BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Intelligence: Nature vs Nurture

Well you've made it this far. No worries. This will be short and simple. No epiphanies necessary. I have presented the reasoning behind many geneticists' and psychologists' opinions on how twin studies, And particularly the studies my opponent has provided, Are flawed. Genetics as a field is in its baby form. While it cannot be expected to point to individual genes or combinations of genes that present as certain traits in its current form, It should be expected to eventually arrive at this if it is true. Appealing to authority when the entire field is in its infancy is silly when there are so many reasons to believe the conclusions of these are not accurate. At best, My opponent can say current research suggests his opinion is true. However, If I can point out tens of flaws in the research he cites, Why would I not fall back on logic to tell me which is most likely true? I have already given my opponent that genetics will affect the raw processing power of an individual. He has not even tried to explain how the conclusions of these studies are not flawed. He has not tried to engage with my arguments as to why we should believe nurture plays a more impactful role when the assumptions of his studies are so backwards in this matter. All he has done is cite additional sources with the same flaws, And additional experts with the same assumptions. There are plenty of experts on both sides of this in any matter. He has also nitpicked "Adults" as if his studies were not also conducted in part on children, And as if children don't mature into adults. The question is not if his studies had been peer reviewed. They were. Plenty of studies are redacted at a later date, Plenty of consensus among science has been refuted with time. If a handful of Koch-funded researchers agree and get an article published it is not interesting to me if they can't defend it. Cherry picking is not the term I'd use for a 30, 000 word document whose points are consistent with reality. I submit to my audience that reading a few of these pages will give you a better idea of how this research is bad science. So I will leave it here. My opponent's argument is one huge appeal to authority. His authority is a science in its infancy. My arguments have not been even partially digested by him. So I will leave it to you. The sources I have cited point out the flaws in these types of studies and in the entire field of study my opponent argues for. He cannot defend the integrity of such studies other than appealing to authority, So I am left with nothing left to debate. I submit to you to see their flaws, And engage with what we are left with - logical arguments. I will trust you to understand the arguments I have presented. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
Intelligence: Nature vs Nurture

Happy to think with you today. Before I begin, I should made it clear that I don't believe IQ tests are a good measure of intelligence within a person, However we can have this debate using them if you wish. The whole debate, Nature versus nurture is a bit silly in and of itself. If we didn't have brains, No amount of nurture in the world would improve our abilities on IQ tests. If we're allowing ourselves brains, Then this topic has some meaning. Now, My argument will be as follows: 1. Feral Children are kids with a poor, Perhaps the poorest, "Nurture" we can think of. It is a bad enough nurture for me to win the debate, At the least. 2. Mentally challenged persons are people with the worst "Nature" that actually exist. To prove my point that nurture is more important than nature I will compare the following: 1. A mentally challenged person with the best possible nurture. 2. An otherwise normal individual with the worst possible nature i. E. "feral children. " I submit that this is a perfectly rational way to compare the two. If you accept this, Then you immediately lose the debate. Feral children will barely be able to answer a question on an IQ test. Mentally challenged individuals with the best nurture possible will at least be able to make sense of the test, And therefore have some sort of score, However low. As it stands, Nature does not give us the tools required for even basic human intelligence under the definition you have given. No matter how poor one's nature, The best possible nurture, Or even a decent thinkable nurture, Can give us enough tools by which to measure intelligence. So from my view, You can either forfeit now, Or you can provide better metrics with which to analyze the question. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
Intelligence: Nature vs Nurture

In this debate, Pro will be arguing that nature (biological factors), On average, Has a more significant impact on human adult intelligence than nurture (the effect of environmental influences) while Con will be arguing the opposite. Intelligence: General cognitive ability as measured by an IQ test such as Raven's progressive matrices. Thank you for accepting/reading the debate and please ensure that you're using academic sources for fact-checking purposes (please also consider this while voting "sources").
Some Business Interests Hurt NATO's Purpose in Afghanistan

