BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gym class should be cut

Anxiety in adults is bad for our society as a lot of resources and billions of dollars are used to fix anxiety and depression in the adult population. Here is where exercise in school comes in: I think it is time to deal with the source of anxiety which is the fact that children sit down too much in school and mainly uses the brain to workout problems. This way of living will inevitably cause stress due to TOO much thinking, and a way to fix this would be to have the children to do more physical exercise in other words using the body instead of the brain to workout problems. I totally think it would be worth "sacrificing" a bit of head-knowledge in order to restore the well-being of our lives. This could be done by replacing many subjects in school with physical exercise. And if we do so I"m convinced that the sacrificed knowledge of the younger population will be gained if not increased, after a few years with the new healthy minds. This will prevent billions of dollars being used on medicine and other treatments for multiple illnesses each year. Studies show that: "It has also been proved that when students are involved in a physical activity program, there is an improved rate of academic learning per unit of class time (Taras, 2005) and that increased time spent in physical education does not negatively affect student scores. A study done in France increased its physical education time to 8 hours per week, reducing time devoted to academic subjects. The students in this experiment were physically and psychologically healthier and had increased academic performance when compared to the control group (Sallis, 1999)." So by replacing hours with thinking while sitting in the classroom with hours doing physical exercises, will at some point benefit the individual and society on multiple levels. Students should have physical education every day. It gives people extra time to exercise. Most kids are obese. This could bring down the obesity rate. P.E. teaches teamwork, and let's kids have fun finding their active talent or quality. Most obese kids get bullied. This will give them time to exercise so then they won't be made fun of.
The war in Iraq

The War in Iraq was a poor idea. Here are the principle reasons why the War in Iraq was (and is) a bad idea. No justification for invasion Casualties of Iraq War Almost $3 trillion in financial costs No plan after invasion Damage to U.S. alliances over world Disruption in Oil production C1: No justification for invasionThere was no good reason for invading Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction were ever discovered after the invasion of Iraq. Therefore, Bush's statement that we have to eliminate their weapons of mass destruction is false. There were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. [1] Plus, it is widely argued that we illegally invaded Iraq, violating international law. [2]C2: Casualties of Iraq WarBecause of the Iraq War, over 4,100 Americans have lost their lives, believing that they were protecting their country. Why should they sacrifice their lives for an unjust cause? [3] Additionally to this, over 150,000 Iraqis have lost their lives, and over 80% of these deaths were civilians. [4] Also, now half of Iraq's children are orphans. [5] C3: Almost $3 Trillion in financial costsThis is outrageous. $3 trillion in costs for no real reason, it is not a good idea to use taxpayers money to kill hundreds of thousands and dismantling a country and endangering a region. [6]C4: No Plan After InvasionWe had no plan after invasion. All the focus was to get Saddam Hussein, but then what? Did Bush say let's make Iraq a democracy and nation build! If you did hear this, I'd like to see proof.C5: Damage to U.S. Alliances over worldThe USA got a negative reputation worldwide after unilaterally acting on invasion for no real reason. With a few exceptions, many nations in the middle east have been angered at our actions, including traditionally important allies such as Israel. [7]C6: Disruption in Oil ProductionSince the Iraqi War began, oil prices have been volatile, and the $3 trillion could of been invested into domestic renewable energy to save tens of thousands of lives, reduce the effects of global warming, save much money, and have numerous other benefits, and a cleaner environment. Still, oil prices have tripled since the Iraq War began. Sources: [1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[3] http://www.defense.gov...[4] http://www.iraqbodycount.org...[5] http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org...[6] http://www.reuters.com...[7] http://www.pewglobal.org...
Hunting is bad.

How is hunting worse than farms? With hunting, the animals live freely and have a chance to live, with farms they don't. People who are against hunting are usually ignorant and ill informed. I know countless people who are against hunting, but then are happy to buy a factory farmed big mac. It's the media making out that hunting is bad so that the greedy factory farmers can continue filling their wallets with your money. You are what you eat, so don't be a sheep. so you may say you want your family to live on that's not the fault of hunting its the fault of farms, which is something completely different I hope you agree now that hunting is ok! Thank you.
Hunting is bad.

