BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion is not the cause of war

Religion: a particular system of faith and worship. http://oxforddictionaries.com...When a soldier learns one set way of shooting, preparing a gun, running, when he/she trusts in his/her comrades to not betray them, when they put faith in their survival of that war what is it that gets them through? Religion. Without it wars wouldn't happen because generals themselves wouldn't put blind faith in a victory. They think "Oh if I just use this strategy I can't lose" but BOTH believe that, yet only one of them wins.After a war many people often seek a way to cope with the fact they just slaughtered thousands of humans and as a collective army slaughtered millions. In order to do this they often beg for forgiveness from a 'greater power' as a means of therapy and contentment in order to avoid PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) where one becomes extremely violent, guilt-ridden and highly stressed with the victim usually drinking themselves to sleep to block out the harsh memories of those they killed, but by believing it's all okay because God is backing them up allows them to still feel happy to go to heaven when they die.War: a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Creative Story Writing

After Bill got home he saw his daughter was on the floor, blood streaming out of her mouth "Anna!" he cried as he rushed over to her to feel her pulse. She was still alive. He scrambled to the phone to call 9-1-1. "Hello, how may I help you?" asked the operator. "My daughter," stammered Bill,"she's sick, I think she's dying." "Okay sir, what is your location?" responded the operator. "4673 Canson St. NW, Washington D.C." Bill said. "Alright, help is on the way." Bill went back over to his daughter and wept with her in his arms. "Please don't die, please please don't die!" he cried. Bill heard a knock on the door and ran to open it. It was the paramedics, "She's over there" said Bill. The paramedics loaded her on to a stretcher and took her outside into the ambulance. When Bill got to the hospital, the doctor gave him the breakdown of what was going on. His daughter had Avian Influenza. I disease that is very rare in humans, it comes from humans eating diseased chicken. Bill was scared.
Creative Story Writing

"Ethan had an idea to find his father. His plant was to go down to office of ...""Cut! Did you just say plant, like P-L-A-N-T!" yelled the director."I was just saying what's on this silly script. Who writes this stuff a freaking two year old?" The narrator shouted back through the glass of the recording both."This story is going to win me an Oscar so just read properly and stop crying about a typo!" The director was pissed, this was the fourth time they stop and yelled about a typo. Bill didn't know what to do, it was getting late and he had to be home so he could care for his daughter. His daughter was very sick and her nurse stopped being paid at five and it was already seven. Shelia, the nurse, was kind and understood that Bill had to work but she did say she would start to just leave when the pay stopped. While Bill was thinking the argument end and the narrator stormed off yelling about how he is to famous for the low budget film anyways. Bill rushed home to his terminal child.
Creative Story Writing

When you have two children and you can only tend to one, what do you do with the other? You can't simply throw him away. When your Mom calls you down the stairs one second for breakfast and isn't there for the next, what do you think she's doing? Well if your Ethan Johnson, then you know it is the Saturday morning that she is supposed to be taking you to a judo tournament, and your late. But there was something else, you called her Mom, is that who she really is? Ethan was a tall, muscular, dark skinned boy with brown wavy hair, and crystal blue eyes. He was always into sports and had a passion for martial arts. He was also very popular in school with lots of friends, they called him E.J. for short. He attends Skyview Middle School in Denver Colorado, and has impeccable grades. Ethan's home life wasn't as fun as you might think. His Mother was always pressuring him, and he always had to be perfect. Ethan never knew his Dad, and his mother never talks about him.
Creative Story Writing

Should be unable to accept. Please comment for consideration. So, here's the deal, I propose that we, pro and con, write a short story together. 30 min. to argue and only 1,000 characters Round 1- You may either: A> Start the story and use your last round for polite banter, or whatever, and I will finish. -OR- B> Use your first round for polite banter, deferring the beginning of the story to me, and finish the story on your last round. I will, of course use my last round for banter in this instance. The voters should take into consideration and address: 1. Transition (How smoothly one picks up where the other left off) 2. Continuity (Avoiding contradictions with one's opponent and one's self) 3. Engaging (Makes you want to read more) 4. Creativity (Judge for yourself) NOTE: Changing perspective (i.e. first to third person) is acceptable -But- May cause dings to 1. Transition. Let me know if I missed anything, thanks.
European Soccer is structurally preferable to American Major League Sports

