BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is high school more important than elementary middle school

I take it that an average person (or kid) know 1+1 and abc (informally education by parents etc). In my place, there are special class in high school called Remedial Class. It is especially for someone who cannot do simple math problem like fraction and reading. Since they are at high schooler age already, they can grasp the things more faster so they can learn elementary syllabus at higher rate than some one who at elementary schooler age. Also, there are age restrictions atleast, at my place where high schooler cannot just go entering/apply/be admitted to middle school. Plus, a high school diploma offers more lifetime opportunities beyond the job. High schooler graduate more likely to live above the poverty line, giving them the opportunity to apply for better home, car or school loans. With a high school diploma, you'll most likely live in a low crime rate neighborhood and not have any trouble with the law yourself. In today’s job market, a college degree is becoming more important. But in order to further your education at any type of college – whether it’s community college or a four-year university, you’ll be required to have a high school diploma.Would you rather live as low income citizen for the rest of your life?
Humans are frugivores.

Of course, humans can eat small amounts of meat and grain without suffering from any disease. I am not suggesting that these foods should be totally rejected from the normal diet. It is just a matter of how much and of what quality that is the point here. I am sure the average human gut could quite adequately handle a diet of 10% meat, 10 % grain, 10 % raw vegetable - the other 70 % should be fruit and cooked vegetables though. This is what I would consider as being the perfect diet that would best suit the human digestive system. I would suggest any deviation from this average guideline would eventually result in some form of health problem. http://archderm.jamanetwork.com... http://www.direct-ms.org... Note - Grain food contains no vitamin C or B 12. This can lead to cell starvation and dysfunction. Note - All white coloured foods are lacking in vitamins. Colour represents the presence of vitamins. Thus, no colour means no vitamins. Thus, avoid white rice, white flour, white milk, white sugar and white bread. The most important colour in nature is purple. Purple coloured foods are generally the most healthy to eat. This is because the human immune system is iodine based and iodine is purple. Doctors don't want people to know about iodine because it might render their knowledge and training as a useless and time wasting nonsense. The white coats that doctors wear is representative of their stupidity and ignorance of nature. Doctors represent the false world of pharmacy chemicals and the associated deceptions that this brings. The medical world has strayed far from nature and has forsaken many common sense methods of curing disease. The most forsaken method of curing disease is prevention. By avoiding certain food items, one can avoid illness altogether. My opponent obviously represents the medical/pharmacy system which is profit orientated and has lost its way due to centuries of deception and false cures. The medical and pharmacy industries would prefer that humans remain in a permanent state of unwellness because there is a lot of money to be made of sick or dying people. The concept of viruses causing disease is utter nonsense. Viruses are just an imaginary invention of the medical system which came about when it was found that bacteria didn't cause disease. Thus, some other microscopic culprit needed to be found that was smaller than a bacteria and could be easily hidden from the public's notice. http://neue-medizin.com...
Humans are frugivores.

The human body is related to its most closest relatives being the monkeys and apes. The design of the human gut; its length and overall distribution of digestive organs suggests that humans are best suited for a diet of fruit. The opposable thumb and tactile fingers which have nails are very similar or if not, exactly the same to that of the monkey and ape species. These inevitable facts suggest that humans should be eating a diet similar to monkeys and apes. The fact that humans get sick and have many diseases which do not normally occur in nature, tends to suggest that humans have strayed from their natural diets and have paid the price of this deviation. If humans were meant to eat meat, then, nature would have endowed humans with claws; with many long pointy teeth with are separated by a gap; a very short digestive system and a very acidic digestive system to kill any bacteria from the decayed animal proteins. But, alas, nature did not provide us with any of these required attributes. Thus, eating meat will be difficult for our digestive system and will cause many problems such as osteoporosis, arthritis, heart failure, constipation and gastric reflux. If humans were meant to eat grains, then, nature would have given humans a crop in their throats to predigest the grains. Birds need grain because it provides high octane fuel which is required for achieving flight. Humans do not need high octane fuels for walking and running. Grain causes a sugar overload which causes insulin over production which can result in sugar diabetes, tooth decay and other problems. These problems may include - inflammation, inhibit nerve growth and cause nerve injury; disrupts endocrine function and genetic expression; leaky gut syndrome - allows gut bacteria to enter the bloodstream; rheumatoid arthritis; multiple sclerosis; asthma; chronic fatigue syndrome and depression.
Bombing Other Countries is a Good Way to Solve the US Debt Problem