Unfortunately though, he seems to have misread the resolution and my argument. I would like to, once again, affirm that NATO's mission in Afghanistan is to ". .. assist the Afghan Government in exercising and extending its authority and influence across the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance. " [1] The point of this debate was to discuss whether the lack of business participation in Afghanistan's governmental programs, specifically the National Solidarity Program, was harmful to NATO's stated mission in Afghanistan. My opponent has instead decided to argue about reasons why businesses wouldn't participate in those programs. I will not address my opponent's arguments, as they do not pertain to the resolution. I will though correct one statement within my opponent's argument. "Point #2: Most business owners would not trust a strange foreign funded program. " Had my opponent looked at my sources, would realize that the National Solidarity Program is not a NATO program - it is a program run by the Afghani government, and has oversight within the World Bank, neither of which are organizations within NATO. [2][3] As well, this argument is not strictly related to Afghani businesses, but foreign investment and development companies as well. My opponent should take note of that, and reword his argument accordingly. All of my arguments extend to the next round, in which I hope CON will address my arguments properly. Vote PRO. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. . http://www.nato.int... 2. . http://web.worldbank.org... 3. . http://www.nspafghanistan.org...
Some Business Interests Hurt NATO's Purpose in Afghanistan

Greetings my learned opponent, I will be proving your aspect of the topic as fallacious and reprehensive. I have have one major godly flaw within my opponent's case. My learned opponent has stated that "Because of the lack of business participation with the government, NATO's cause and ultimate goal in the country is hurt." This is blatantly wrong because not everyone has enough money that they can survive without their business. My argument is that Some business owners are careful of their money and therefore choose not to waste their money on a NATO program. My argument is correct because Afghanistan is not a wealthy country. The some independent business owners are poor, they cannot survive without their business. They cannot trust other people to look after their money. My opponent is trying to say that EVERYONE should put their money into the program NATO has arranged. But not EVERYONE is willing to. If you had 10 apples in your shop and you were asked by a stranger if they could have it and they said that you would receive something better in return, would you allow it? Most people wouldn't. I will have two main arguments against my opponent within this debate. Point #1: Not all business owners are abundant with money and Point #2: Most business owners would not trust a strange foreign funded program. I will now elaborate on my first point. Not all business owners are abundant with money. As you would know Afghanistan does not have its own Wall Street. It does not have the money for a nuclear weapons program of immense size. It does not have an ideal economy compared to the world super powers. The independent business owners of Afghanistan do not have shares in the stock market. They do not worry about the Financial Crisis. They do not have enough money to survive without their business, their business is their life. My first point now leads onto my second point. Most business owners would not trust a strange foreign funded program. NATO is a completely foreign organisation to the small independent business owners of Afghanistan. As my opponent stated Afghanistan throughout history Afghanistan was invaded by foreigners and was war-stricken. Why wouldn't the business owners of Afghanistan be skeptic about NATO? How can they trust NATO? The business owners of Afghanistan look after themselves. There is no proof of the trust for NATO. How can the business owners decide if NATO is just another sham of an invader like as my opponent pointed out, Alexander the Great or the Soviet Union? Therefore I leave you with the question that inevitably proves my case. How can the individual business owners of Afghanistan trust the foreigners, NATO?
Homosexuality a sin

All right, first of all, we must decide which religion we are basing this off of. It doesn't matter wether Muslims or Hinldus belive about homosexuality. The only religious text that truly determines the morality of something is the Bible. And you effectively dicredited the Bible by saying it was blinded byt the apostles own beliefs, and is not truly God's word. No denomination believes that, and here I shall provide biblical evidence for that. 2 Timothy 3:16-All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. (NLT). And if one part of the Bible is wrong, the rest is discredited. So the next step shall be stating agreeing (for the debate) that the Bible is credable.
Homosexuality a sin

My leading argument will be that homosexuality is not an active choice made. It is a physiological response to another member of the same sex and the sexual orientation of an individual is due to genetics and environment. When talking about sin I think it is very important to stress it is an immoral act in the perspective of an divinity. To fully expand into this argument we need to recognise there are several religions, therefore I will address why I do not believe that homosexuality is a sin in different contexts. I also reserve the right to question the sources of my opposition to make clear whether they are representing the religion in a way I feel is fair. 1. Christianity. It has been insinuated that the Bible mentions that homosexuality is a sin, Paul in particular is quoted however there has been a stream of debate about the scriptures. First is that the Bible does not speak of homosexuality as we comprehend in the modern age instead a more accurate translation in my opinion leads us to believe it is instead referring to a forced exploitation of a sexual nature of those who are of homosexual orientation. Secondly we must read the different texts in the Bible while recognising the cultural influences that were present at the time. Paul also had the belief that women who were not veiled committed an act against The Lord but many believer would disagree. In the end the Bible is man's interpretation of God and not the true word of God. 2. Islam consider homosexuality not a sin if it is not acted on or if it is acted on it can be punished and therefore not a sin against God but a punishable crime. I don't have a full understanding of Islam but I did ask this of a religious leader therefore I submit this point to address this major religion. 3. Hinduism I would say is very open to homosexuality and though it is a taboo culturally religion still does not speak out actively against homosexual acts, indeed many temples have been found that depict quite graphic image of homosexuality. The only restriction is on twice born individuals who are spiritual and are not meant to pursue a life that contains homosexuality however this is similar to the practice in other religions where those in authority aren't allowed to marry. I would like to finally submit to that never has God directly made the statement that homosexuality is a sin. Surely the teachings of prophets, apostles and brahman are influenced by their own beliefs and therefore cannot accurately represent what God himself believes purely.
The Earth is Hexagonal

