven cleaner, may be tested on rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs, cats, and other animals. These tests are mainly used to test the degree of harmfulness of products and their ingredients. No antidoes are ever sought, so animal tests cannot be used to prevent or treat potential human injuries. These tests are not required by the law, and they are only done to protect companies from consumer lawsuits." Look at all of these unnecessary things that are being tested on innocent animals. Cosmetics, furniture and appliance cleaners, things that we wash our bodies with .. It is unethical to use an animal just so that, on the bottle, it can say tested on animals or whatever have you. ** THESE TESTS ARE NOT REQUIRED BY THE LAW, AND THEY ARE ONLY DONE TO PROTECT COMPANIES FROM CONSUMER LAWSUITS. It is safe to say, that there is no respect for animals on a personal level. The people that do this do not understand that an animal, has the right to protect themselves just like we do. If we have the opportunity to consent or not consent to things like this, then the animals should be able to also. They live, breath and walk this earth JUST LIKE US, they deserve to be treated just like us. We fight so hard for animals to have rights when they are being abused in their own homes, starved to death, beaten and left to die on the side of the street. But then we have "an estimated 70 million animals that are maimed, blinded, scalded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated and otherwise hurt and killed in the name of science" and nobody wants to do anything about that? This is a form of abuse because there is NO CONSENT from the animal. Until there is a more safe and efficient way to experiment on animals, it should be banned universally. It is unethical to treat an animal this way, considering you would not want to be used as an experiment either.
Animal Experimentation for the benefit of humans.

When every member in our family is healthy, it is very difficult to understand as to why the innocent animals are used for testing purposes that usually ends up killing them. But it usually starts to make more sense when someone in the family or you yourself starts suffering from a life threatening disease. It is a very symbiotic relationship that is also a very integral part of medical research. Testing on animals has helped develop vaccines for many life threatening diseases like Herpes Simplex, Hepatitis B, Polio, rabies, malaria, mumps and virus related to organ transplantation rejection. Human beings are not the only living creatures that have benefited from animal testing. Heart worm medication was devised from research on animals and has to day helped in saving the lives of many dogs. Animal research has also provided better understanding of cat nutrition and the reasons behind as to why cats live longer and remain healthier are better understood.
Animal Experimentation for the benefit of humans.

Plenty more bad things have happened because of this experimentation though. It would be fair if these animals got the chance the survive, just like the rest of us. Instead, we are risking the animals lives. In fact, few breakthroughs have been made as a result of animal experimentation, the achievements have been CLEARLY overstates. Because overriding that, there has been a long list of errors and failures in animal testing, which everybody pushes under the rug and refuses to bring it to light. None the less, there are a couple of alternatives to many tests that are currently carried out on animals like growing tissue or cell cultures from human cells in a lab. Aside from it being naturally CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, most animal experiments are done on animals that are NOTHING like human beings, such as rats and mice. So who is to say that these experiments are a reliable guide to human reactions? The reaction of a mouse to a substance is no guide to human reactions. Each species has its own unique physiology. It is only acceptable to test human medicines on human beings if they give their own personal consent. Animals are never able to give such consent which makes it morally wrong to do these types of things to them. It is not acceptable to test medicines on perfectly healthy animals.
Animal Experimentation for the benefit of humans.

There are both practical and moral arguments for animal testing. On the practical side; Animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB. Antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin and cancer treatments rely on animal tests. Other testing methods aren't advanced enough. Scientists claim there are no differences in lab animals and humans that cannot be factored into tests. Operations on animals helped to develop organ transplant and open-heart surgery techniques. Moral arguments include; Human life has greater intrinsic value than animal life. Legislation protects all lab animals from cruelty or mistreatment. Millions of animals are killed for food every year - if anything, medical research is a more worthy death. Few animals feel any pain as they are killed before they have the chance to suffer.
Animal Experimentation for the benefit of humans.

Animal experimentation should be illegal and frowned upon. It is unfortunate that many people are selfish enough to believe just because we are humans that we are the only ones that deserve to survive. Animals have a right to be treated with value. Injecting monkeys with AIDS and exposing certain other animals to toxic chemicals and radiation is unacceptable. MILLIONS of animals die each year because of experimentation. Not only because of the things that they are exposed to but because they were not adequately anesthetized or abused by the handlers of the experiment.
Should the United States stop sending aid to Middle Eastern governments besides Israel

Now For my Final word. Almost everyday thousands are dying in the middle east. These deaths is one of the greatest amounts of deaths that this worlds has seen since world war 2. Yes not everyone is living a charming life, but we are not living on dirt like the families in the middle east. Poor treatment, harsh conditions, death everyday, the sounds of gunshots waking you up in the night, nobody should ever have to undergo this false treatment. Whether our people are not living a perfect life, it does not even compare to those families. Do we eat dirt for breakfast? Do we lose a family member at a constant rate every day? Do we live under fear, threats, and a dystopia? No. We have running water, a roof over our head, protection, freedom. All of these things are not given to these people. Funding gives them a since of hope, which is needed in their harsh world. How does not helping benifit us. We are going to have the guit that we didnt help the people in need. We will have guilt that we didnt help give hope. It is truly sad that we have these problems everyday, and that there is few things we can do to stop it. But not helping will be the biggest regret the United States has made since the great depression. And if you believe that we will have no guilt whatsoever, you are very sad. These are the things that matter. These are the things we must do. We must continue funding to maintain a stable society and ensure the quality of life for everyone.
Should the United States stop sending aid to Middle Eastern governments besides Israel

I think that you are right and that it is immoral to stand by and let this happen when we can help. At this time I think that it would be wise to pull aid out of these countries because though the render aid law was passed the people in the Middle East don't have many laws especially where the United States is involved because we are either at war with those countries or sending billions of dollars their way when they sometimes don't even have a strong government to accept that aid. It is immoral to stand by and let this happen while we enjoy our lives but the point I am trying to make is that not all of the population of this great nation are living a charmed life. Many are struggling with cutback hours and problems that teenagers shouldn't but do have to deal with. It does seem unfair to not help those in these third world countries but it definitely isn't fair to let our own citizens pay for another countries beginning when they thank us by killing on sovereign US territory and causing even more pain in our citizens hearts. We should not be forced to pay for these people that though have been going through tough times have been violent since before the United States existed. The worst that could happen while we are gone is that a few more terrorists come back. I think that the United States that has dealt with these problems at home will be better equipped to help people that are having even worse times than us. Why must the US shed blood and spend money to make a country free when it is going to repay us with even more bloodshed.
Should the United States stop sending aid to Middle Eastern governments besides Israel

In 1901 the "failure to render aid law" was passed. This was to make sure that when someone is in an accident, they need to stop and help that person in need. If we value the support for others, as shown in this law, we must value the support of other countries too. Yes that money could be used to strengthen border, stop crime, and possibly help society. but by improving a society that could have been ok without help, we are wasting money. Im not sure where you come from, But in the state of Texas, we make sure that our bordering countries are also albe to defend against drug cardels. If we are able to fund NASA, Border Patrol, And wars, then we are able to push a little more to help the families in need. Yes, America is the land of opportunity, and people know that if they come here that they will reieve freedom. But sadly, families are trapped in the middle east, dying of starvation, not knowing whether they will wake up the next day to support their families. And they will never be able to achiev our freedom unless they recieve help. Just sitting and watching our people live in joy, while others are dying under a terrorist is immoral. That is why we should continue funding, to save as many lives as be can.