BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
bringing salt water inland.

hello my name is foster tom. I have had this thought and googled a few things about it. bringing sea water inland. It seems that a lot of people, well not a lot but there is speculation on the though, have already been toying with the idea. but they only seem set on the idea of making a lake or distilling through the ground. my thought was bringing salt water inland to an area with man made ponds or maybe silos heated with solar power and evaporating it without introducing the salt water to the land. possibly selling the left over salt. i think this would solve possible droughts and freshwater tables. although it would take years as I would understand. I do understand that it would cost a lot to get the sea water inland. I know that the earth already has a lot of evaporation going on with most of the earth covered in water. But maybe a few inland places need a push to get the rain water up. Im not a scientific person and I havent done any numbers or calculations. this is just my best guesstimation. It has been boggling my mind. could it be done, is there like minds like mine. im still against the creating a lake.
Resolved: God exists

A preliminary note: Don't feel bad for Pro. He was trying to game the system to get a free win, so there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of his grammatical errors in order to turn it against him. Let's take a close look at what Pro has told us in his opening round. "If you accept this debate, you must agree concede the debate. "Agree concede the debate? What? That is incoherent. Ignore this statement. "I repeat, anyone who accepts this debate as Con will be given an automatic concession. "Indeed. I will be given an automatic concession. By Pro. Pro must abide by his rules and concede the debate next round. None of what Pro has said makes any sense except for the last sentence, in which he clearly stated that I will be given an automatic concession by him. What he intended to say does not matter. The rules are what they are. By promising me a concession, Pro has effectively conceded the debate.
Resolved: God exists

The purpose of debate is for both Pro and Con to have a thorough, evenly-balanced discussion on the resolution. Pro crafted this resolution specifically so that he would be the only possible winner. thereby making it impossible to have an "evenly-balanced discussion". He's *abusing* the medium of debate to score a free win -- ignore all of Pro's bullsh!t attempts at justifying these cheap tactics, and punish him with a loss so that he won't engage in such antics in the future. That aside, let's get back to the semantics game.My opponent's main criticism is that I ignored the following line:"Since the topic is already resolved I will not be taking ANY debate challengers."Again, this is incoherent. He IS the "debate challenger" -- he's the one who instigated the debate, and left the debate as an open challenge in the challenge period. It makes no sense for him to refuse to "take any debate challengers" when he's the only debate challenger for this debate... we can safely ignore this nonsensical statement. Additionally, if the topic was truly "resolved" already, then there would be no need to start a debate over it. Therefore, simply the fact that he instigated this debate is evidence that the topic is NOT "resolved." Pro's statement is incoherent on every level!Pro attempts to edit his "agree concede the debate" statement to make it coherent, but it's too late for that. The rules were set in stone as soon as he posted his opening round. The *only* part of his round that makes any sense at all is the last sentence, where he explicitly states that he will concede the debate. Clearly, he has not followed up on his promise. Hold him accountable to this rule violation and vote CON!Thank you.
Resolved: God exists

1:"A preliminary note: Don'tfeel bad for Pro. He was trying to game the system to get a free win, sothere's nothing wrong with taking advantage of his grammatical errors in orderto turn it against him" As above, Con has openly admitted to playing Semantics. Trying to finda "technical" contradiction and misrepresent what I have said. I wasalso not trying to "game the system". The resolution of the debateexplicitly said "resolved" and I had mentioned in my very first statement"I will not be taking ANY debate challengers" Even *if* I was doing what Con has accused me of, that doesn't ignorethe fact that Con had made a blatant violation of the very first rule of mydebate that being: “I will not be taking ANY debate challengers" . A rule was given, and done so quite explicitly, yet Con ignored it. 2: "Indeed. I will be givenan automatic concession. By Pro. Pro must abide by his rules and concede thedebate next round. " Con has ignored my statement and removed it from context. Let us lookat what I had said: "If you accept this debate, you must agree to concede thedebate. " "I repeat anyone who accepts this debate as Con will be given anautomatic concession. " I stated firstly that you (Con, as he is the one accepting the debate)must agree to a concession. Even if someone takes this statement from a semanticviewpoint, the request was quite obvious. That being, the contending side mustconcede to the debate, and agree in doing so. However, this is how Con reactedto the first statement:"Agree concede the debate? What? That isincoherent. Ignore this statement. "The request was made clear as mentionedpreviously, however Con decided to blatantly ignore this statement. Furthermore, Con states: "Indeed. I will be given an automatic concession. By Pro. Pro mustabide by his rules and concede the debate next round. " Yet look at what I said in my second statement: "I repeat anyone who accepts this debate as Con will be given anautomatic concession. " The fact I said "Irepeat" in the beginning of the sentence implies that I am merelyreiterating what has been said previously. And what had I said previously? This: "If you accept this debate, you must agree concede thedebate. " Hence, it can be seen here that has committed the Straw man fallacy, bymisrepresenting my argument, and taking it out of context, Con has underminedthe chance of honest discussion in this debate. In conclusion: Con has broken multiple rules of the debate by: - Accepting the debate despite me explicitly requesting no one to do so. - Refusing to concede the debate - Playing semantics in an attempt to find a contradiction within myargument. - Misrepresenting my argument and taking it out of context. Therefore, in order for Con to follow the rules of the debate, he isexpected to concede in the next round. Failure to do so is a violation of the second rule I had previouslymade in the debate and hence an act of misconduct.
Christianity conflicts with science

