BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
How an accurance happenes in a religon to where it can change the face of that religon.

Definitions: Accurance – Common misspelling of ‘occurrence': an incident or event. Religion – Details of belief as taught or discussed Change – Make or become different Face – The front of a person's head Profile – An outline of something For the final two definitions I will assume my opponent is ascribing less literal meanings and refers to them in the more generalized and contextual concepts of generally accepted practice, belief structure and perception. Therefore, as Pro, it will be my responsibility to prove that events affecting a religion do indeed change the religion's profile, or "the way in which it is perceived and/or practiced. " If my opponent believes I am mistaken in any of my definitions or the way I have summarized this debate he should correct me wherever necessary. I will now give a few quick examples of where an occurrence changed the profile of a religion, whereby ‘these occurrences' changed the way in which the specific religion was perceived and/or practiced. Christianity: The fundamental belief structure of Christianity finds its origins within Judaism. The occurrence of Paul's revelation or even simply the existence of Jesus changed many of the beliefs of its original Jewish adherents. While this occurrence did not change the profile of Judaism (though it did change perceptions of it), it did change religion forever, spawning one of the most widely practiced belief systems in the world today. [2] Judaism: Many of Judaism's practices are entirely dependent on the existence of the Jewish temple. When the final destruction of the temple occurred, many of the important rituals practiced in Judaism ceased, entirely changing its profile into much of what is considered modern Judaism. [3] Islam The occurrence within Islam that perpetrated the split between the beliefs of Sunni and Shia Muslims has had the effect of changing the profile of Islam at large. While those perceptions may all be external, it leads to a perception of disunity, whereas prior, the cultural differences may have been less pronounced, or avoided further inevitability. Non-the-less, this occurrence has had a fundamental impact on the profile of the religion due partly to perception, but may also include practice and certainly includes belief. [4] I would like to thank my opponent and look forward to his response. [1] Dictionary. com [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.islamfortoday.com...
"Atheists and Satanists are working on the same side"

:) (If you have "Zoom" downloaded, feel free to debate me LIVE! (I will only record the audio portion, meaning your face won't be exposed, but will also alter your voice for the sake of anonimity) Rebuttals "I do not believe they are working on the same side exactly. Satanists associate with worship of 'Satan', while Athiests do not believe in a higher power regardless, whether it be 'God' or 'Satan'. Two different lifestyles, two different belief systems. " Yes. Like said, Satanists believe that a monotheistic, christian God exists. However, they worship SATAN, while Atheists simply lack belief in the claims of any gods until evidence is provided to support the claim/validly follow the conclusion that their claims are true, thus not working exactly on the same side. It seems like you've already conceded, seeing as you even say YOURSELF that they don't work exactly on the same side. "The only thing I can say is that yes, they do not wish to associate themselves with the biblical 'God'," Yes. However, they don't have the same EXACT opinions on deities, like you have admitted, thus conceding to loss.
"Atheists and Satanists are working on the same side"

I take your debate, I do not believe they are working on the same side exactly. Satanists associate with worship of 'Satan', while Athiests do not believe in a higher power regardless, whether it be 'God' or 'Satan'. Two different lifestyles, two different belief systems. The only thing I can say is that yes, they do not wish to associate themselves with the biblical 'God', but then again, they don't have the same opinions on a deity.
"Atheists and Satanists are working on the same side"

Rules If either Pro or I fail to comply with the following rules, 7 points will automatically be deducted from that person. 1. No plagiarizing; Don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own. 2. You may only troll when things get completely out of hand. 3. The BoP (Burden of Proof) is shared. Presentation Satanists believe that a monotheistic, christian god exists. However, they worship SATAN, as an Atheist lacks belief in a god/gods until evidence is provided to support the claim/validly follow the conclusion that the claim is true. Although some Atheists (Just like some Satan followers) abolish God, they don't work EXACTLY on the same side!
The Common Core should be Abolished

