BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
am i true ? my enemy genies will try to believe in one of my god who is a thinking

Questions:I think it's better if I just ask questions. It'll help me understand better.1) What is a genie? What do they want?2) What is your god? What does he want?3) What is an original truth?4) Why should I believe you? [I don't count glowing bodily fluids as evidence.]5) What do I get from believing you?Just answer those questions directly. I hope to see something that can let me know Believerism (his religion) better.
am i true ? my enemy genies will try to believe in one of my god who is a thinking

let me tell you in detail in written. i dont mean to harm any gods or any religions neither i will never go against any religions or religions gods. i am saying original truth of god of genies (god of spirits) so whoever spirits are. genies are thinking of understanding of someone who understands and think and when someone understands and thinks the genies comes out inside dream of universe as thinking which spirits hear them as voice from mind. Now that someone is humans or animals or anyone who can understand and think. So if you understand beautiful that you are there is god and he is made of color of something and he is something which cannot be defeated by anyone and thinks same what you understand then automatically genie comes out from your mind (head) and that genies is not seen to you because its thinking in originality and thinking is dream because thinking comes out from mind of someone like a dream which is heard to spirits only but not to humans so dream hears dream and dream sees dream. now the genie which came out from your mind has understanding as what you understood while you understand and think so he says he is made of something just like you think (imagination is also thinking) because it comes out from mind of humans as dream only which spirits comes to know it as voice from mind. as soon the genie comes inside dream of universe then the genie believes in his understanding to be true from which he came from and you understood that is true because you kept your mind clean and understood and think and without being true a human or someone cannot think that means voice from mind only comes when you keep your mind clean and true in thinking. now when you become true and stay true the genie who came out from you inside dream of universe becomes true because in originality the genie is thinking of your understanding and if you become true then he becomes true and a genie can get anything at any time like educating himself or learning something with he proofs he is true so he is not proven as lie by anyone because if his understanding becomes lie then he dies and erases from time and if he becomes true by anyone or those who proves he is lie becomes lie then he comes in time again that means live again or appear again. so this is the history of gods of genies, do you still believe in any god of genies (god of spirits) to be true who cannot even tell you what is truth about them and how they have come. check out my youtube channel and go through playlist wise to understand my believe specially my dna shining and earwax shining and blood shining https://www.youtube.com... make sure you not get fooled by any god of genies (god of spirits) who says they were not born and fears that there god will die. who doesnt even knows what is knowledge and what is believe i dont understand how they become gods and ruled since many billion years on this planet. hope you like my beautiful truth and share with spirits through thinking what i wrote. take care meet you in time.
am i true ? my enemy genies will try to believe in one of my god who is a thinking

You have no idea that your last comment is (perhaps just a little) racist. You mean Americans can't understand things, but Asians can? And there's no obvious relevance between (your) religion, and race.But let's see what else you've said to back up your claim."if you understand what is thinking (thought) then you will understand thinking (thought) is a genie which comes into existence of dream of humans from humans thinking (thought) of understanding."Thinking is the action of thought. There's no need to put "thought" in parenthesis every time you want to say "thinking". So we have an imaginary being. But it's a genie... You mean like from Alladin? The spirit in a lamp that grants wishes?"thinking fights with thinking only because they dont have real body and they are made of thinking and they are not real but they can come into reality of humans like humans by taking believe from humans or someone who is even an animal who becomes true from his thinking."Rule of English 1) We seperate pieces of a paragraph into sentences. It helps us understand you better.But back to the point. What do you mean by "made of thinking"? Thoughts aren't an actual object. It's a thing which people create in their minds, either to create an idea to put it in a story, or finding a solution to a puzzle."listen to all my lectures and know my believe."I think I'll pass, but I already have a decent idea of your religion. "These genies emerge from ideas, causing sin. I know this from my papa/god." I think that's close. But I can't agree with you. You have no way of showing me these "genies"."understand like an asian understands."Like I said, Americans are ignorant? I'm a logical person, and I only follow the path that appears true. I see no reason in what holds no reason, so I don't go that path.
am i true ? my enemy genies will try to believe in one of my god who is a thinking

if you understand what is thinking (thought) then you will understand thinking (thought) is a genie which comes into existence of dream of humans from humans thinking (thought) of understanding. thinking fights with thinking only because they dont have real body and they are made of thinking and they are not real but they can come into reality of humans like humans by taking believe from humans or someone who is even an animal who becomes true from his thinking. listen to all my lectures and know my believe. understand like an asian understands.
The Christian God is Immoral

