BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creation - The only way that we exist

Usually it is normal to agree with something has evidence. Science textbooks usually have pictures that support evolution. But here is other evidence that proves evolution nothing other than a hypothesis. "The Bulletin of Chicago"s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: "Darwin"s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.""January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23. A View of Life states: "Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on
Discussion Francaise: Paris est une meilleure ville que Londres

Je dois m'excuser auprï¿½s de mon adversaire, comme je ne pourrai pas le rï¿½pondre ceci en rond, parce que de ï¿½ chronomï¿½trer des contraintes dans ma vie personnelle. J'espï¿½re qu'il me permettra d'ï¿½tendre mes arguments aprï¿½s dans l'en rond, et continue cette pratique fantastique de la langue franï¿½aise. Merci.
Discussion Francaise: Paris est une meilleure ville que Londres

1) L'Histoire de Londres. Pendant que mon adversaire a mentionnï¿½ plusieurs bï¿½timents importante de Paris histoire, il ne prend pas en que Londres a aussi beau bï¿½timents de valeur historique. Par exemple, le Palais de Westminster est une belle sï¿½rie de bï¿½timents qui remontent au dix-neuviï¿½me siï¿½cle et au-delï¿½[1]. La seule maison survivant de Benjamin Franklin, une grande figure historique de legend amï¿½ricaine, est aussi localisï¿½e ï¿½ Londres [2]; de mï¿½me que La Cathï¿½drale de Saint-Paul [3]; le Chï¿½teau de Windsor [4]; la Tower Bridge [5] et l'Arc de Wellington [6]. C'est vrai que Paris a beaucoup de bï¿½timents grandes qui sont su autour du monde, mais Londres a juste autant de du mï¿½me - probablement plus. Paris n'est pas mieux que Londres pour l'histoire. 2) L'Economie de Londres: C'est vrai que Paris est une trï¿½s grande ï¿½conomie, mais Londres est su aussi comme un des plus grand marchï¿½ ï¿½changeant des centres dans le monde. Seulement, la Bourse de Londres a un taux de roulement total de 1,4trillion dollars (US) [7]. L'Euronext, un bourse europï¿½enne a basï¿½ en Paris, pendant que plus grand dans la valeur market, ne fait pas le roulement d'argent comme l'Echange de Londres [8]. Beaucoup d'entreprises respectï¿½es sont aussi localisï¿½es ï¿½ Londres, par exemple; la compagnie d'assurances l'ï¿½norme Royal Sun & Alliance [9]; d'entreprise pharmaceutique GlaxoSmithKline [10]; le banque HSBC [11]; et la troisiï¿½me plus grand compagnie d'ï¿½nergie du monde, BP [12]. Paris, pendant qu'un centre ï¿½conomique majeur, ne pas a autant d'entreprises puissantes localisï¿½es en Londres. Londres est en fait en advance de Paris dans les questions ï¿½conomiques. 3) L'Attractions de Londres (bï¿½che trois, quatre et cinque) Londres n'inclut pas attractions comme Disneyland Europï¿½enne, Moulin Rouge et Club Paris. Mais, Londres inclut un attractions meilleurs; l'Maison de Cire de Madame Tussauds [13], l'Oeil de Londres (un giant roue de ferris) [14], le Plaza de Trafalgar [15], la Musï¿½e Britannique [16], et beaucoup de clubs de nuit oï¿½ beaucoup de cï¿½lï¿½britï¿½s ont ï¿½tï¿½ vues [17]. C'est vraiment Paris est un grande ville de le monde, mais, Paris ne pas meilleur que Londres. J'ai montrï¿½ cela Londres est ou sur le pair ou meilleur que Paris dans tous les sujets que mon adversaire a proposï¿½s. J'ai alors niï¿½ la controverse que Paris est une meilleure ville que Londres. Je pousse fortement une voix pour PRO. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://en.wikipedia.org... 8. http://en.wikipedia.org... 9. http://en.wikipedia.org... 10. http://en.wikipedia.org... 11. http://en.wikipedia.org... 12. http://en.wikipedia.org... 13. http://en.wikipedia.org... 14. http://en.wikipedia.org... 15. http://en.wikipedia.org... 16. http://en.wikipedia.org... 17. http://www.viewlondon.co.uk...
Discussion Francaise: Paris est une meilleure ville que Londres