My opponent’s opening statement has changed the course of this debate. The following is a quote from my opponent. “My argument will be that the United States should bomb all countries in the entire world with love, compassion, freedom, gentleness, and inspiration.” So, I will argue that the United States should not bomb other countries with love, compassion, freedom, gentleness, and inspiration. Argument #1: Other Countries May Not Want This to Occur It doesn’t matter that my opponent’s proposed bombing is that of love and compassion. It’s still a bombing of sorts, which means it infringes upon other countries. By bombing them with love and compassion, we are still doing something to them that they did not request. In fact, there is a good chance that countries wouldn’t want us to do this at all. Hence, my opponent’s theoretical bombing would still anger other countries, which could prohibit trade from taking place. Argument #2: No Connection Between This Bombing and a Reduced US Debt It’s never been proven or coherently shown that there is a connection between this theoretical bombing and a reduction in the US debt. My opponent has the burden of proof to show that there is. He must show beyond a doubt that his idea will work in paying off the US debt in an efficient fashion. He must do this within the next couple of rounds. He must also show that his proposed idea is more logical than all other ideas out there. That leads me to my 3rd argument. Argument #3: Better Alternatives Simply enough, there are better alternatives out there than my opponent’s proposed idea. For example, the United States could cut back on/completely cut some programs that we don’t need. In doing so, we would have more money which could be directly put into paying off the US debt. This is a logical theory. Taking funding out of one place and putting it in another place is a rational idea. My opponent’s idea is not as rational as mine. He must show that his idea is more logical and more likely to work than the idea that I proposed. Conclusion: I have shown why my opponent’s proposed idea will anger other countries, which would discourage trade. I have also shown that there is no connection between my opponent’s idea and a reduction in the US debt and that he must prove beyond a doubt that the opposite is true. I have also explained a better alternative for paying off the US debt than my opponent’s idea and that he must show the opposite. I await my opponent’s opening argument.
Bombing Other Countries is a Good Way to Solve the US Debt Problem

I am arguing that bombing other countries that the US owes money to isn't a good way to solve the US debt problem. My opponent, who will be pro, will have to argue that bombing other countries is a good way to solve the US debt problem. Rules:1. First round is acceptance.2. Second round is arguments only.3. Last 3 rounds are freestyle.4. There is no burden of proof, considering this is opinion based only. However, coherent arguments must be presented.
The Christians Are Polytheists

I'm really sorry if I'm not able to discuss the points you brought up because my time is short. If you want to discuss the verses then I'd be happy to do so in the comments or on a discussion :) Anyway I'd like to quickly post my last argument as to why the Trinity does not defy Monotheism. Let's start with a quick mathematical formula as to what the Trinity is and what it isn't. Most non Christians believe that the Trinity is 1+1+1=1. This is simply not the way we see it as. The Holy Trinity is much more like 1*1*1=1. You and I both live within a 3 dimensional Universe in which I can talk, act, and feel like someone else, but I'm still a distinct and independent individual. God on the other hand lives outside of our time and space and is therefore open to different states. In this aspect Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit can each be God. God is a Spirit and is therfore outside of our logic and reasoning. Can I show logically that the Blessed Trinity makes sense? No of course not!!! The Christians God is beyond our comprehension and logic. What is the emptytology of Trinity. Well Tri=3 and Unity=1, therfore the Tri+Unity=Trinity. Many people have failed to explain the Trinity, but here is my explanation. The Trinity comprises of 3 distinct persons who are united in one essence of Deity with the same will, purpose, and Godship. Some Human explanations to the Trinity are like H2o. Water, Gas, and Ice are all H2o, but there still the same thing(3 in one.)Another example could be an apple with the skin, fruit and core or the egg with the shell, yolk, and white. I'm really sorry for not posting a large argument due to lack of time, but I'd love to debate with you on this again or have a discussion in the comments. Thanks and always remember this... "Regem et Dominum nostrum Iesum resucitatum omes speciosa." Thanks Julia and sorry for keeping you waiting.
Euthanasia should not be illegal