I will be arguing that the Christian God is moral. My opponent will argue that the Christian God is immoral. I will be defending the Christian God. 3 rounds, 72 hours, 8000 characters. Good Luck.The Bible describes God as good and loving.Oh give thanks to the LORD, for He is GOOD; for His loving kindness is everlasting (Psalms 107:1) Afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king; and they will come trembling to the LORD and to His GOODness in the last days (Hosea 3:5).John 4:8-10 (God is love; and how God showed His love)The general consensus among Christians is that God is all good.The churches describe God as all good. [1] Also, he is all powerful and all knowing.God does good things for mankindGod gave men enternal life. Giving people enternal life is a nice thing to do. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3-16God created men. It is good that God created us. He also created us because he loves us. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Genesis 1:26-27ConclusionBy definition, the Christian God is all good. The churches and the Bible claim God loves mankind and is all Good. God have humans an afterlife and created us. The Christian God is a good moral God.[1] http://www.sbc.net......
Kids who take their own pics in mall mirrors should first tuck in their shirt

Kids who don't know how to dress and hang out in malls taking their own picture in mirrors are pitiful and probably need to get saved. God's offer of salvation so they don't have to pay for their sins in the fire of Hell is what it's all about.What about you? if you die today, are you sure your sins are forgiven and you are not going to burn in Hell to pay for them?
Kids who take their own pics in mall mirrors should first tuck in their shirt

The outfit shows they are undicplined and rebellious and proud of it. They look sloppy probably because they don't know where they are going and are in danger of the fire of Hell. If they would believe God loves them so much He died in their place for their sins and rose from the dead to give them eterrnal life by receiving Him as their Saviour (Jesus), they would prpbably start tucking in their shirts and looking more presentable for their Saviour.A)admit you have sinned against God and deserve to die B) Believe He died in your place as the Son of God and rose from the dead and is alive and He wants you to be forgiven for sinning against Him C) Call on God the Father in the name of Jesus, the Son of God, to save you from your sin, death, and Hell and Jesus will come in to you and give you eternal life.
Kids who take their own pics in mall mirrors should first tuck in their shirt

It's bad enough that a kid seems to be so nerdy that he must take his own pic in a mriror at the mall. That's a pretty good sign of loneliness that can be softened by being saved and knowing Jesus lives in you. It only looks worse when a mall walker who takes their own pic in mirrors has their pants not tucked in. The appearance would be much less pitiful if pants were tucked in.
United States should use an Elector appointment System to solve the problem of low voter turn out.

oops iI accidnetlay posted this as a comment. That is true. But neither is the mayor, legislture or commissioner that any given person supports. However there's a problem when not only do those mayor's are not in 100% agreement with their constituents, but that they aren't even in agreement at all with the majority of their constituents because they do not even participate in the election. This system would bring every candidate for those office's under scrutiny by a professional board representing the people's best interest. It does not eliminate the direct vote, they are turned into citizen-endorsements that carry a weight when reviewed by the congress. And additionally have two direct powers, to eliminate candidates with week showings, and to eliminate all opposition candidates when endorsements get to the 2/3 level.
United States should use an Elector appointment System to solve the problem of low voter turn out.

The people would still be voting through endorsements. But Instead of an election being determined by 3% of the population, it is determined by a national congress, and everyone is weighted against each other heavily. Also if you consider an endorsement a vote this will increase turnout. One of the problems with our system is that people simply can't get to the polls on the appointed day. Then that raises the issue of does that state/ city have absentee voting or not. Also what about people who are working , can they take time off of work? With this system, endorsements are registered on your time not the governments time. Yeah the system would be robust but it would be more efficient in the lives of the individual in the long run. We all understand that sometimes people are just too caught up in life to research all of the candidate's and pick the best one. When thats the situation your faced with voting for a candidate based upon a scant amount of information, or withholding your potential harming or regrettable vote from the election. With this system when you vote for president you will be voting for your Electors whether they follow your party affiliation or they run without a party your voting for them based upon them representing your shoes in that congress. And then if you do find the time to really research into these candidates, you can go and give them your endorsement to bolster up his case before the congress, - and you do that on your own time. I think an elected congress that represents the people and is dedicated to choosing the right person for the job would do wonder for our country and take a load of the citizens, and at the same time it is more representative, because a small percent of the population isn't choosing an official that will serve the entire community.
United States should use an Elector appointment System to solve the problem of low voter turn out.