Why would hunting be a bad thing? Because "innocent" animals get killed? Come on people, they do the same. It is just the life cycle. The strongest survive and the weaker are used as food. This is just nature. Just because humans are the smarter and superior race to animals, does not mean we cannot do the same. Besides, there are thousands of people that rely on hunting to get their food, meaning if there is no hunting allowed, they would die. Besides, is it not better that aggressive people shoot animals, and eat them, instead of shoot people or commit crimes. Hunting is a good thing, not only is it nature, but it also supports thousands of people in the struggle of getting food and surviving :)
Kids should not play football

We don't know exactly what kind of damage football is doing to players' brains, despite the fact that millions of people who play contact sports have been slamming their heads into each other thousands of times a year for decades. But we know that some have suffered from brain injuries as a result of those batterings, and we know that concerns about those brain injuries are growing to the point that many are starting to question the safety of playing the sport at all. we al know this for a fact
The Stories in The Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures are based on verifiably factual events

I wanted to debate your claim that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. I did not agree to debate the beliefs of the LDS church. I do not believe that anyone can prove that their religion is right, and I do not wish to attempt to prove that mine is right. "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." I find it incredibly difficult to believe your claim that you have thoroughly studied The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, the life of Joseph Smith, and LDS church history. However, it is clear to me that you have studied anti-Mormon literature a great deal. Though the Doctrine and Covenants is an integral part of the LDS religion, it is a collection of what the LDS faith believes to be revelations given to Joseph Smith and many others. As such, it would have to be excluded from this debate because it is not based on historical events. I know EXACTLY what the nickname "Joe Smith" means. It is intended, even by you, to insult Joseph Smith. Do not suppose that I have not studied my beliefs to their fullest extent. I have also studied Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, and many other religions extensively. I have also read hundreds of anti-Mormon literature books. I can quote The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price with ease. I have also studied archaeology in South America, Egypt, and the Middle East. Do not dismiss or underestimate my intelligence. I knew full well what I was doing when I joined the LDS church. I am not the foolish, brain-washed girl you believe me to be. I had a great deal of respect for you when I read your debate. I considered you a man of knowledge: someone who was objective and willing to look at all sides of a story. I also considered you a person who would be eager to read and study any new information given to him. I have been proved wrong. I will not continue this debate because my opponent has refused to acknowledge or accept my criteria.
The Stories in The Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures are based on verifiably factual events

I agree to most of the criteria-- the exception being that I would like to exclude the Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price from this debate because I believe that focusing on all three books is far to complex for one debate. Therefore, I purpose that we focus only on the Book of Mormon. Also, I would like to change the debate (not the criteria for the debate, but the debate itself). I would like to debate my opponent's claim that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. Lastly, I ask that my opponent refrain from slander of any kind. Nicknaming Joseph Smith "Joe Smith" started with the anti-Mormon movement in the 1830s and was used to harass, threaten, demean, ridicule, and persecute Mormons. I consider the use of that nickname as slander and find it incredibly offensive. I ask that the opponent, if he accepts the clarifications above, to begin his argument in Round 2.
The Stories in The Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures are based on verifiably factual events

I am presenting this challenge to 'wheelhouse3' who seems to be convinced that I am "afraid of being proved wrong" with regard to statements about the veracity of the events described in the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. It is up to the affirmative to prove that the stories in these books are factual. To do so Pro must provide evidence supporting her claims that is "generally accepted by scholars". I provide the following definitions: Mormon Scriptures: The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants Factual: restricted to or based on fact http://www.merriam-webster.com... Verifiable: Possible to verify http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Scholar: A specialist in a given branch of knowledge http://www.thefreedictionary.com... The term "generally accepted by scholars" will be taken to mean with regard to religion, 'a general consensus with experts in religion', and with regard to archaeological evidence, 'a general consensus amongst archaeologists'. This consensus must be shown to be true through some reputable source not biased by the topic. 'Biased by the topic' will be taken to mean 'overtly for or against Mormonism'. Opposition to Mormonism in the previous statement must be based on more than the facts in order to be considered 'overly against', ie. a Catholic scholar or organization can be considered "overtly against" because it has a vested religious interested in Mormonism not being based on facts. References to articles must be specified. In other words, don't just say "read this article", and post a link. If you are presenting an argument based on a source, state your argument, and use he source to verify where your argument came from. Don't expect me or the readers to use your sources other than to verify their reliability and conformity with your argument. I have clarified these points so as to prevent the readers from experiencing a semantic debate. Round 1 should be used by the Pro to clarify any misunderstandings, or disagreements with definitions or criteria. If she wishes she can present an argument in Round 1 as well. In Round 2 I will start by either affirming or negating her clarifications, and if she has presented a Round 1 argument, I will begin my opposing arguments in Round 2. This gives the Pro an advantage of at least half a round for arguments, but I expect it will be enough to prove my point. I look forward to a lively and informative debate.
St. Anselm's Ontological argument for the existence of God is unsound.