Hello, I am arguing that European Soccer (UEFA) is structurally preferable to the major American sports leagues (MLB, NFL, NBA). By European soccer I mean the professional teams under the jurisdiction of UEFA. By major American sports leagues I am referring to MLB, NFL, and NBA. By "structurally" I am referring specifically to the various domestic leagues, promotion/relegation, international competitions (Champions and Europa Leagues), reserve and youth squads- and anything else that pertains to the actual structure of the sport in Europe. By "preferable" I just mean better- that is, whoever accepts this debate will argue that American sports are better structured. I would insist on my opponent arguing in favor of American sports structures, instead of making some sort of post-modern argument that they are just "different" or one cannot be inherently more "preferable", etc. Semantic and epistomological arguments aren't interesting to me and if you wish to have one please do so elsewhere. I realize I am in the unpopular position here arguing against American sports, but hopefully the readers will realize I am arguing structures, not what sport is better. Round one for acceptance only please.
End is more important then means

I'd like to begin by noting that my opponent has not offered any introductory arguments, definitions, examples, values, criterion, etc. That said, I'll keep this fairly general in order for Pro to have an opportunity to present her case in the next round. For now, I'll provide some basic opposition. I negate the resolution: The ends justify the means. One contention in my favor is that this is a very inclusive resolution; as such, we cannot be sure of what "the ends" or "the means" actually are. In that case, if we are to assume that morality or ethics are the basis or standard for this debate, then we cannot know which ends or means we are actually discussing. All I would have to do is provide is one ethically questionable example in which the ends do not justify the means according to standard morality. Perhaps a more fair example would be one of which there is a legitimate argument from both sides. One prevalent instance in society is the issue of the War on Terrorism, or more specifically, a restriction of personal liberties and freedoms (including the right to privacy) all in the name of - or with the ends - being people believing that they are safe in American society. Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. " In this instance, I would argue that the ends do not justify the means. Another example in my favor would be, say, the government having the desire or end goal of improving the economy, and using the means of destroying or exploiting other world economies to do so. Yet another would be Eugenics: Hitler's plan to practice selective breeding in getting rid of everyone he found to be "defective. " While this can seem a bit harsh, even a highly desirable end, such as world peace, could take disastrous means (unnecessary war and death) to achieve it. Again we are still waiting on some type of argument for Pro to defend her view that the affirmation of the resolution would apply to any of these examples. Remember that in this debate, every action that helped to achieve a goal must be factored into the equation. This debate should be decided on whether or not the final outcome in each presented situation would be worth every single action that it took or could take to achieve it (morally).
God is not real.

Thank you silvertechfilms for starting this debate, I hope to find this constructive. I am going to start by saying that I am actually agnostic over God's existence, but I lean towards the probability that he exists. I am agnostic because I argue that we cannot logically or empirically prove God nor can we logically or empirically disprove God. So I ask my opponent, what evidence do you have that disproves his existence so extensively that you can most certainly say that he/she/it doesn't exist? Also, what definition of God are we arguing over?
God is not real.

Well people have justified why it is God is likely to be real, mainly from applying the Grand Design of the Universe, or that our universe could not order itself as it does by simple chance. Next, and the reason I'm agnostic, is that there is absolutely no scientific evidence absolutely disproving the existence of a grand creator. Some have argued that some actually proves the likelihood, such as the fact that life exists despite our bodies defying the second law of thermodynamics. Additionally, one day we may come across some scientific fact that proves its existence. Next, your very argument works both ways. You cannot disprove God's existence, so you have no right to rationally claim its non-existence, just like if you cannot prove God's existence so no one has the right to rationally claim God most certainly exists. This is why most atheists I've debated with argued with do not claim God does not exist, but they disbelieve the evidence that God is likely to exist. However even they recognize it is erroneous to blatantly claim God does not exist. This is all, of course, arguing over existence when philosophically we have no clear idea exactly what it means for something to exist, nor have we argued over the definition of what it means to prove existence, which can get quite cumbersome and abstract.
Islam (Pro) vs. Christianity (Con)