Your system is way too complex for simple positions like mayor and counselman. One reason people don't vote is because they don't understand how their vote will make a difference. How is putting peoples' votes through a middle man (your proposed added congress) helping the weight of their vote? It gives them no more motivation. If anything, all it does is complicate the system. You failed to explain how the congressmen would get elected. I agree with you on the fact that people should use their right to vote more often, but this is not the solution. It is a waste of money.
Homework should be banned

There are some response as well 1. Stanford research shows that homework can negatively affect kids, especially their lives away from school, where family, friends and activities matter. "Our findings on the effects of homework challenge the traditional assumption that homework is inherently good," wrote Denise Pope, a senior lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Education and a co-author of a study published in the Journal of Experimental Education. 2. If they need to figure it out by themselves, when there is nobody available to help, it would open the great chance and possibility of the students to get wrong information because they are not guided. The argument that student can deepen their knowledge by doing that is actually wrong, they need a clear guidance to achieve the best. they are guided directly by their teacher, the information is fixed and inevitable. 3. That study about 6% students have over three hours homework a night cannot be accepted. There are no certainty where the study takes place because different areas have different characteristics of teaching. 4. Even if it is happen, but at least the students are directly guided by their teachers. They are given chance to learn from friends or they can ask their teacher. They could easily gain knowledge rather than homework. 5. The balance is often thrown off, and there are no further actions to solve this. There are no certain limitations applied of giving homework. 6. Homework banning is a MUST!
Homework should be banned

I have multiple points to address, so I will get started. 1. An IU study shows that students who do more homework get higher standardized test scores. This helps provide a better future for the student because they can get into good schools and get good jobs. In a separate college study, students who were required to do homework on average did better in the class than students who were not required to do homework. 2. While doing schoolwork, students can get help from a teacher if they're stuck. But at home, if the student is stuck, they have to figure it out themselves, thus deepening their understanding in the subject. Both homework and schoolwork are important. It's a symbiotic relationship! 3. Studies show that only 6% of students have over three hours of homework a night, and that your average student often has three hours of homework a week. That's 36 minutes a night, and obviously not taking up a ridiculous amount of the student's time! If the student did homework during lunch or finished class work early like many kids, they might have less than that even! Not to mention that most high schoolers that get loads of homework usually have an off period to work in. 4. I agree, schools do not have a way to monitor homework, but they don't have a great way of monitoring schoolwork, either! All they have is a teacher that is often distracted helping a student or occupied at their desk. This makes it easy for a student to cheat on their schoolwork. Most teachers allow students to discuss the work, too. This also adds a easy cheating opportunity. Even if the students are not allowed to talk, they can look off of others papers. It is almost easier to cheat in school than at home! 5. School is the is time to learn, and home is their time to reinforce as well as rest. If a teacher gives so much homework that the balance is thrown off, I can assure you that school officials will be called, and the problem will be solved. For these reasons, homework should not be banned. Sources: http://scholarshipzone.com... http://www.greatschools.org... http://publicradioeast.org...
Homework should be banned