ARGUMENT So pro says that the concept of God; i. e all his great-making properties; is different to the actual God. But while this may be true for most theories and concepts - such as philosophical theories like Plato and Aristotle's philosophical concepts, you cannot tar everything with the same brush. If we are to adhere to Pro's statement, then there would be very little science. The majority of science - in particular in Physics, is almost entirely dependent on theory and concept. But by no stretch does that mean that these concepts are false - on the contrary, they are often been proven to be true. So you can't say that any concept is different to the real thing - we don't have the knowledge to make such a claim. But we can, if we are using the rules of logic like Anslam's Ontological argument, or the theory of evolution, say with some certainty that the concept is true Pro then says that numbers are concepts - not actualities. But I would emphasise that the existing reality between one quantity and another is, I think, a necessary and existing truth. In any world, there will be different quantities of things. Those are numbers and so I think that they are an example of a necessarily existing entity - just like God in Anslam's argument. Numbers aren't merely concepts, rather they really do exist and we can test for them. What Anslam tries to convey is the fact that with a maximally great being, it's attributes are the things that make the jump between concept and existence. You cannot have the concept of an omnipotent being without it actually existing. Pro continues, and says that you can still have the concept of physical existence in a concept. However, it won't be as maximally great than a being which actually does have those properties - as I mentioned, a being which you can interact with is greater than a being which you cannot. So, a concept that only has the concept of physical existence is not as great as something which actually physically exists - and we can differentiate between the two through genuine interaction. Sources: . http://www.fordham.edu... . http://www.princeton.edu...
St. Anselm's Ontological argument for the existence of God is unsound.

Thank you to Con for his responce.ArgumentPro doesn't respond to what I had to say here. He makes the same mistake I pointed out Anselm's argument making, in fact. However, he does recognize the difference between a concept and a physically existing object, something Anselm's ontological argument does not.A concept of something is not the something it is a concept of. Therefore, it won't be the same as the thing it is a concept of; meaning different properties, however we still conceive of God as having these properties, meaning the properties the concept of God has is the concept of existence.The concept exists and has the concept of existence as a property. However, the concept of God is different from God if he existed, meaning that the concept (what we conceive, imagine etcetera) of God will not exist physically like I or you do.There is a quote that may help Con understand what I mean, that goes like this:"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra [1]Another claim of Con's is "God is a necessarily existent being, like number are". However, numbers are concepts and the necessarily existent thing that Con is referring to is actually the concept of God, not God himself.I agree with Con (as I've said numerous times before in this debate) with what he says next; that the concept of something is not the same as the thing it's a concept of. We cannot interact with a concept. I also still agree that no concept is more existent than another; that the concept of God is the same as the concept of a physically existent God, as the property (that it has as a concept in this case) of physical existence is assumed; we conceive of God as having physical existence. A concept does not have the same physical existence as the thing it's a concept of and so won't have the same properties as it, however we still conceive (imagine, think etc.) of it as having those properies. The concept of God has the concept of physical existence as a property.Thank you.Sources[1] http://www.brainyquote.com...
St. Anselm's Ontological argument for the existence of God is unsound.

