BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bryan Mullins: The Forensic Math Decimal and how it works

The forensic math decimal is pretty simple. Phillip Alan David, 7, 5622 Basic Lane, Manning, ND (The first kid that was slaughtered and eaten for not believing in Christmas) First you start with 18,568,322 (The number of children who were slaughtered and eaten for not believing in Christmas) Then you divide it by 19 (years since 1998, not calendar wise) then divide it by 365 (The number of days in a year) then you get the first decimal number, which you translate first, which is translated as "Phillip" then divide the decimal by the middle number of the decimal, then use that number to translate to his middle name, which would translate to "Alan" then last but not least, divide that by its middle number than multiply it to the second power than divide by 2, which you get the last name "David" then if you want his age, add the main numbers before the dot of the decimal, then divide by 3, in this case of "Phillip Alan David" you get the number 7. Then you take that same process to find his home (legitimate address) then you found it which is 5622 Basic Lane Manning, ND. Same with Michelle Shawn Isaac, 9, 47 Leo Street, San Francisco, CA (The last kid who was slaughtered and eaten for not believing in Christmas) With the whole process to find the last kid who was slaughtered and eaten for not believing in Christmas. Then you calculate the same way to find her home address which is 47 Leo Street San Francisco, CA.
The Earth has stopped warming

The topic of debate is statistical in nature, and I expected a substantive response to that. In any case, let's examine the claim that global warming in a lie set up by the media. First, did the media participate in the discovery of global warming by Svante Arhenius in 1896? (Excellent paper, for those interested.) Now, if the media were driving the global warming discourse, as opposed to climate scientists, you would expect that the general public, influenced by the media, would be convinced of climate science, probably more so than the scientific community (who would tend to know better.) What are the facts? Surveys have shown that while the public -- particularly in the US -- is largely divided on the question of global warming, scientists largely agree it's real (85%-90%), and climate scientists are unanimously convinced it's real (97%). See recent surveys, such as Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009; Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010; etc.
Scientific Evidence Supports the Theory of Evolution

My opponent has proved himself to be atroll that has no desire for a rational discussion on the evidence for evolution. I have already defined what a theory is so to say that it is "only a theory" is absolutely absurd! Indeed, a theory is a well supported, conceptual framework, that encompasses a large body of scientific facts, inferences, ata, and observations and explains them in a coherent way. So in contrast, evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a theory in the sense that the various facts, tested hypothesis bearing on evolution can be broadly explained as a manifestation of the same overall process. However, it is a fact because many of its compontents (i.e., natural selection, speciation, mutations, genetic drift, genetic erosion, adaptations etc) are so well observed and documented that they cannot be reasonably disputed [1]. Indeed, the atomic theory of the nature of matter is still referred to as a theory and the germ theory of disease is still referred to as the germ theory.My opponent confuses evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution has no bearing on how life first evolved. As Berkely College notes: Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changedafter its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes. [2] Hence, my opponent essentially straw manned the entire theory! In conclusion, my opponent has not responded to any of my arguments. Moreover, he has simply brought up points on evolution that is irrelavent and totally misses the point on what a theory means! Vote Pro!References1. Fairbanks, D. Evolving: The Human Effect and Why it Matters. Ahmerst: Prometheus Books, 2012. Print. 2. Understanding Evolution. 2012. University of California Museum of Paleontology. 22 August 2008. Retrieved 26 Sep 2012 from http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Abortion

Again, I pose my previous three questions, as you did not answer them. I refuse to continue rebutting the same points. Once again, you have shown that you refuse to be gender-inclusive, and the Roe v Wade subject is your personal opinion on the matter. Furthermore, non-sentient beings do not have constitutional rights. And lastly, abortions should not be restricted in early weeks, pregnant people should not be required to have counseling and ultrasounds. This can cause guilt in people who wanted the pregnancy but were physically/mentally unable to carry it, and the lengthy wait periods caused by these things could render a pregnant person unable to have the abortion in the end.
Abortion

I'm not interested in pro-life poetry, or whatever it is you're doing, I'm interested in a debate. This means both sides listen and respond to each other. The point of debate is rebuttal, and so far you have not presented anything I cannot rebut, and when I do rebut it, you present it again. You have provided no secular points to show that abortion is wrong, or at least, none that I did not have abundant proof against. And, I'm afraid, if we continue going in circles, this debate will have no point. I would like answers to these questions, if you would: 1) Why do you refuse to include trans people in your discussion of abortion? 2) Why do you think non-pregnant people should have rights over the pregnant person's body? 3) Why do you think non-sentient beings are given the same concrete rights clearly stated as belonging to sentient beings, by both science and the government itself?
Abortion