Interestingly enough, pro makes an agreeable point in the first round about a 95 year woman wanting to perhaps die peacefully instead of fighting for her death. Of course, on the whole, euthanasia covers more than the elderly so we should lay out some definitions here, as with all good debates we need to clarify the meaning of the topic we are debating. In Greek, Euthanasia means good death. In English, it is better explained as "assisted suicide". Argument #1- Legalizing Euthanasia could lead to the involuntary killing of people. I think in this debate, we should look beyond the age of people and the two options presented by my opponent. i) Suffer and fight for your life ii) Avoid suffering and die peacefully i) Not everyone who is crippled has to suffer, there could be other remedies not known. My aunt died in 1995 because she was having trouble with severe depression and was out of a job. She could have been helped but I do not think if I was standing with her that I would help her in killing herself. Euthanasia is like a guilt suicide. You are so overwhelmed by the discomfort or depression this person is feeling that, because of that guilt in your head, you kill them because they asked you to. Meanwhile, this guilt is not the answer to the problem. Because suicide is a permanent solution to a sometimes temporary problem. With Euthanasia we have to look beyond age, and also look at the minds of people who want suicide. If we help kill them, it is involuntary murder by the means that our emotions have taken over and you just killed someone who could have been helped. They may feel like they're suffering, but there is almost always a remedy for things. We only live once. Argument #2- The experiment that failed. Germany wanted to try it out so they legalized Euthanasia. What were the effects? "bout 60 years ago, Germany made euthanasia legal. At first it was only permitted to be used for the terminally ill, later those with psychological afflictions, and eventually the people who could not make decisions on their own. One thousand patients died without their request. - Why couldn't that happen in the United States?"(http://electionsmeter.com...) Have you ever heard the term, learn from your mistakes? This would be a good one to learn from. If Euthanasia was legalized, I could be put in the hostpital with a crippled leg and hurt but not want to die. Next thing you know, my crazy enemy unhooks my life support without my request and I die. His excuse,"Dave said he wanted to die a peaceful death." This could be justified in the courts perhaps and if we did legalize it, who would want to take that risk?
Euthanasia should not be illegal

Debate Procedure1. Introduction2. Main Points3. Rebuttal and Conclusion*Provide sources when statistics are being said.Good luck to who ever accepts this debate!-------------When you are 95 years old, in the hospital and suffering, you have two options:i) Suffer and fight for your lifeii) Avoid suffering and die peacefullyPersonally, I would see myself fighting for my life, since we only have one chance to walk on this earth. However, my view on life, and my subjective opinions about which option I would take, should never overide somebody elses view on life and morality, when they are making a decision about themselves.If the government makes euthanasia illegal, they are effectively saying; "What we believe and value, is way more important than what you believe and value."I'll be waiting for my oppositions arguments with great curiosity, as this is one of my first debates on this topic.
Are ppl starting debates on here then logging back in to argue with themselves ? ( Yes. ) .

"yo i think ppl are manning multiple accounts here. " There are many members here that are active and continue to compete and post to the forums. The regular members here are almost always online and are ranked high in the scoring system. There are however what we call "Trolls" they are one person who makes multiple accounts and spam other members while also making hilarious and unneeded debates. I ask that you vote CON due to the fact my opponent has no argument, references or points. He also used improper spelling and grammar as well.
COLONIALISM:did it benefit Africa.

If you think colonialism was not beneficial and you want to restore 'African Pride' and beauty then get rid of everything western and make it pure AFRICAN by wearing animal skin,do not use computers or internet because it keeps us in touch with the west or you be like Chinese Government and be controlled as to what site you can access. Do you want that? With English we can communicate with our African brothers and sisters. The process was gruesome and I would have never liked to be part of it but don't you ever think for a second this was the first step to development and to us being protective. According to my opponent 'colonial masters took our natural resources and used them to their advantage' why not turn the question around,what did we gain? They built roads,railways to connect strategic places,telegraph lines(Africans were amazed because these lines were able to carry messages),introduction of NEW CROPS like coffee and cocoa which supplied cash,freedom of religion as a basic human right was born and grew during colonial era,colleges could not have been met without government grant-in-aid made from 1920 downwards. Finally,take a good look at Ethiopia because they resisted colonialism have bad infrastructure and economy. .. .. .. .. .According to a French stateman LEON GAMBETTA 'to remain a great nation or become one,you must be COLONISED.
COLONIALISM:did it benefit Africa.

I wish her good luck. I would like to start this debate by basically saying that COLONIALISM did not positively affect Africa. In Numerical order I will list the reasons why I believe this: 1. Slavery is technically a part of African colonialism, slavery involved the stealing of millions of Africans from their families and forcing them to work in a foreign land for no money. Many Africans where brutally killed and half the slaves died during the passage in the ships before even arriving to the Americas. 2. Europeans took advantage of Africans natural resources and used them to their advantage. Africans were and are being killed through the diamond industry which is ironically headed by Europeans. Therefore it is a billion dollar industry that succeeds at the expense of millions of African lives. Also therefore when you buy a diamond you are supporting this vicious cycle of death. 3. Colonizers forced types of governments that work for them but not for Africans. 4. Colonizers pitted African against African. Before colonizers tribes usually got along but now a days they don't because of this. I will go more in depth later in the debate. Thanks. .. .. .. .. .. .
COLONIALISM:did it benefit Africa.