Bonjour, Volkov. C'ï¿½st prï¿½sentation allumï¿½e la premiï¿½re discussion franï¿½ais. Bonne chance! [NOTE: Me and Volkov are amateur french speakers. So back off Regebro!!!] ===Mon argument=== 1) L'histoire: Il y a beaucoup l'histoire dans Paris, par example, L'arc de triomphe, le tour d'eiffel, Place de la Bastille, Champs-ï¿½lysï¿½es, Les Louvres et Notre Dame. Il n'y a pas beacoup l'histoire dans Londres 2) L'Argent: Paris fait $731.3 billion billion par annï¿½e (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Londres fait $446 billion par annï¿½e (http://en.wikipedia.org...). 3) Il y a un Disneyland dans Paris (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Chacun aime Mickey Mouse! 4) Club Paris: Le Club Paris l'habite dans Paris. Le club Paris est trï¿½s, trï¿½s riche. 5) Moulin Rouge: Il y a beaucoup de beaux femmes dans la Moulin Rouge.
traditions prevent progress

While I agree that people are wanting more and more change, as evidenced by the presidential election, this doesn't mean that tradition isn't a HUGE part of every culture, especially ours. Tradition bars progress almost by definition. We avoid doing what should be done in order to fulfill our traditional obligations. Look at religions, look at society as a whole. People's hands are often times forced by tradition and away from logical or desired action. Progress is instigated by things that are different. Tradition, by definition, isn't different. Therefore, tradition prevents progress.
Global Warming is mostly natural and a waste of our time and money to stop it

I accept this challenge and note that I'll be playing devil's advocate for a challenge. Let's start this off lightly with one argument:If global warming does not occur, then why has the rate of CO2 rose so fastly, out of the ordinary, completely unaffected by climate changes? If you look at the graph below, there is an exponential humongous rise in CO2 ever since the Industrial Revolution. [source: http://www.acs.org...]Even looking at the bigger picture, with the previous patterns of CO2 rising and falling, this new rise is very irregular: [source: http://www.google.com...'s_atmosphere%3B600%3B436] My opponent has failed ot use any sources to support his mere assertions. He did not use any evidence to support how "temperature does not change" due to global warming. The temperature rise is very unnatural. [source: http://theenvironmentshow.com...]And then, to go back and compare the temperature since the industrial revolution to before the industrial revolution-- [source: http://www.sodahead.com...]As you can see industry (made by man) is a huge contribution to global warming, and polluting of CO2. It is definitely a problem, and definitely not a waste of our time or money. We need to fix this irregularity as soon as possible.I now rest my case, and give the floor to my opponent.
Global Warming is mostly natural and a waste of our time and money to stop it

Global Warming has been highly exaggerated. If you understand climate you should realize there are much more aspects to our atmosphere than CO2 caused by humans . CO2 caused by humans make up less than 4 percent of the C02 in our atmosphere yet politicians believe that we are to blame and that we must try to save the planet through some sort of carbon tax which while magically make the climate change. The simple facts are that CO2 is a RESULT of temperature changes NOT a cause. The climate graphs prove this. There is a 100 year gap in some places between temperatures rises and then the proceeding CO2 rises. The facts are that the majority of CO2 comes from the ocean. When the ocean temperatures rise more CO2 comes off the ocean. Global warming alarmist simply don't take into account the fact that natural causes have produced temperatures to be much higher than they were today and CO2 levels where radically higher thousands of years ago before humans had any impact on the planet. Im not saying the greenhouse effect doesn;t happen or that humans don't have any effect on the climate, what im suggesting is that after a 16 year "pause" in temperature increases yet human CO2 has gone up greatly in the last decade leads me to believe there is much more to go into the climate change than humans driving SUV and the climate is much more complicated than politicians say it is. All Im saying is I believe this debate should continue because skeptics do have good points.
Brett Favre was just as good of a quarterback as Aaron Rodgers