Introduction to the abortion debate Definition Abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy. Arguments against abortion People who believe abortion is morally wrong use arguments like the following. Killing people is wrong killing innocent human beings is wrong human life begins at conception therefore the foetus is an innocent human being therefore killing the foetus is wrong therefore abortion is always wrong A foetus is a person A foetus has a unique genetic code A foetus is a unique individual Killing potential people is wrong it is wrong to destroy potential human life from conception onwards the foetus is a potential human being therefore it is wrong to destroy the foetus therefore abortion is always wrong Killing beings with 'a future like ours' is wrong it is wrong to kill beings that would have a future like ours if they lived in most cases the foetus, if not aborted, would have a future like ours it is wrong to kill such a foetus therefore abortion is usually wrong Causing pain is wrong it is wrong to cause pain and suffering a foetus is sufficiently developed to feel pain by 18 weeks therefore it is wrong to carry out an abortion after 18 weeks of pregnancy Increasing tolerance of killing is wrong allowing abortion is legalising killing legalising killing reduces people's respect for life reducing society's respect for life is a bad thing - it may lead to euthanasia, genocide and increased murder rates therefore abortion is always wrong Arguments in favour of abortion (in selected cases) Most of these arguments are to be read in the context of the first two arguments above. People who don't believe abortion is always morally wrong use arguments like this: The foetus is not necessarily a 'person' with the right to live a collection of human cells does not have the right to live just because it is of the human species otherwise amputating a limb would be murder a collection of human cells only has the right to live by virtue of certain facts these are either: it has reached a particular stage of development that makes it a moral 'person' it possesses certain properties that make it a moral 'person' It is not always wrong to end the life of an innocent person there are many cases where we have to choose which of two innocent people will live and which will die: conjoined twins, where the operation to separate them may cause one twin to die mountaineering, when one person can only save their own life by cutting the rope supporting a fallen colleague the case of a woman who had to abandon one of her children to save the other 'Potential human beings' don't have rights only 'actual' human beings have rights The pregnant woman has moral rights too under some circumstances these may override the foetus's right to live these moral rights include: the right to ownership of her own body the right to decide her own future the right to take decisions without moral or legal intervention by others the pregnant woman has the right to life - where not aborting the foetus would put the mother's life or health in danger, she has the moral right to abort the foetus Citations: http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Abortion

I feel like I'm having trouble responding to this. To me, it is clear that you did not read my arguments, as I already gave a rational outline as to why defining abortion as murder is incorrect by the definition of the two words. I also want to clarify this: I would like some secular, gender-inclusive reasons as to why abortion is wrong. And, Exodus 21:22 is clearly implying that this was a wanted pregnancy by both the woman and the man. Also, the situation described in Exodus 21:22 is domestic violence. It doesn't matter what your belief is, there is no reason to deny bodily autonomy. The rights of the pregnant person take precedence, as shown in the two cases presented to you. There is no reason for these rights to be denied. Bodily autonomy is inalienable, even if it could be used to provide life to another (again, as shown in McFall v Shimp). This "life in the womb" is not allowed to use the body of the pregnant person without the clear consent of the pregnant person themselves. Also, I'd like to point out before this arises: consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. The fetus is not viable by definition. They are not yet a sentient human being by definition. This is not stated to "ease the conscience". It is stated because it is clear scientific fact. The person who got the pregnant person pregnant (or, as you state, the "father") does not and should not have rights in the decision. They are not the pregnant person. They do not have the right to infringe upon bodily autonomy, just as the fetus does not have the same right. I fear for the safety of your previous roommate around you and pray she was not affected by your outright bigotry and unjust disgust at her decision, the guilt you supposedly felt. You, nor her, are not "guilty" of anything. She made the best choice for her, and ultimately, you do not have input in what she does. It saddens me that she had to go through that with a roommate like you, though I do not know the full situation, and I pray she is alright. Though it doesn't seem like you read my previous argument at all. I am attempting to be civil, to state my point rationally here as I did before. But if you don't read what I say, we'll just be going in circles.
Abortion