I believe you are fully African or partly and so i want your opinion. Colonialism was not only 'exploration' but an opportunity to solidify black identity,understand the African economy and production. Africans were more beneficial with colonialism than the europeans themselves because now we know why we should fight for what is ours and differentiate our consciousness. Yes,peace and stability was disturbed. we look at colonisation as a bad thing because white came and took over our land but the question is 'did they take the land with them back? '. what about african civil war when they still take lands. think about it. Goodluck! !! ! !
The Beatles are still the best musically in the world.

New York dolls and the stooges were the only bands substantially before the sex pistols the others came out during the years 74-75 so the same time, ramones and sexpistols are equally as important in Europe and America respectively starting the revolution punk rock. Black sabbath revoulutionized, started, made metal what it is, does that mean they were the 1st to play music that sounded that way, no, same with the sexpistols and ramones(yes I should have listed them earlier). I wouldn't consider that touring playing the same place every day three times a day good for them they were poor and played music all the time. So many other people in the world are poor and jam all the time in the same place that's not touring I guarantee every band that practices all the time in there house would love to do it three times a day in some place and get paid that's a bonus I'm not saying it wasn't hard and tough but thousands of musicians would love to be doing that. I'm glad you think so many of their songs are full of passion I think opposite even the early stuff like twist and shout. What I'm saying is our opinions should not matter in this debate at all this debate is where we back up our opinions. I never said George Martin was the sole reason for Beatles success he was the glue and some of those things that you say the Beatles did we're revolutionary were martins brain child, which just lessons the greatness of the Beatles., yes they are great, not the best. I don't think growing up would cause me to leave music, it certainly did not do that to the who, the Rolling Stones, van halen, Ozzy Osborne, black sabbath , rhcp, Metallica, the cure, u2, kiss ac/dc, Aerosmith, zz top, Crosby stills and Nash, rush, fleet wood Mac, the drifters, most of these thanks to seatleweakly.com 15 longest running bands. They didn't grow up and and mature and get sick of the screaming to focus meerly on albums, that's not what being aband is about. I do recall you saying that the Beatles created pop music in your 1 st round not embellished it or made it btter you say but in your last round you say they merely turned pop into an art form seems like you OPINIONS are conflicting.
The Beatles are still the best musically in the world.

The Sex Pistols did not invent, created, started punk. The NY Dolls, The Stooges, Ramones did. Get your facts straight. The Beatles did more touring in their early days than other bands do in 20 years. They had their fair share of hardships too, especially in Hamburg. They were paid "2.50 each a day, seven days a week, playing from 8:30-9:30, 10 until 11, 11:30-12:30, and finishing the evening playing from one until two o'clock in the morning. " We had to play for hours and hours on end. We lived backstage in the Bambi Kino, next to the toilets, and you could always smell them. The room had been an old storeroom, and there were just concrete walls and nothing else. No heat, no wallpaper, not a lick of paint; and two sets of bunk beds, with not very much covers"Union Jack flags"we were frozen". I think that songs like, Eleanor Rigby, Day in the Life, Let it Be, In My Life, Strawberry Fields Forever, Across the Universe, Here Comes the Sun, Something prove how passionate and soulful their music is. If there is anything lacking in their music it sure is not passion. Even their earlier stuff like Twist and Shout is full off intensity and passion. George Martin helped the boys to shape the sound they intended to achieve. The four boys, John and Paul in particular, contributed to the sound you hear on revolutionary songs like Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day in the Life, the whole Sgt. Pepper album for that matter, just as much as George Martin did. He was an important piece in the puzzle but to suggest that he is the sole reason for their success is just ridiculous. I don't see other bands produced by Martin making history and creating number one hits all over the world. The Beatles were fed up with constant touring and the screaming. They grew up, matured and in their second stage of their career they focused their energy on creating albums that nobody has ever created before. They turned pop music into an art form. I don't think there is a single sane person (other than you) who would hold that against them. The Beatles saved music from remaining in the coma that was rockabilly, and helped us to not revert back to classical. The Beatles are the heart and soul of popular music. Before The Beatles came around, popular music was meant mostly to dance to. It also seemed like every song of the previous decade had the exact same 12-bar blues melody. The Beatles experimented with music so much that they cultivated what we still attempt to do in music to this day, yet it seems like no one else seems to be really doing as well: the perfect song. It"s common to have an artist make two good songs then make 12 bad ones then hack together a horrible album. The Beatles made every track on every album great. That"s why they"re still so highly regarded today. Their songs are timeless.