As of now, Rodgers has a completion % of 70.6, 3,844 yards, 37 TDs, and 5 Interceptions. Through the 95-96 seasons Favre averaged a completion % of 64.45, 4,156 total yards, 38.5 TDs, and 13 Interceptions. While I'll admit that Rodger's numbers are on track to outpace Favre's, I'll argue that Rodgers' receivers are in their prime. Favre's career top four receivers were Antonio Freeman (57 TDs From Favre), Sterling Sharpe (41 TDs from Favre), Donald Driver (36 TDs) and Robert Brooks (32 TDS). Driver didn't play for the Packers until 1999. Sharpe left the Packers after the 1994 season. Freeman caught no passes in 1995, and caught only 9 TDs in 1996. Brooks caught 17 TDs in the 1995 and 1996 seasons combined. Therefore 51 touchdowns, only 46% of the total touchdowns through the 1995-96 seasons were to his top four receivers of his career. Rodgers on the other hand has thrown almost 50% (48.6) of his touchdowns to his top four receivers of his career (Jennings, Driver, Jones, and Lee). I will concede that Rodger's career has been much shorter and maybe his numbers will change as the receivers come and go, but I still feels there's validity to show that Rodgers had better talent at the receiver position, which in turn, is giving him some higher numbers. All stats were received from http://www.pro-football-reference.com...
Brett Favre was just as good of a quarterback as Aaron Rodgers

At the age Aaron Rodgers is now, Brett Favre (95-96 seasons) had essentially identical numbers (http://www.jsonline.mobi...). But I feel that my generation (I'm 21) doesn't appreciate all that Favre did for the Packers organization because we were too young to realize the level he was playing at. I love Aaron Rodgers, but it think that it was an injustice the way the Packers treated him his last few years. This video is of Favre's 1995 season. http://www.youtube.com...
There are universal, objective moral values

I'm glad Con finally put forward terms and definitions critical to his debate. Objective: “... based on facts; unbiased.”Value: “relative worth, merit, or importance...”Con went on to say, “There is no universal objective criteria that applies to all things which can be used to decide whether something is morally right or wrong.”“A universal objective criteria that applies to all” groups is the “universal objective moral value” of “thou shall not kill” each other within the group; otherwise, there is no group. Since we have a diversity of separate social groups, having their own culture throughout the world and history, is testimony of clear empirical evidence of a “universal objective moral value, of “thou shall not kill” each other within the group.Life outside the group, typically other species, is food to sustain the group--bon appetite! Con went on to say, “In fact, the world would have 100% less suffering if I just destroyed the entire solar system.” A typical “Hitler” mentality in conquest to destroy other social groups with some self-proclaim righteous dogma. How obtuse, a clear example of one who does not understand morality. Many are not “suffering,” in fact, having a great moral time, while keeping their social groups alive by not killing each other. Life is great!
There are universal, objective moral values

Consensus human opinion (which doesn't exist yet) defines our morality. There is no such thing as objective morality; only self-serving and self created "human rights" which only exist as long as we have the power to enforce them. Can you convince me that I should value the well being of others? If I had the power to set every living thing and resource on the planet in such a way that it all serves as a support structure for my own happiness, how can you say that it would be objectively wrong for me to do that? Unless there would be punishment in the afterlife, it's literally impossible for me to care about the rest of the world after I die. Even if there is a supreme creator being, morality is just an alignment with his will, and that is only absolute because he can enforce it with his power. Benevolence, in relation to a god, is still a meaningless and subjective opinion. Assuming he is all powerful, that just means he can enforce his will. Then "morality" is what ever he wants and "amorality" is anything he doesn't want, which can't exist if he is truly all powerful. It doesn't mean anything.
There are universal, objective moral values