I look forward to it. I'd like to clarify a few points in my own argument: firstly, I'd like to begin by saying that women are not the only people who can get pregnant, and men are not the only people who can get people pregnant. While I don't know your stance on trans issues, I do want to be inclusive in my language in this debate. I'd also like to point out that bodily autonomy is an inalienable right, guaranteed to all sentient beings. In addition, I would like to say that not everyone shares the religious belief or Christianity. Your own spiritual belief, in my opinion, is no reason to deny someone their choice. In conclusion of the first paragraph, I will keep my debate secular and gender-inclusive, regardless of if you choose to do the same. Abortion is not murder, by the very definition of murder. The definition given by Google is "the premeditated, unlawful killing of one human being by another". While abortions are often "premeditated", by the word's very definition, they are not unlawful and have no reason to be, ruling out one of the main points in the definition. Also, the fetus is not sentient, and this definition's use of "human being" counts sentient beings and sentient beings only. Comparing abortion to war is, in my opinion, quite insensitive, especially considering what our soldiers fight for. They fight for freedom, and bodily autonomy is included in that. War includes murder, first of all, the definition of which I have already reviewed. The family itself should be a choice, a responsible one between people involved. And while I do believe this, abortion is the pregnant person's choice first and foremost. If the pregnant person has no desire to allow the fetus to use their body, they have no obligation to do so. As I mentioned before this is outlined in Roe v. Wade (. https://en.wikipedia.org...) and McFall v Shimp (. https://en.wikipedia.org...). These two cases show the importance of bodily autonomy in any and all cases, even if they could be used to sustain the life of another. This brings me to my next point: the fetus does not have an automatic right to use the body of the pregnant person to maintain life. This is especially true if the pregnant person cannot physically or mentally handle a pregnancy, but is true in all cases as well. The life of the fetus does not begin at the point of conception. Zygotes do not, by the definition of the word, have sentience, and because of that they can not be considered living. The genetic code, while unique to this person, is still no reason to infringe upon bodily autonomy. An article on bodily autonomy can be found here: . https://en.wikipedia.org... My definition of murder can be found here: . https://www.google.com...
Abortion

Abortion is never a mere personal choice but a grave offense against God and His creation. The anti-abortion struggle has always been a religious battle and foremost in its ranks have been Catholics across the country. This is because Church teaching on abortion is clear and unequivocal: Abortion is murder. There are no exceptions allowed, no compromises possible. The continuing war on terror has lead to a renewed national consciousness of the high price of war, and, for many, a heightened desire for peace. Yet, despite all this concern, the most horrible war of all has gone all but unnoticed. This is a war going on within our own borders, and it has claimed 57 million American lives in the last 43 years. This scourge is as horrible as anything terrorists can fathom, because it strikes at the very core of humanity and our country: the family. By destroying the most basic human bond of all"that between mother and child"abortion dissolves the precious glue that binds our nation together. While mother and child are the first victims, there is not a single element of society that is not affected by abortion. Mother, child, father, husband, aunt, uncle, friend, sibling and grandparent alike suffer the scars of the abortionist"s scalpel. Peace abroad is meaningless without peace at home. This is the definition given in any respectable medical textbook. To declare a beginning of life at any point after the fusing of a wife"s egg and a husband"s contribution is irrational and an exercise in sophistical chicanery. Only machines such as clocks and cars come into existence part by part. Living beings come into existence all at once and gradually unfold their world of innate potential. A living human person begins to exist at the moment of conception, even though only as a cell. What is important is not the accident of size or weight but the essence " which is fully human. The unborn baby has a distinct, unchanging and unrepeatable genetic code, unique in all of history, from the moment of conception till death. Nothing is added except nutrition and oxygen. Citations: http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
Abortion

Abortion isn't murder. Fetuses aren't sentient beings, and the only time that abortions could be performed when they are sentient is in cases of medical emergencies. Abortion needs to stay safe and legal. Not everyone has access to contraceptives, and there are still cases of rape, incest, abuse, etc. Making abortion illegal would not stop abortions, only make them more dangerous. "Coat hanger" abortions pose a serious risk to the pregnant person, they could die from internal bleeding, infection, or any number of other things. Finally, banning abortion infringes on bodily autonomy. The pregnant person has no obligation to allow the fetus to live off their body. Such cases as McFall v. Shrimp and Roe v. Wade indicate this perfectly. There are also many cases where the person got pregnant but cannot physically or mentally handle a child. Or, there are cases in which a trans person got pregnant and it caused them severe dysphoria. No matter the reason, abortion should be safe and legal for everyone. Not your uterus, not your opinion.
Barack Obama has views contradictory to Libertarianism

As my opponent has already conceded my proposition, I extend all arguments. Please remember that since my opponent affirms that obama does in fact have views contradictory to libertarianism, I won the debate, as his duty was to argue CON- that obama does not have views contradictory to libertarianism, as I showed Obamma does in fact have views contradictory to libertarian, and my opponent agrees with me, I feel confident that I won this debate.
Barack Obama has views contradictory to Libertarianism