I don't think you have a good basic/foundation for your own argument based on these points: 1. There are no certain parameters which made you stated that homework is one of the most useful learning tools. 2. There are no such philosophical idea which make homework still suitable to be applied 3. No comparison with the other instruments of learning like school tasks, or etc. So then homework needs to be banned, I believe there are many arguments I could give to you: 1. Student have right to get an adequate time to run their daily life. Homework is a thief to their daily life, because student's daily life had been filled by a test preparations, household works, and of course daily activities like eating etc. Homework will make student suffer, even a little homework they have to really concentrate and get the best result. They had already time to learn at school. Homework threaten the student to do not have a plenty of time to fulfill their daily needs perfectly, and based on some research, student 's achievement at school was basically influenced by their daily routines. If it is imbalance so then their achievement at school would become worse. 2. Homework is an instrument of exercise which cannot be monitored. It is impossible for school to monitor their student to do their homework by themselves or they're only copying other student's answers. We couldn't know whether the homework will accelerate their achievement at school or not, or how far the student understand about the subject. I know that there are also students who don't want to cheat like that, and do the homework by themselves or in a group by a serious discussion. But here I believe that excellent quality of education should make sure that students need to improve together and successful together. Competition would emerge something unwanted like copying answers or etc. 3. I prefer a school exercises rather than homework, because at school it is their time to learn. And at home, it is their time to take a rest. They have right to fulfill all of those needs in balance.
Students should be required to learn a second language for high school graduation.

I appreciate the advice, and I'll keep it all in mind. However, when one is in a debate, it tends to be important to remember to stick to the topic. I feel your rebuttal was 80% advice; you never really addressed the majority of my contentions. "3. Not necessarily. My mom had four years of Spanish, and spoke it fluently, especially what job she has. My mom teaches at a place where it is mostly Hispanics (no racism intended, just stating facts." a. This point isn't exactly relevant, and goes back to my previous statement. " Hiring new teachers, building new classrooms, and purchasing all the associated equipment is a burden that falls on the taxpayers; and you cannot force the majority to pay for what a few will consider important." Now, I have taken three years of Spanish and can say that no one in that class, including myself, could even get by a regular day in a Spanish speaking country, let alone translate. Just because your Mother is talented does not mean we should jump into spending millions of taxpayer dollars into forcing people to take something they will never use, or even forget. "4. Sometimes, people are forced to learn more on a language because that is the only job that will hire them." a. If someone wishes to take up a job that requires a secondary language, the burden of paying for it, whether that be in currency or time, falls upon them. My point still stands: You cannot force everyone to pay for what a few will want.
Students should be required to learn a second language for high school graduation.

1. Big tip: when you are debating, never say I agree. Always find a but in the statement. 2. That is how you should say an argument if you cannot get one, say I won't argue this. Some people might say that they will not argue something because the statement is too imperfect. 3. Not necessarily. My mom had four years of Spanish, and spoke it fluently, especially what job she has. My mom teaches at a place where it is mostly Hispanics (no racism intended, just stating facts. 4. Sometimes, people are forced to learn more on a language because that is the only job that will hire them.
Students should be required to learn a second language for high school graduation.

Alright! 1. "I think that people should be able to learn a second language." a. Ah, I agree! But the debate is that they should be required, not allowed. To the best of my knowledge, all high schools offer a foreign language that you can take as you please. Not only this, but completing college is almost expected now and two years of a foreign language is a prerequisite for graduation. 2. "First, many immigrants are coming to the United States, especially in Ellis island. Many of the countries have a range of peak years of 1851-1913." a. I won't argue this. There is a lot of truth to this statement and you have your sources to prove it; but it's almost irrelevant. 3. "Second, you can become a translator in another country. For example, if you pick French, you can be an French-English translator." a. The problem is that the majority of the time, people will not be able to speak fluently after just a few years of foreign language education, let alone become a translator. One could, in theory, accomplish that goal, but it would be a matter of personal preference and dedication, but it is definitely not a popular interest or something that would be useful to the general populace. 4. "Third, it shows more of the diversity in America. It is not called the melting pot without complete diversity, including languages." a. This is a matter of opinion, not necessarily a fact. The problem is although a more diverse country would be pleasant, you must realize that there is a large percent of people that are unwilling to learn a new language for the sake of another people. Hiring new teachers, building new classrooms, and purchasing all the associated equipment is a burden that falls on the taxpayers; and you cannot force the majority to pay for what a few will consider important.
Students should be required to learn a second language for high school graduation.

Rules: None since this is your first debate other than the Terms of service. Don't worry, I am a beginner too! I think that people should be able to learn a second language. First, many immigrants are coming to the United States, especially in Ellis island. Many of the countries have a range of peak years of 1851-1913. (Chart found on http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...) Second, you can become a translator in another country. For example, if you pick French, you can be an French-English translator. Third, it shows more of the diversity in America. It is not called the melting pot without complete diversity, including languages.