"Thou shall not kill each other within a group, otherwise, there is no group. " This not universal or objective. It's only valuable to one group (if even that) and is constantly changing. To end these circles we are going in, I will forfeit my final argument and leave you with a question that has been dodged for the past 4 rounds. Perhaps my next debate will focus more solely on this. Why is life (especially human) on this planet a morally good thing? Why would it be morally bad for life to end, or better yet, to not ever have begun? Please, leave out our obvious bias towards wanting to live. I understand that we have an instinct to survive and that we all enjoy doing it. But I'm hoping you will check that at the door, and try to think honestly about this from outside a biased viewpoint. I have provided plenty of evidence that it is likely even bad for everything as a whole. One more interesting article I saw on face book that clearly demonstrates a huge example of my point. http://www.iflscience.com...
There are universal, objective moral values

I see there is agreement with Pro's argument when Con stated, “It is already agreed that the human sense of morality facilitates our persistent survival. Can that case be finally closed?”That “case” cannot be “closed” because that is the case that represents a “universal objective moral value,” that is, “Thou shall not kill” each other within a group, otherwise, there is no group. This “universal objective moral value,” is found throughout many species. For example, the subtle nonverbal communication between a parent and infant is miraculous, and it flows through life's Unalienable Rights in harmonious inter-species symmetry. This symmetry is apparent when we hear the cries from the screeching chirps within a nest, to the whimpering pups in a den, to the cries of a human infant along with the feelings those sounds evoke; the sounds throughout the tree of life. In many species, a newborn cries instinctively, elevating its cry to a scream when something is wrong--such as hunger triggered by the genetically programmed need to pursue food. Among humans, the parent is instinctively annoyed or alarmed by this cry and, in distress, tries to seek mutual Happiness by catering to the infant's desires. In contrast, there is something quite pleasant about the sight of a smiling infant, as it naturally invites the sharing of Happiness. The behavioral difference between a smile and a cry are the tenets of right and wrong, the primitives of Morality.Therefore, the cries throughout the tree of life is the stimulus for mutual Happiness between the parent and child group, in the “universal objective moral value” of “Thou shall not kill” your child, in order to preserve the parent-child relationship within the family group. Without this “universal objective moral value,” humanity will not be here. Con went on lamenting about: selfishness, mass slaughter, killing each other, greenhouse gas, genetically modified cows and crops, destroying the planet, etc. Ah the humanity! Unbeknownst to Con, said lamenting is a morally good and natural activity within the context of a “universal objective moral value” in the evolution of group Happiness. Con's distress is input to the evolution of social group values moving the group in a better direction relative to Con, and others like Con. Con stated, “Self-proclaimed righteous dogma is the source of every idea concerning morality.” Con is confusing social values, beliefs (dogma) with morality. Morality is like a force in nature that brings life to a group via mutual positive-feedback between members within a group, which is the genesis of social values, beliefs, etc. Therefore, the “universal objective moral value,” that is, “Thou shall not kill” each other within a group, while embracing the Unalienable Rights of others, is the foundation to this moral force that keeps a group alive and civil.
The Ego isn't Emergent

Well that's somewhat of an oversimplification of particles. Not every particle is made of the exact same quarks. In fact, They come in flavors so pretty much every particle has some massive difference from one another. Furthermore, You can't just say the building blocks are the same while not acknowledging that they could function differently when built differently. The same rotor that could make a boat move, Could also be a blender motor, A car motor. Limitless things. Furthermore. You have no proof that other carbon based things don't have egos. How do you know a rock doesn't have an ego? You can't say it's because it doesn't move because I could be paralyzed in a hospital bed and never move and you would still think I had an ego. The ego is our consciousness and you have know what of knowing what is conscious other than the things that make it obvious to you. So you're basing this all on an assumption. We have evidence of the brain causing consciousness. So it's caused by the brain Which is made of particles ergo other things with particles can be conscious. furthermore. Things without brains have consciousness too. You ever heard of an amoeba? No brains and they can navigate and do all kinds of intelligent looking things. Furthermore, Can you show me something in the body that's not particles? Because energy is particles, Mass is particles there's even theories that gravity is most likely caused by a particle. It's all particles dude. Get over it.
The Ego isn't Emergent