To define Libertarianism, Libertarianism is a broad spectrum of political philosophies, each sharing the common overall priority of maximum limitation of government combined with optimum possible individual liberty. Its goals, though often varied in detail, prioritize freedom of speech and assembly, freedom to bear arms, freedom of and from religion, Press freedom, economic freedom, and freedom of ownership. Libertarianism rejects the compulsions of socialism and communism, upholding, by contrast, private property, whether held on an individual or group basis. It promotes personal responsibility and private charity, as opposed to welfare statism. More specifically, Libertarianism is the freedom to do as you will as long as it does not harm anybody else. Of course, Barack Obama has views that differ from Libertarianism but he is a candidate who is good with Libertarian issues and can win. As Libertarians we often have to choose between voting for a candidate we agree with more or voting for a candidate who can win and has a large amount of acceptable views. Barack Obama is such a candidate. - Obama supports the ending of No Child Left Behind, which will lesser the government and imporove education. - Obama supports civil rights for all people like Libertarians. - Obama supports lower taxes for the middle class like Libertarians. - Obama wants to crack down on mortgage fraud. Libertarians are huge on crime, especially fraud. - Libertarians are huge on the environment, like Obama. - Obama wants to reward good teachers. Libertarians support punishing bad schools and rewarding good ones. - Obama is huge on all faiths equal in government, like Libertarians. - Obama wants to make the tax stystem more efficient like Libertarians. - Obama supports wants fiscal discipline. - Obama supports meeting with other countries. - Obama supports less government intervention in foreign affairs, which the Libertarian Party is huge on. - Obama wants to create a border fence. - Obama supports government integrity with veterans. There are some things that Obama lacks on with Libertarians. Those include: gun control, social security and seemingly health care. - He is completely devoid of Libertarianism on gun control. He supports it but this is an example of nobody agreeing 100% of any candidate. - He wants to protect social security instead of privatizing it. Shame, shame. - His health care plan, however, is magic. It supports all Americans but simultaneously allow competition by allowing Americans to choose from over 200 countries. Libertarians support tax breaks so that competition will be allowed and encouraged but Obama appeases Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians who actualy look into his specific health care plan. I think Obama has some non Libertarianistic views but he has a lot and I am confident in supporting him as a Libertarian. Thank you.
Barack Obama has views contradictory to Libertarianism

I noticed that you were a "Libertarian", yet you contradict your beleif in Libertarianism by supporting Obama. I think that you can not really be a true 'Libertarain' and support Obama. To define Libertarianism, Libertarianism is a broad spectrum of political philosophies, each sharing the common overall priority of maximum limitation of government combined with optimum possible individual liberty. Its goals, though often varied in detail, prioritize freedom of speech and assembly, freedom to bear arms, freedom of and from religion, Press freedom, economic freedom, and freedom of ownership. Libertarianism rejects the compulsions of socialism and communism, upholding, by contrast, private property, whether held on an individual or group basis. It promotes personal responsibility and private charity, as opposed to welfare statism. More specifically, Libertarianism is the freedom to do as you will as long as it does not harm anybody else. Obama's socialistic economic policies are contradictory to Libertarianism, especially Libertarianism as supported by the LP.
Africans cannot assist theirselves

Dictionary definitions of xenophobia include: deep-rooted, irrational hatred towards foreigners (Oxford English Dictionary; OED), unreasonable fear or hatred of the unfamiliar http://en.wikipedia.org... what do i say about this ? i say that xenophobia can be found anywhere in the world and has nothing to do with africans being able to help themselves AFRICAN "ASSISTING " http://www.grocotts.co.za... http://www.dreamstime.com... clearly i have just provided proof that yes they can in fact assist thereselves
Politicians should not be allowed to personally benefit from legislation they vote for or draft

I agree there is corruption is government. But it seems that the pro speaker does not understand were it is or how to really stop it. The examples brought up will not be stopped and "benefit" is non specific and can make the problem worse. The donations taken by politicians is how they run a for office and try to stay there. The donations are also not a benefit from legislation, it is just giving money to someone you like. The amount is limited, and is only used for the campaign. Now the speaker fees do go personally to the individual but this is also not from legislation that was voted on, it is just someone speaking with some credentials. Bill Gates and Carly Fiorina do speeches for money too. We must also address that being a politician is there job. They need money too. The amount is also restricted to change. They work hard, change the country, and make some cash too. We might see how much and say it is way too much for what they do, but they could easily move to the private sector and make way more. Being a politician is not all dandelions and cash, it is grueling and hard.