In my view, Christianity directly contradicts with science. I am talking about all denominations of Christianity, but obviously I am not familiar with absoluteness all of them so feel free to correct me on that. Science - "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." First of all, I do not want to get into a debate on the existence of god, because that doesn't get anywhere. But, I will start by saying that the idea of the Christian god is an unscientific one, in that it is based on faith and not objective evidence. However, I think that Christianity brings about a few more issues than that. First of all, Evolution does not work with Christianity. This is because, if the human race is evolving over time, that means there is no Garden of Eden, no Adam & Eve and apple, and therefore no original sin. If there is no original sin, not only is sin god's fault, but Jesus dying on the cross was completely pointless. However, let us entertain the idea that Sin does work with evolution, at what point during our evolutionary stage did god start loving and caring for us more than other animals? Was it as we became the humans we are today, or was it a generation of species before us? In addition, there is absolutely no evidence of the flood happening as it did in the bible. I am sure you are aware of how many species Noah would have had to keep on that Arc, and the obvious problems with the story, but I can explain further if need be. Also, Jesus refers to the Arc in the new testament, which shows that it is still relevant in Christianity. That is all I believe, thank you for debating me in advance, I am a religious studies A levels student and I love debating things like this.
mobile phones are a curse for todays youth

"mobile phones.....in todays world what we know mobile phones are just Fashion" -First off, you have not shown why something that is simply for fashion is a "curse for todays youth". To follow this same line of reasoning will mean most of our shoes, shirts, pants, underwear (;D) and other accessories one can think of should be done away with. I mean, heck, the only reason people dress fashionably is mainly for the reception they will get from their peers. "youngsters spend lots of money in just buying the latest handsets...and just show off...." -That's not the only reason why youngsters buy mobile phones. The main and initial point of buying it is for ease-of-access for calling people, which we should all know comes very handy in the 21st century. Things such as additional applications, music, and trendy looks came after. So even if my opponent successful argued that youngsters who buy fashionable phones is a curse to today's youth, still has no bearing on whether or not mobile phones are a curse to today's youth. "it leads to brain tumours, cancers,,...it is a threat to life..." -They've done exhaustive reports on this. In a 10 year study, they showed no conclusive link between cell phone usage and cancer. Though the possibility of long term usage may cause cancer, it has yet to be shown. [1] Even so, many new standards and advices are being developed and spread around, to lower to risk of health hazards. [2] In conclusion, the benefits of mobile phones greatly outnumber the costs. That is why mobile phones are not a curse for today's youth. ---Reference--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
mobile phones are a curse for todays youth

"Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents." -->Which if true, is the reason why many states and countries are implementing a hands-free rule when driving. Only blue tooth headsets will be allowed, to allow the driver to pay more attention to driving his/her car. ".A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world." --> A claim that is not backed up with a link or a reference to verify such a claim. As I have shown in my previous round, studies of up to 10 years show minimal to no cancer effects from cell phone usage. ~Conclusion~ No references and 3 forfeited rounds should obligate a vote for Con. My opponent has failed to show how cell phones are the curse for today's youth, and even dropped one of his points in the beginning.
mobile phones are a curse for todays youth

Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents.A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world.
Catholicism Is False

I pointed out how it's an logical inconsistency to claim that God has infinite mercy, yet at the same time say that one can still be damned to hell. I explained how no act of sin would be so grave that infinite mercy wouldn't allow for forgiveness. You responded with: “its a deep question” & “It is not an internal, self-contradiction.” I disagree. I think it's pretty obvious that the stance of the Catholic Church makes no logical sense. You said theologians have provided answers to this problem throughout history, but you didn't mention any of these arguments. "If you make a fundamental choice against God through mortal sin, you are decided to reject God and WOULDN"T EVEN BE HAPPY IN HEAVEN because heaven is God's eternal presence. You couldn't enjoy God forever if you made a conscious and deliberate choice against him. A conscious and deliberate choice against God is what is meant by mortal sin in Catholicism." I know enough about Catholicism to understand that Venial Sins are also a conscious and deliberate choice against God, so if Venial Sins are forgiven by this infinite mercy, why not mortal ones too? Surely a mere human being cannot suck dry the resources of an infinite mercy!?
Catholicism Is False

“You misunderstand what a Catechism is and the degrees of infallibility.” Either something is infallible or it isn't. There are no degrees of infallibility, as there no degrees of truth. Something is either true, or it isn't. It's really simple. Any claim to the contrary is just an excuse to pass off the CCC as God's law. “[The CCC] teaches the faith accurately” Obviously not, as you've just explained yourself. “However, a Catholic may concede that the Catechism was a bad idea and that it is "pretty stupid" I agree. I quoted de fide dogma saying that grace can be increased through works and merited through works, then showed a contradictory passage (also de fide) that says that grace can't be merited through works. Your best argument is that they are talking about different types of grace, which is an invalid argument seeing as these passages do not claim to be discussing different types of grace. “Grace” applies to all grace, including supernatural grace, since it is a form of it. I argued that God can't be both infinitely just & merciful, but also predestine some people to Hell, as the CCC states (again, de fide dogma). You said that because anyone predestined to Hell is only predestined so because God looked into the future and say their evil deeds that made them deserve hell. However, I argue that the existance of an infinitely merciful God means that no sin is so great that it would end you up in hell without this infinite mercy to forgive you. Yes, the other arguments are dropped because I didn't know until round 2 that the CCC isn't considered infallible.
Catholicism Is False

Wow, I did not know that the CCC wasn't considered infallible. That's pretty stupid on the Church's part, I have to say. They are promoting a book loaded with speculation and stuff that may not even be true, without even distinguishing which parts are de fide dogma (infallible) and which could be simply not true. Ridiculous. Nevertheless, I will continue this debate from a different angle. From here on, all sources are from de fide dogma, which is officially considered infallible by the Church, and which I've found from this list: http://jloughnan.tripod.com... 183: Grace cannot be merited by natural works 212: Grace can be increased by good works. 215: By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God. 216: A just man merits for himself through each good work an increase of sanctifying grace [...] The first line contradicts the other 3. Line 183 we can't earn grace, while the other 3 basically say we can. 43: God is infinitely just. 44: God is infinitely merciful. 191: God[...] predestines certain men [...] to eternal rejection. That isn't very just or merciful, much-less infinitely just or merciful.
Catholicism Is False

Thanks for accepting. If the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) contains the slightest logical inconsistency, then Catholicism is false. Pope John Paul II said, upon approval of the CCC, “I declare [the CCC] to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.” According to the CCC, “Baptism is necessary for salvation.” Yet, a few sentences down, we are allowed “to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.” Since it's already settled that no one can be saved without Baptism, to hope that children who've died without it can be saved is illogical. Thus, Catholicism is false. http://www.vatican.va...
People are too dependent on social media

Thank for agreeing with my arguments. People can say that social media is just a tool. What if they misuse it and create a chaos around them or their society? Can you imagine a scenario where social media being a huge impact on our society and makes people to rely on them? With the point that we created a fake relationship online, that because people are so obsessed with it, thinking it will help them. For my arguments, I would like to point out few points. In respect of social media, we're responsible to make a decision and to decide what is right and what is wrong. People these days use social media to have fun and have that imagination where they become famous with a thousand likes or even more. So with those amount of likes on their profile, they become more dependent on those platform.
People are too dependent on social media