Assuming that consciousness came from certain particles, The only thing that would determine consciousness would be the presence or lack of said particles. I know that I am conscious. I am composed of 65% Oxygen, 18% Carbon, 10% Hydrogen, 3% Nitrogen, And come others. If you look beyond this, The building blocks for these atoms (up quark, Down quarks, Electrons, Etc. ) are the same as they are for any element everywhere else in the universe. The determining factor must be arbitrarily set at the atomic level. This would imply that air is conscious. Air contains oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, And nitrogen. What part of the air is conscious? Is only a single atom conscious? Obviously no, As we are not single atoms. If I fill a jar with air and close it, Is that jar all of a sudden a separate consciousness than the air around it? This wouldn't make sense as a jar is trivial. The elements can slowly exchange through it. Interactions are happening the same as anywhere else. I could set an imaginary boundary, And it would be just as significant as a jar. Is all air everywhere conscious? Well, Air is just its components. This position is the same as saying all of the certain "spirit" element is conscious all together. This would imply we are a part of that consciousness. This is not we observe. We observe ourselves as separate. Why? The conventional belief is that consciousness derives from the complexity of systems. A similar boundary argument could be made here as all systems interact and the assignment of a system is arbitrary. The only solution is that consciousness is beyond physicality. Our body was arbitrarily defined by someone or something as our system boundary, And we experience its emergent properties as a vessel. This implies a god of some sorts.
The Ego isn't Emergent

Thanks for the interesting topic. While I don't ponder the concept of "Ego" very often, I hold a belief that is relevant to this topic. I believe that all consciousness comes from particles. Therefore, I also believe that ego comes from particles. My argument will be a rebuttal to your lap top scenario. Not all particles produce consciousness, So the particles in my laptop don't have an ego because they don't contain the proper particles to have it. In contrast. "I" have a thinking mind and I can impose my agency on the living world, Therefore I have very plain evidence of my ego. Furthermore, It could be the case that certain things do have egos, But we can't detect it because us action loving beings tend to see things that don't move or act in some way as having egos. Therefore, It could be the case that certain things like rocks do have egos, But to us it looks the same as just being a silly mindless rock. We could hurt the rocks feelings and would never know. Poor Rock. Your floor.
The Ego isn't Emergent

To be clear, I'm agnostic. Many atheists believe that the ego is nothing more than the manifestation of physical processes. If this is true, Then any feed back systems should have an ego of some sorts: an animal, A laptop, A calculator, Etc. I, However, Don't understand why the boundary of 'me' is where it is at. It seems arbitrary. If I am just a feed back system, "I" could have been a random clump of cells, Me + my cellphone, Me + you, Everyone in the world, Or even the entire universe. Being a separate "thing" explains nothing and misses the whole point. The body itself is partitioned. The brain is even partitioned. The different parts communicate much like how I communicate with you. The only rational explanation is that the ego transcends physicality.
Death penalty

First, the death penalty is very expensive. In fact, more expensive than keeping the criminal in prison for life. In 2011, it was found that California spent a whopping $4 billion on capital punishment. This money could have been used to help the families of the victims instead of killing the offender. The death penalty goes against many religions who regard it as immoral. A study has shown that death penalty plays virtually no role in deterring criminals. Finally, one of the most obvious points, innocent people have been wrongly executed. This is a mistake that you cannot fix and is a terrible occurrence. If the death penalty was not in place, this would give investigators the time necessary to realize and declare the person innocent instead of just killing them. http://www.deathpenalty.org... The death penalty is actually "applied" almost at random. It depends more on the politics and judges of the court than on the offense itself. http://www.americamagazine.org... Frankly, I see absolutely no benefits of the death penalty.
Death penalty

The crimes of rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury pivot on a moral code that escapes apodictic [indisputably true] proof by expert testimony or otherwise. But communities would plunge into anarchy if they could not act on moral assumptions less certain than that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. Abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation. But that is an article of faith, not of fact. The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense