BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dragons are better than pigs

Firstly, I defined a dragon as a “MYTHICAL CREATURE”, the definition of “mythical” is “imaginary” which clearly means “does not exist”. Thus, all of your arguments on how dragons exist in three ways are ALL invalid. Plus, your “source” was Yahoo Answers, something that is clearly unreliable. I am going to add a new answer which is that dragons have been spotted in my bedroom, does that mean it is true? No, it isn’t, I made it up. Or, I will make a new answer being that dragons don’t exist, clearly contradicting what you are trying to say. Thus that is not a reliable source. (Pigs) They do not do anything. Regardless of which, they are real, not imaginary, thus they are clearly have superior quality. On earth there can be found a creature known as the Komodo Dragon. Once again, doesn’t follow my definition of “dragon”, nor does your argument (without sources) about animals that evolved with similar characteristics as they are not dragons, thus this is an irrelevant point. between all of the independently evolved dragons which have appeared on separate planets throughout the universe Where do you get your information? ?? “Appeared on separate planets”? ?? ? Where is the proof? No source, no evidence, we haven’t even gotten out of the solar system, how is the possible? ? Existence is made up of moments, and each moment has an infinite number of possibilities, each of which can lead to a different universe Where did you get this? ? So, your argument is, something that is biologically IMPOSSIBLE, exists in parallel universes to ours? ? No evidence, no source, not even going to comment on this anymore. CONCLUSION All of Pro’s arguments have no logic behind them and are clearly fables of the imaginary. No, dragons don’t exist, it is impossible for them to breath fire. No, nobody has been eaten by dragons. YES, they are completely mythical. As I have shown, pigs actually EXIST, thus they are clearly of superior quality, and thus better than the imaginary.
Dragons are better than pigs

Clearly, the "better" that my opponent is thinking about is "cooler", however, none of the terms have been defined. I will take the liberty of defining them as my opponent has failed to do so. Better - of superior quality or excellenceDragons - a mythical monster generally represented as a huge, winged reptile with crested head and enormous claws and teeth, and often spouting fire (my opponent never specified if we were to assume dragons exist, thus this is their proper definition)Pigs - any animal of the genus Sus within the Suidae family Now, we see from the definitions that have been laid out (which unfortunately my opponent cannot argue as he DIDN'T provide definitions, thus we will use mine), we see that is impossible for a dragon to be of superior quality or excellence than pigs because dragons do not exist. They are mythological creatures that have never been sighted and are clearly fictious. However, pigs are not fake. They typically live on farms and we even use pigs to create insulin. I have established that dragons do not exist and pigs do exist. Thus, something that exists is clearly of superior quality or excellence than something that does not. It is simply illogical to say: "My flying pony dog which shoots rainbows from it's rear is better than my coat," because the coat exists, the flying pony dog does not. Something that does not exist cannot have quality. Clearly, a pig exists and thus is better than something that is non-existent. Vote Con. SOURCES:1. www. dictionary. com2. Google "pig"
Yoga, is not acceptible to do in public schools

Lol, I recognize, I just assumed it was comical. :P Yoga is not always religious. The situation is always religious. Look at what an ex Hindu says about it. It may not always be taken as religious, just as communion may not always be taken religiously but that will never stop it from being so. If someone starts to complain about the moment of silence it would be removed right away. Same for yoga, it should be removed right away. “My argument; Yoga- a part of which, including breath control, simple meditation, and the adoption of specific bodily postures, is widely practiced for health and relaxation.” From the beginning of this debate our definition of yoga has been: "The term 'Yoga' comes from the Sanskrit root 'Yuj' which means 'to join.' In its spiritual sense, it is the process by which the identity of the Jivatma (individual self) and Paramatma (God) is realized by the Yogi. Yoga means union with the God. This is the goal of human life. Yoga is the spiritual science that teaches the method of joining human spirit (soul) with God. Yoga is the Divine science which disentangles the Jiva from the phenomenal world of sense-objects and links him with the Absolute" - Sri Swami Sivananda So this definition does not stand. If yoga so good, then it should take place after school or before school but not during it. This may be true, it may be very good for you, but I know a lot of religious activities that could help people have less stress, and depression but they would not be accepted in a public school environment. How about we replace the yoga time for naps? That works for me. :P
Yoga, is not acceptible to do in public schools