This issue is one that is important to me and I'm glad I have the opportunity to debate it. Unfortunately for me, I accepted this without realizing that I was on the "Pro" side. Fortunately for everyone else, I consider myself versatile enough to debate both sides of most topics, this one included. I accept the opponent's Rules, though I do have some concerns regarding the "privileges" that he has allowed. I'll elaborate.1. Claiming that a source is "unreliable" is itself not grounds for the dismissal of the argument in question or the validity of the source. Most "sources" reference deeper studies or present logical terms, so the validity of a citation should be evaluated according to these standards. There are many things Wikipedia says that are correct, while there are many things Forbes magazine says that are not. If the opponent disagrees with this, then I'll forewarn him that I will immediately declare all of his citations as "unreliable", as this privilege gives me that right. 2. Logic is independent of the "beliefs of the majority". Ie, if I claimed that "Raw fish is gross because it smells bad," and the majority agreed -- that would not make my argument any more or less logical than if they did not. A logical argument is either "valid" or "invalid" and the content of our presentations and contentions of logical arguments should focus on that. 3. While I don't really agree with arbitrarly choosing only four magazines as "correct", I'm fine with this so long as the opponent respects the difference between "magazines" and "scientific journals". 4. Literally every entity that distributes information is in some ways biased. I reject the notion that CNN/Fox News/whatever is inadmissable simply on the basis that the network in question has a bias. If fox news claims that SpaceX recently landed a rocket on a floating buoy in the ocean, they are either correct or incorrect. Their bias does not determine their correctness. If the opponent disagrees with this, I could easily argue that his entire argument is inadmissable since it comes from a biased source. (Him, trying to win a debate.)5. This is fine by me. If my argument happens to be the same as another person's somewhere, consider it a happy accident. With all that out of the way, I genuinely look forward to the opponent's arguments. Good luck!
The Common Core should be Abolished

Before we begin the debate, let's set some rules/standards Debate Period: 1st round: Simply greetings and acceptance (i.e. Opponent agrees to the debate and terms of the debate. Opponent may add on to the terms, and the Host (i.e. me) may accept them or reject them.). 2nd round: Main arguments only. 3rd-5th round: Arguments/Rebuttals/Counters/Additional Points. Rules: - No trolling. - No insults - A forfeit is an automatic loss. -Cite sources. (You can chose not to cite sources, but only if you are applying with your own logic, i.e. You are using your logic to make a statement). Privileges: - You may declare sources as unreliable. (e.x. Magazines*, Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Urban Dictionary). You may however, use these unreliable sources as references, but not for a debate. Doing so will render arguments/ statements involved with these sources null and void. - If you are applying logic, a majority must agree with that logic. Majority as in asking in the comments with the other people. I'n that case, use #'s on both sides when using logic in your statement (example: #If Suzie went to the mall, it's her birthday.#) This may not apply if both Debaters agree in the logic. - *Only Four Magazines may be allowed as a exception, "Forbes, The Economist, TIME, and The Atlantic" - Biased/one-sided news sources are not allowed (example, Fox News has a conservative bias and CNN has a liberal bias) - Plagiarism from previous debates of the same topics will be treated as a forfeit. Be original.
Racism in America has always been white/non-white, not black/non-black or white

It's on both sides of the slash to show that it can be cross applied. So my argument still stands. If we use the book that your source gives us, "How the Irish became White" we can see that this occured in the 1848, during the Mexican-American War. Boss Tweed was in the late 1880s. We can see that this discrimination crossed over into the 20th century. So we can see that there was still White on White discrimination. (http://academic.udayton.edu...) To further my argument you give us a great source in your second. It tells of the Blacks of Sicily, not all of Italy. So we can cross extend the Italians into the argument as well. Even when a wave of Southern Europeans hit the US the discrimination was high. Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Turks, etc... s://desertpeace.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" /> It even extended into pre9/11 America were even US senators were funding terrorism in Ireland on both sides. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and (http://www.pbs.org...)
Racism in America has always been white/non-white, not black/non-black or white

With this we can see that the this White on White Racism is outside of the resolution and thus Con wins the debate.I think you read it wrong. I meant black/non-black or black/white. There's a reason the white was on the other side of the slash.But to disprove your case: the Irish, Italians and Spanish were not always considered white either.http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.africaresource.com...Anyways, more examples of racism being directed at non-whites altogether not just blacks: Mexicans lynched Santa Cruz, California More pictures of Mexicans lynchedhttp://www.gateschili.org...Japanese lynched
Racism in America has always been white/non-white, not black/non-black or white