Hi, Pro! ARGUMENT Note; I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here, so correct me if i'm misrepresenting what you say! Well if you look at the argument, If the two premises are correct, then the conclusion 'Therefore, God exists' follows logically. We know that God exists in the mind; we can imagine what a maximally great being would be like. But, that is the thing - it is maximally great. It is greater to exist than to not exist. That is the basis for the argument. My opponent says that this doesn't show that God physically exists, but rather establishes his characteristics (if that is what you are saying?). But the fact is, existence will be one of those characteristics! This is what Anslem argued - that existence is a great-making I'm not definite if I have got it right, so please correct me if I'm wrong. WHERE DOES GOD COME FROM? Anslem said that of a being which nothing greater can be concieved, existence is a property - as to exist in reality is greater than to not exist in reality. In other words, God is a necessarily existent being, like numbers are. Anslem says that God exists in the mind, so I think he would have said that God came from our understanding of him in the mind. Anslem then said that because God exists in the mind, God must also exist in reality. My opponent says that "no concept can be more real than another". However, I would stress that the concept of God in the mind is not actually real. If there are 2 rooms, and we imagine a box in the middle of 1 room, and there is a real box in another, the real box is more real than the imagined box; we can interact with the real box, but not with the imagined box. Sources: http://www.princeton.edu...
St. Anselm's Ontological argument for the existence of God is unsound.

Nice one.(Thank you to Con for accepting this debate)ArgumentSo, we start with the concept of God, the greatest thing conceivable. Anselm says that it is greater than something to exist than not to exist, so God exists. However, this is incorrect. It means that by the definition of God, if something is to be God, then it must exist. This does not mean that God exists like I or you exist, but that if this concept of God is actually the concept of God, then the definition of God used in the concept must incude being existant, omnipotent, etc. So, what we have is the concept of an Existant God who is omnipotent omniscient etcetra, not a God existing physically.Also, where does the God come from? What Anselm fails to recognize is that the concept of something is not the something it is a concept of. What he's saying is that the concept of God doesn't exist like God would if he existed, but when we're conceiving, the concept of a God is the same as the concept of an existant God, because no conept can be more real than another.I hope for Con's response and backing of the argument soon.Thank you.
St. Anselm's Ontological argument for the existence of God is unsound.

Thanks to Pro for his response. ARGUMENT Firstly, Pro says: "I am not saying that all theories are false or anything like that" Absolutely not. And I am not accusing Pro of suggesting that. But I'm saying that you cannot use the point that a concept is different to the actual existent thing, because there are many examples where it is the case in which the concept is the same as the actuality. In terms of God, you may include cosmological, or teleological proofs to suggest that the concept of God physically exists. Can we interact with numbers? Well, I guess it depends what you mean by 'interact'. Does solving math problems count as interaction? If we interact with objects that follow the laws of mathematics, does that count as interaction? I think so. We can use numbers in the real world - and see them in nature. So I would go far as to say that numbers are more than just concepts - but things that exist in the real world. SOURCES Pro says that because I don't link them to my argument, my sources should be disregarded. But I used them in my debate! Just because i didn't link to them during my argument doesn't mean I didn't use the content! Thank you for the debate!
St. Anselm's Ontological argument for the existence of God is unsound.

ArgumentCon attacks my claim that the concept of a physically existing thing is different to the physically existing thing it is a concept of. I am not saying that all theories are false or anything like that. For a concept of something to be the same as the thing it's a concept of, it too must be a concept which means it's not a physically existing thing. Con then attempts to prove that numbers exist in the physical world; he doesn't do this, what he does is prove that quantities of things exist. Numbers are still only concepts in that you cannot interact with a number . You can't move a number, see one, hear one, etcetera. Con then rambles on about the concept not having physical existence, forgetting the fact that the concept of a physically existant thing is different to what the physically existent thing would be like if it were to exist - a concept is but a concept. I'm still paying no attention to Con's sources because he doesn't link to them in any part of his argument - therefore they are not relevant and shouldn't count for the sources vote.
Did the US betray Israeli by not using it's veto on the anti-settlement UNSC resolution

I believe that in abstaining from the UNSC vote to condemn Israel's settlement actions in disputed territory, the U.S. betrayed Israel. As to your first point about the United States' alliance with Israel, the United States is not defending Israel in any way. With their abstaining from voting is appears that the U.S. is abandoning Israel. Merriam Webster Dictionary defines alliance as "a relationship in which people agree to work together." This resolution, while not actively punishing Israel, is condemning Israel for making settlements in disputed territories. If Israel is forced to abandon these territories, it's narrowest point will be approximately 10 miles wide. That is narrower than the narrowest part of the state of Delaware. Being surrounded by hostile nations, Israel would soon be wiped out. My first point is that the United States should have vetoed the resolution and defended Israel from their larger, more hostile neighbors.