RebuttalsOn my identityCon makes no argument and commits the ad hominem fallacy calling me an extremist and saying that he did not know I was Muslim when in my profile it says Muslim. " ALL PROPHECIES MUST BE FULFILLED IN THE PAST to be taken seriously. THEN WHY DO YOU TAKE ANYTHING IN ISLAM SERIOUSLY WHEN JESUS HAS NOT RETURNED TO EARTH?"Because Muslims do not velieve in the bible and we believe that the bible is corrupted and most of the prophecies and the story of Jesus is false and man-made ... Just like your entire false religionOn Prophecies in christianityCon says that fulfilled prophecies is evidence of Christianity but what he does not realize is that per his line of reasoning, Jesus is not the messiah because he did not fulfill many of the "prophecies" in the OT. He tries to defelct my argument against me by saying that Islam is the messiah so Islam is just as vulnerable to failed prophecies. Half of that argument is true and half is false. Muslims do believe that Jesus is the Christ but NOT because jesus fulfilled the prophecies. It was Con's argument that Jesus is the messiah because he fulfilled prophecies but that is demonstrably false. Muslims believe that the OT is corrupted and the prophecies thus have been altered as well so we do not know use corrupted man-made "prophecies" to prove our religion unlike Con who tried to do so desperately.In conclusion so far, Con has not even addressed my arguments and evidence for the truth of Islam in Round 1 and he has obviously failed at defending his man-made false religion. Moreover, he has additionally failed to answer my critique of his false religion in Round 2. This debate is frankly a waste of time and mental resources.
Islam (Pro) vs. Christianity (Con)

I will be defending Islam. Opponent will be defending christianityDefinitions :God - The necessary, uncaused, omnimaximal, timeless, spaceless being.Exists - to have an objective being or existence.Truth - objectively most likelyRules :-no trolling-no forfeits-no semantics (tweaking definitions of the dictionary)Rounds :Round one - acceptanceR2) argumentsR3) Rebuttals + argumentsR4) RebuttalsR5) RebuttalsBOP : Burden of proof will be shared.
People do not change

People are all talk, they all say they will change but they don't. Everyone wants to think optimistically but in the end they settle into their comfort zone which is always the same, you can argue for Tony Robbins or a few celebrities who turned their lives around but for most people, things do not change. This is why gym membership goes way up in January after the holiday season because everyone feels guilty about over eating during the holidays so everyone gets on this kick about losing weight and staying healthy but by middle of April all those people who joined have quit the gym. You can refer to the small percentage of people that are the exception and change and you might think you are special and can change but for most of the society that is not true, I'm discussing the majority of people, the majority also voted in Trump and everyone is bitching about it but majority like Trump, so you can argue your futile few and say you are special and you don't belong to that group and generalizations and blah blah blah because you don't want to be part of the majority, and you have changed, but if I asked your parents how you were as a kid and now they would say he is still the same person. People like routine and they don't like change, change makes people uncomfortable and they will make any excuse not to change, example I'm dying of lung cancer but I will still have a smoke because I'm really craving one. I'm dying of liver cirrhosis but I'm still going to have that drink because I'm celebrating tonight.
People do not change

Your argument, again, is invalid, as everyone can change. People aren't 'born' in certain ways. When you were a baby boy, you didn't know crap about the outside world and how to react to it. Once you got older, you molded yourself into your own person. That's change. 'People who enjoy bullying do not all of a sudden wake up one morning and bring in a gift basket to work', again, generalizations. You cannot say that when referring to ALL bullies. People don't stay what they are FOREVER due to their personalities. People change. Don't try to tell people that they don't have the power to change themselves and their attitude. Yes, some people choose not to change, but a big part of your rhetoric is generalization. We all go through changes, big or small. You sometimes don't realize it. Do not lie to yourself when you tell yourself in the mirror 'You cannot change. What you are is what you are forever.' Everybody can change. You can change how you look at your grades. You can change how you act with people. You can change how you speak, how you write, your entire attitude can change. Very few people can say that they were the same person when they were 50 and when they were 10 years old. Next round I will go into further rebuttals.
People do not change

Everyone born is different in some ways, some people while they are kids are very shy, some love the attention or are great at guest speaking and eventually become motivational speakers. Parenting is also a huge factor in child development. People from broken or dysfunctional families do grow up damaged at times. My argument is that each and everyone of us has a certain character and that character does not change over time. If you have an addictive personality you will probably become addicted to something for life such as drugs, gambling etc. People who enjoy bullying do not all of a sudden wake up one morning and bring in a gift basket to work for their co-workers. Peoples personalities do not change and based on the personality each person will stay that way for the rest of their life. Contrary to what people will say, they do not change, someone who is overweight and all of a sudden decides they will become skinny and join a gym and lose all the weight, in 5 months they quit the gym and are back to shoveling big Mac's again. People like to talk about changing but they always revert back to their old self. Everyone will say "well that's not me, I changed", really because that promise you made to yourself and then bragged about changing last year where is it, you are back to being the same. Just like a wife beater telling his wife that he loves her and will never do it again. Are you going to believe him, a lot do and stay and get beat up more or killed, the smart ones leave because they know he is not changing.
People do not change

People do change over time. What you are doing are making generalizations against humanity. People do and can change. Just because people don't change doesn't mean everybody doesn't change. Everyone with free will has the right to change. You and me, we have minds. We can change. We do things based on what we tell ourselves. Some people just don't change, but that's their way, not the way of every human being on this earth. Criminals will not always be criminals. Bullies will not always be bullies. I am not denying that some people don't change, but the keyword is 'don't.' While it may be hard to change ourselves, it is possible. As long as we have free will over ourselves, we can change. It's just a matter if we want to or not. I may simply be shouting into an empty bucket that is fixed on the undying thought that all people cannot change, but then again. Everyone can change. Sometimes, people just don't choose to.
People do not change

Contrary to many beliefs people do not change over time. That same bully who tormented you on the playground is still a bully 40 years later he just does it in an office, law firm or other corporate setting or junk yard or wherever he is now. People quit smoking but they always end up going back, they say they have changed but it's only a matter of time before they relapse, the alcoholics with their AA meetings, they only keep track of how long they have been sober to see if they can beat their own record from another time, before they fall of the wagon. Criminals will always be criminals, what is the recidivism rate at 89%?? When you leave jail they say, "See you in a week or month" People want to believe that they can change but in reality they will always go back to their old self. Look at wife beaters, how many times do they promise it will never happen again. You can't change the characteristics of a person, that's just the way they are. I know people like to say, well I changed since high school, no not really you are still the same person, you just have more life experience but the core person inside you is still the same. A bully will always be a bully, an honest person will always be honest, a jealous person will always be jealous. An addict will always be addicted. People don't change
Did the Pitsburgh Steelers deserve to win the superbowl

Superior D-Line My opponent claims the reason this makes the Giants deserving of the Super Bowl is because: -The Giants D-Line worked hard in the off-season and in training camp -They got as strong as possible. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but don't all teams work hard in the off-season and try to improve as much as possible. Also, neither of us has any proof that either team worked hard during training camp; it is all just an assumption we're making. Deeper Roster CON claims that the Giants have a deeper receiving core; I concede to this point. But he has also failed to refute the Steelers having a deeper secondary and having more depth at QB, therefore he has forfeited those points. Loss of a Key Player Weeks Before the Playoffs My opponent has failed to refute these points; therefore, he has forfeited them as well. Playoff Performance CON claims the following reasons for the Giants losing and Steelers winning in the playoffs -Steelers played a 4th seed or worse in every game. -The Giants failed to defeat a 6th seed -Giants only lost because they had a bye week. -Steelers also received a bye. -Steelers had an easier time. -Here are the Steelers playoff games -No.4 Chargers…Quite possibly the hottest team in the league entering the playoffs -No.6 Ravens…The No.2 defense in the league and division rival -No. 4 Cardinals… Apparently the best team in the NFC -And the Giants playoff games -No.6 Eagles… Division rival and a top half defense There's really no comparison. Strength of Schedule CON agrees that the Steelers had the tougher schedule. CON continues by saying that the Giants faced practically all the teams in the playoffs from the NFC. I again wonder what the relevance of this statement is. My opponent also states that the Giants beat the Steelers handily. To this I say "Everyone has off weeks. "
Did the Pitsburgh Steelers deserve to win the superbowl

The steelers D-line which is supposedly apart of the best Defence in the NFL simply failed to perform throughout the entire season. Deeper roster; Again I feel like the giants took a very smart strategy in making their roster deep and yes one roster can be deeper than another by having better players in their 2nd, 3rd string etc. The Giants did that wonderfully even in their WR position becuase after plax shot him self we still had a good WR in hixon to help us. Now going on to the PRO Arguments. Strength of schedule I will agree that the steelers had a harder schedule but not by much. the giants still faced practically all of the teams in NFC that made the playoffs and faced the super bowl champion the steelers which by the way they beat by a large margin. I do not think this argument is very valid considering it does not make much of a difference. Playoff Performance Every team the Steelers faced in the Playoffs was either a 4th string or worse. I dont think you can say they really "showed up" when they played the worse teams in the playoffs. The giants only lost to eagles becuase they had a week off for rest because they were the #1 seed. The giants showed up just as much as the steelers did but one team had an easier time. Thank you and good luck