Alright, let's start with a definition. Always- every time; on every occasion; without exception (http://dictionary.reference.com...)This means that all I have to do is prove a white/white or a black/black racism and that instance will disprove the entire resolution and thus winning me the debate. In the north the Irish were discriminated against. Boss Tweed decided to help the Irish, but in return the Irish had to give up their vote/vote for Democrats in the New York elections. (http://www.fasttrackteaching.com...) There was also a political party known as the Know Nothings that came out of the northeast. Their main goal was to target and rid the US of the Irish and their Catholicism. (http://history1800s.about.com...) The KKK, which is most famously known for their anti-African American tactics have also targeted the Irish and the Catholic church. (http://www.thecatholicthing.org...) s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" /> s://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...; alt="" />More racism here is even found amongst our founding fathers. John Jay has even been quoted pushing for a creation of a "wall of brass" to exlcude the Catholics from the nation. (http://www.nytimes.com...)With this we can see that the this White on White Racism is outside of the resolution and thus Con wins the debate.
Racism in America has always been white/non-white, not black/non-black or white

The United States of America was built on white superiority, and as a result hatred of other ethnicities. In the USA alone, we saw the following: Westward expansion against Native Americans. The Trail of Tears is a well-known tragedy of history. Andrew Jackson implemented racist policy of forcing Native Americans on reservations, thus robbing them. Another case, which also shows Abraham Lincoln was a racist was the slaughter of 7 tribesman in Minnesota, who were denied a fair trial. s://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...; alt="" /> As the pictures can indicate, the hatred was directed at any non-white.http://en.wikipedia.org...;
The United States should ban travel from Africa because of Ebola

Yes as it is "unfair" to the people who don't have Ebola or who have not come in contact with Ebola, we still need to ban trade and travel to prevent the widespread that this disease can cause. As there is no current way to examine a human to tell if they have the disease or not, we need to immediately ban travel and trade FROM Africa. In a human symptoms of the Ebolavirus currently do not appear until 2-3 days after they are diagnosed. So surely there is no way to tell if someone has the disease by looking at them in the early stages. Death begins to occur between 6-16 days of having Ebola. As to being unfair to those in Africa who do not have the disease, other countries have to take precautions into people coming from Africa because it is a National health security issue. Ebolavirus is currently on a rampage through Africa and anyone who comes from there is potentially a risk to National security. http://www.who.int...
The United States should ban travel from Africa because of Ebola

I guess it would be alright if they did ban travel from Africa, but what about the people who were never in contact with someone who has Ebola. There should be tests that people have to take, if it's positive, they can't go on the plane, and if it's not positive they can go wherever they need to go. It's not fair for the people who were never in contact with anyone who has Ebola
The United States should ban travel from Africa because of Ebola

Travel from Africa to the United States should be banned for a certain time period, for the safety of the American citizens. 7 people in America, in all, have or have had Ebola. The CDC reports that Ebola has never spread to this many countries before. They also report that by January, there will be 1.4 million people infected with Ebola. Travel from Africa or certain parts of Africa should be banned.
natural cause+effect=chaos

Pro, I always look forward in a mutual constructive learning experience in any debate. May we both enjoy the flow of ideas. Since you posted no debate rules, I will start by stating my position. Definition of chaos from Dictionary.com:http://dictionary.reference.com... “a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order.”Pro stated in the title of this debate that “natural cause+effect=chaos.” My position maintains, there is more order than chaos in the universe. For example, Pro was kind enough to give a few examples of what Pro considers to be a subset of chaos. Let's take the most plausible case of “an apple falling from a tree in a storm rolls down a hill, is chaos” according to Pro. In fact, if this event was “chaos,” then there would be an equal probability that the apple will not only fall from the tree, but have the same chance of projecting upward towards the sky. Since both animate and inanimate are confined within the matrix of the Laws of Nature, and there are no exceptions, one of those Laws is Gravity. Therefore, before the apple separates from the tree, we have a 100% confidence level that the apple will fall towards the earth, and not having its final resting place somewhere in the sky. In addition, we know it will roll downhill, not uphill. As for knowing the final resting place of the apple beforehand, is simply a reflection of our infallible primitive metrology technology in measuring all those vectors of force within the space-time window of interest. One day, we may have such technology, and on that day, we will know the final resting place the apple will fall during that storm. Another example my opponent gave were “the branches of a tree springs out in random directions is chaos.” The tree pattern is common and found throughout the universe with a level of predictable parameters defined within the Constructal Law. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...The following YouTube video is a simple overview of the Constructal Law: http://www.youtube.com...
natural cause+effect=chaos

any non intended cause is chaos cause+effect=logic the movement of leaves blowing in the wind is chaos, the branchs of a tree springs out in random directions is chaos, the waved pattern and shape of sand dunes in the desert are shaped randomly by the wind, chaoticly an apple falling from a tree in a storm rolls down a hill, is chaos, where it lands is chaos, where it is is chaos, what happens to it that isnt intended is chaos
natural cause+effect=chaos

You call that a proof? Let's try this. There are a known set of constants manifested from the physical Laws of Nature. If the Laws of Nature were chaotic, then we will have no universal constants; they would be randomly changing, having no constants at all. Physical constants:http://physics.nist.gov... http://physics.nist.gov...http://physics.nist.gov...http://physics.nist.gov...
natural cause+effect=chaos

Life is a product of the physical Laws of Nature, these Laws represent order not chaos.The Constructal lLaw, discovered in 1996, governs evolution in biology, physics, technology, and social organization. This law provides a unified depiction and order of evolution, describing the freedom of flow generates configuration, from the dynamics of morphing, guided by the matrix of the laws of nature through time, whether animate or inanimate.http://www.amazon.com... As for “morality,” it is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, which are an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics, a part of the physical Laws of Nature; not chaos.http://www.amazon.com... The burden of proof (BoP) is on Pro to prove that the physical Laws of Nature comes from chaos.
natural cause+effect=chaos

Thank you for your response. Apparently Pro disagrees with the definition of chaos where there is no “organization or order.” Pro claims there is order in chaos but offers no proof. Definition of chaos from Dictionary.com:http://dictionary.reference.com... “a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order.”In addition, I'm confuse what “natural laws” have to do with chaos. Perhaps, my opponent could elaborate on chaos relative to “natural laws.”Natural laws: describe the use of reason to analyze human nature, the rules of moral behavior, and the relationship of these elements to social values and civil law from a philosophical standpoint.http://plato.stanford.edu...
There is no such thing as right and wrong

You basically are arguing against your own point. "Rape is ultimately wrong but at one point in time culturally speaking it was an over-looked offence" Rape is wrong because we choose to take it very seriously (chosen by people) this includes the law. Therefore your saying rape is mortally wrong, where in some countries its fine. The Ten Commandments 1.) Thou shalt have no other gods before me 2.) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image 3.) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain 4.) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy 5.) Honour thy father and thy mother 6.) Thou shalt not kill 7.) Thou shalt not commit adultery 8.) Thou shalt not steal 9.) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. 10.) Thou shalt not covet In most places, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal are mortally wrong. We don't chose to abide these because a person said to, or because they make sense. Because they or morally wrong, if everybody decided to do these things, tons of people would be murdered for no apparent reason because they have free will. Jesus wrote the 10 commandments. Some believe him not to be a human, but a spirit. Take it however you wish. But we can distinguish between what is right and wrong with common understanding, knowledge and common sense.
There is no such thing as right and wrong

You may take it from any viewpoint you like. Right and wrong are subjective concepts. There are things today that we may consider ultimately right and ultimately wrong. Rape is ultimately wrong but at one point in time culturally speaking it was an over-looked offence. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) (Deuteronomy 21:10-14) As society grows and cultures become more complex and populous the needs of the people within the society change. right and wrong is a decision created by the people subject to it. Individuals gather around and figure out what is acceptable and unacceptable and what the society is better off without (rape, murder, stealing, etc.) What may be right for us may be wrong elsewhere, where a different cultural group has developed different viewpoints that may or may not apply to us. There is no transcendent right and wrong.
I will not contradict myself

As I've liked these debates when they've cropped up on this site, I've decided to do one of my own. Here are the rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. 10. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate. 11. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked. http://www.merriam-webster.com...