Experts believe that even though social media has a lot of positives in connecting people, becoming highly dependent on social media can have negative effects. People who are too dependent on those platforms can cause them to unlearn their social skills. We have witnessed the generations that were brought up spending time with family and friends, visiting the neighbors and being taught the importance of being sociable; unlearn their skills after becoming too dependent on communicating with friends and family on social media. If it is the case with the older generations, it is even worse for children aged 13 and 14, who were never brought up with these sociable skills. I believe that people should move forwards but with awareness. Even though social media has a lot of positives; it can cause relationships to lack depth. Kids these days believe that friends can be made with a click of a button and deleted just as easily.
School Finals: Students who passed the class shouldn't have to worry about taking a final.

This is the last round so I will say as much as I can. Those who are really trying, and really working hard to get the grades they have, shouldn't have to worry about a final exam. - ProI believe you; there are students who work hard to get the grades they have or want, but you have to think about the students who work harder. If students have the ability to raise an x grade to a y grade, they have the capability to raise that grade into an A. Students with average grades aren't the only ones who struggle; students with straight A's can struggle just as much because they want to keep their report card and GPA in tact. I understand that you think it's unfair certain students don't have to take finals but to me, personally, it's completely fair. The teachers you overheard speaking about students not having to take finals probably had a good reason to not let them; those students they spoke of probably had top grades in their classrooms or top ranks in their GPA. Teachers aren't usually impressed by students with average grades (they are kind of neutral about it), they mostly focus on kids with the best and worst grades. For students with the worst grades, they think they should take finals as a last resort to improve their grades, and as for students with the best grades, some teachers think, "their grades are high enough already. So why give them a final? ". When teachers think about students with average grades taking a final, they probably think, "maybe they want their grades higher" or "I don't think they care one way or another as long as they are passing classes". In conclusion, I think students with passing grades should take finals because it might help them better their grades, including themselves. Not all passing students feel like they've done enough for their grades, many feel they need the best grade they can receive so they prefer studying as hard as they can and take finals. If a student can manage to earn a passing grade or higher they can manage to take a final and still have that grade, if not way better.
School Finals: Students who passed the class shouldn't have to worry about taking a final.

No, I am saying that anyone below a solid C ( C-, D+, D, D-, F ) should have to take a final. I know that some kids are not very good in some subjects, and that is perfectly alright. I struggle with some subjects myself. I just think those who can have an solid C and up are really really trying to get the grades they need to have for a better ( whatever it is they are goin for. ) those who have below the average grade ( I think ) are either really struggling, and not asking for help, or they just don't care. I believe that they should have to take a final in order to help them bring up their grade. I know ( in my school ) that a lot of kids are retaking classes at lower levels because they failed the class and because they simply just didn't care at that time what they got. Those who are really trying, and really working hard to get the grades they have, shouldn't have to worry about a final exam. it would make it easier on those kids.. I over heard one of my teachers talking about a couple students who didn't have to worry about taking the final because of their grades, ( which were a bit higher then mine ) If one student doesn't have to take the final yet everyone else in the class does.. doesn't that seem a bit unfair? If that student was helping the others who had to then that would be extremely nice, but I know that ( most ) won't do that.
School Finals: Students who passed the class shouldn't have to worry about taking a final.

"I'm just saying that if youre passing the class you shouldn't have to take one if you are not passing then you should take one." - proSo you're saying that students who are "passing" shouldn't take a test...okay, so I guess that means students who are barely passing deserve to not take a final as well.Passing doesn't specifically mean earning A's and B's by US standards. In the US, the general standard of a passing grade is that anything below a 60 or 75 is failing, depending on the grading scale [ http://en.m.wikipedia.org...]. Let's say there's a student in your class with straight D's. He doesn't have good grades but they're considered passing grades.If your school allowed passing students to be excused from finals, then ALL passing students would be permitted to not take finals. Does that seem fair? Do you think that D grade student deserves what you deserve - an A/B student?
School Finals: Students who passed the class shouldn't have to worry about taking a final.

i can see where you are coming from. and i do agree. but i mean. if a student is passing the class, they then shouldn't have to worry about taking a final becuase they obviously worked their butt off and obviously was there everyday to know what they do know. im just saying that if youre passing the class you shouldn't have to take one. if you are not passing then you should take one.