If the Earth was donut shaped then it would cave in during Earthquakes and cause the entire Earth to be affected. Because of the Hexagonal shape of the Earth, Seismic activity only affects one sixth of the earth at a time. Also, Every donut has a donut hole, Yet no planet in the solar system is small enough or similar enough to Earth to qualify as Earth's donut hole. It is also impossible for the Earth to be donut shaped but not have a donut hole, Because a donut with no hole is just a danish. I've never seen anyone refer to a donut as a globe either.
The Earth is Hexagonal

https://www. Google. Com/search? Q=hexagonal+earth&rlz=1CACGWM_enUS776US778&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRhYe-rtfgAhUNTt8KHT-DCx0Q_AUIDigB&biw=1366&bih=610&safe=active&ssui=on#imgrc=3w3mJ9DMm8xzKM: If the Earth was flat then Chinese people would fall off of it. It is hexagonal because Chinese people don't fall of of the Earth and the ocean flows.
NDE's are constituted as evidence for an afterlife

"Only blind people who lost their sight a while ago can trip and see flickers." That is a completely unfounded statement. I have given evidence that a blind person seeing with their brain under certain conditions is possible. NDEs are different from LSD trips, and it is perfectly possible for someone with an occipital lobe to see under the stresses that NDEs entail. My argument isn't invalid; your claim that such phenomena during NDE's must be magical is. "... how could it be a hallucination when there are things that defy the hallucination theory?" That there are discrepancies is unexplained by your "theory". Dreams can be seemingly mystical and revealing, but in all likelihood these occurrences are coincidences. And my previous source also indicates that people having an NDE may very well receive sensory input that changes the "dream" of the NDE. How do you account for the provided discrepancies without simply shrugging them off? "... published studies show that children were often too young to have formed an opinion regarding the afterlife, or even death itself." This doesn't change the fact that the human brain reacts a certain way to the stresses of an NDE, and doesn't take into account the amount of cultural influence society can have on a child. Take this example from your source: "This three year old boy described his near death experience when he was nine months old. Here's how he came to tell his parents about his experience. They took him, at age three, to a Christmas Pagent play, where someone played the part of Jesus. He started having a fit, screaming, "that's not my Jesus, that's not my Jesus". He then proceeded to tell his parents of meeting "Jesus" when he nearly died at nine months of age." Despite the man in the video claiming "... this can't be due to cultural contamination," there is nothing to indicate that it isn't. The nine month old probably saw a father-like figure and connected what he saw at three to the original experience. Such an explaination is no less credible than "he went to heaven and saw Jesus." I mean, are you suggesting that NDEs are evidence of a Christian afterlife? What about all of the NDEs accounted for in my previous source that are specifically related to other religions?
NDE's are constituted as evidence for an afterlife

"As for blind people seeing: this source shows that blind people are capable of seeing visual hallucinations on LSD." In the link you gave me, it said, "Those blind from a very early age (younger than two years-old) did not report visual hallucinations, probably because they never had enough visual experience to shape a fully-functioning visual system when their brain was still developing." I gave you a case where a blind woman from BIRTH who had an NDE, she lost her sight from birth and still had a vivid NDE that's very similar to those who aren't visually impaired. Your argument is invalid. Only blind people who lost their sight a while ago can trip and see flickers. For the discrepancy part, what if I told you this; there are millions of people who have an NDE and most of them come back with amazing reports that defy the hallucination theories, like the Viki Noratok case, the Pam Reynold's case and they come back with great information that couldn't be coincidentally made up. Ex. Viki, accurately described her surroundings which were later verified like, describing the doctor's clothes and how they looked like although she was dead for a period where she couldn't the doctors. As for the Pam Reynold's case, she accurately viewed a saw and described it well. It doesn't add up, how could it be a hallucination when there are things that defy the hallucination theory? Children's NDE's Without doubt the most interesting group of individuals to have reported a near death experience (NDE) are children. Some investigators and commentators have argued that adults might have imagined NDEs based upon their own personal cultural and religious views, but published studies show that children were often too young to have formed an opinion regarding the afterlife, or even death itself. http://spiritualscientific.com...
NDE's are constituted as evidence for an afterlife

(1) Realistic OBEs http://www.infidels.org... - There are many recorded incidences of discrepancies between OBEs and reality. This source has examples, including, but not limitted to: - a WW2 veteran's account of his NDE during which he had an OBE and appeared to be looking at his body from an above vantage point. Little did he know at the time, there were two people by his side who he failed to see. - a woman who had an OBE during surgery and claimed to see a tray with a letter on it over the operating table. - a child who saw her teacher in the hospital during and NDE, even though her teacher never visited her. - a woman who had an OBE during a heart bypass operation and claimed to see her heart beating on the table next to her, but her heart was never removed from her body. These discrepancies indicate that OBEs are dreamlike products of the brain under extreme stress. http://mindhacks.com... As for blind people seeing: this source shows that blind people are capable of seeing visual hallucinations on LSD. (2) Seeing deceased relative without knowledge of them being dead You have no source for this case. (3) Child NDEs similar to Adult NDEs. http://www.infidels.org... There are cases that show that NDEs are affected by cultural expectation. One case includes a child's NDE during which she claimed to see Jesus, although in the appearance of Santa Claus.
Minecraft is the best game ever

dont you get it, DONT YOU GET IT?!?!? MINECRAFT IS SECRETLY A TRAINING PROGRAM, FOR WHEN IT COMES TIME TO ENTER THE REAL WORLD. BECAUSE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT WE ARE LIVING INSIDE A REDSTONE COMPUTER, AND EVERY TIME THE COMPUTER LAGS THE MINECRAFT UNIVERSE A BLACKHOLE IS FORMED IN OUR REALITY, SPRED THE TRUTH AND SAV DA WORLD. #MinestoneEndTimesMinestoneEndTimesMinestoneEndTimesMinestoneEndTimesMinestoneEndTimesMinestoneEndTimesMinestoneEndTimesMinestoneEndTimesMinestoneEndTimes
Minecraft is the best game ever

Minecraft is superior to all other forms of media. It is a true display of the beauty of creation and intelligence. All this 'fortnite' and 'clash royale' could never match the true life that is Minecraft. It is a gift where only we can control our own destiny, and is probably the best biblical-based game I have ever played. It's fanbase is filled with aristocrats and it's servers crafted from diligent labor. No game can counter it's perfection. Fight me, if you dare.
should kids go to school

Kids these days do not want to learn. They hate school. The unnecessary subjects, the constant competition, the social issues with classmates. What if we take away all of this? We can have children specialize in a particular subject instead of studying them all. We could assign children with future jobs. We could have singular, hour long classes once a week which kids are not forced to go to. Some say this is soul crushing, but I say this is efficiency at its best. Its the perfect world.
Should abortion be legal

I only refuse to believe that a baby inside a womb is a living being because my opponent has not provided sufficient reason to do so. My queries still stand: when does the organism's right to life become realized and why? We certainly do not afford (and for good reason; I am not trying to appeal to the status quo alone) the same right to organisms that display the same faculties and behavior. An apple blossom, after fertilization, feeds off its parent's nutrients to grow. I hope my opponent certainly does not claim we cannot consume apples, yet the analogy seems to suit the characteristics of humanity proposed. At this point, I will enter into a small argument in favor of legal abortion branching off the previous analogy. If there is not an end-all, be-all right to life for any set of cells, we should concede that the utility of already-participating members of society should receive due deference in relation to the utility of non-participating sets of cells. Such a heuristic is appropriate because it is most likely to increase the overall utility of members of society, while any heuristic that values the utility of non-members does not serve society by definition. To be clear, without concise distinctions between "human" and "non-human," "being" and "non-being," abortion seems to serve the purpose of providing utility to those we agree as "human being" under any appropriate characterization. -A first and unedited draft by the Agonist
Should abortion be legal

My opponent is continuously refusing to believe that a baby inside a womb is a living human. Instead they think that the fetus is under a "certain category of existence where the organism is acceptable to be killed. Which still does not change the fact that its a human being . My opponent challenged me "describe when in the timeline of mitosis to adulthood this right consolidated". As soon as the baby is concepted it feeds off the mother nutrients (food and water) to grow until its fully grown