Lol, thank you! :D Lol, drugs can sooth the soul but that doesn’t make them any safer. :P Just because yoga can help teens with how to handle stress, anxiety, and sleep deprivation. That doesn’t stop it from religious. Yoga is a ritual that comes from Hinduism. In the U.S we have separation from church and state, all public schools are government run. For that reason having yoga in public schools is a complete violation of the separation of church and state amendment. If the Supreme Court rules the rosary is not a catholic ritual, that doesn’t stop the truth, if public schools wanted to allow the rosary to be said in class because it calms stress, people would have a fit. Why isn’t a moment of silence, and the rosary allowed when yoga is? http://archive.adl.org... http://archive.adl.org... http://archive.adl.org... http://archive.adl.org...
Yoga, is not acceptible to do in public schools

! Yoga sooths the soul; in school a lot of kids get so frustrated that it effects their work at school, therefore dropping the GPA and their SAT/PSAT scores. Yoga would be good for schools, for it will relax the mind of a student and pushes them to concentrate better and have higher scores. This is just a random add, but they should have nap time in school too. Haha Kids these days don"t get much sleep, for such reasons as; homework, boyfriend/girlfriend keeps them up/ video games"and so on. Yoga helps teens with how to handle stress, anxiety, and sleep deprivation. There has been a study that proves that yoga is good for teens and kids and should be in schools. (. http://www.philly.com...) If we could just take 15 minutes out of the school day to do yoga, wow there would be such an improvement in grades and what not.
Yoga, is not acceptible to do in public schools

To leojm, have fun. :) Okay my resolution is: Public school is not a place to learn yoga, if you want your kids to do religious exercises private schools are best for them. Rules: 1. Have as many emoticons as possible. ;) 2. Forfeits equal automatic lose. 3. This is a fun debate all rules except the first 2 are laid back, have fun. :) 4. You can use any website you want. Definitions: Yoga: "The term 'Yoga' comes from the Sanskrit root 'Yuj' which means 'to join.' In its spiritual sense, it is the process by which the identity of the Jivatma (individual self) and Paramatma (God) is realized by the Yogi. Yoga means union with the God. This is the goal of human life. Yoga is the spiritual science that teaches the method of joining human spirit (soul) with God. Yoga is the Divine science which disentangles the Jiva from the phenomenal world of sense-objects and links him with the Absolute" - Sri Swami Sivananda 1.http://www.thekundaliniyoga.org...
Yoga, is not acceptible to do in public schools

Sleep in school would be wonderful. lol Ok, so it seems your still stuck to the argument that Yoga is religious. As I have mentioned earlier and proved that Yoga is not only religious. My argument also makes sense. Like I said teens need Yoga, they need the relaxation. Like I also mentioned it improves their study skills and their GPA. America is not even on the top 5 smartest in their academics. [http://www.businessinsider.com...] Now if we had Yoga, we might make into the top 5. It's so embarrassing how US isn't that smart. I mean you can pass a class with a D. So sad. In my country, you had to have strait A's in order to pass a class. Russians are very smart. Yoga will improve everything. It will also keep students busy and not off task. Maybe they will also take interest in learning. We need Yoga in public schools. This is the end of my argument. Thank you for debating me. Voters, please vote fairly.
God Exists

As cited in the structure, I should have to waive this round. Nice trick, I'll have to try this myself sometime. Closing Statements: Thanks to TJ for showing me how to get the most out of a debate, and I highly recommend my partner patch that rule hole I was able to exploit. Nothing meant personally. Also, thanks to all viewers and voters for taking some time to look through our arguments, and decide which is the better truth. ;)
God Exists

Prefacemfigurski80 challenged me to this debate, and, suffice to say, I am sure it will be an interesting discussion. Since this is my favorite debate resolution, I shall enjoy this, regardless of the outcome. There is a minimum required Elo of 2,000 to vote on this debate. I hope there are multiple good RFDs. I look forward to an interesting debate. Full TopicGod likely exists. TermsAll definitions are influenced by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the American Heritage Dictionary, and the Oxford Dictionary.God - the immensely great, omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent, transcendent cause of the universe.Likely - probably; >50% chance of.Exist - have physical or metaphysical, objective reality.Note that Pro must attempt to prove God as defined exists, and Con must attempt to disprove it; thus, an argument saying "you cannot ascribe properties to a being unless it exists" is irrelevant.Rules1. No forfeits.2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be in an external link or within the debate.3. No new arguments in any rounds except the opening round.4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.5. No trolling.6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution).7. No deconstructional semantics.8. The BoP is shared -- Pro must argue that God likely exists, and Con must argue to the contrary.9. Pro must present their case in round one and waive the final round.10. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.StructureR1. Pro's caseR2. Con's case, Pro rebuts Con's caseR3. Con rebuts Pro's case, Pro rebuts Con's case, defends and crystallizesR4. Con rebuts Pro's case, defends and crystallizes, Pro waivesThanks......again to mfigureski80 for challenging me to this debate, and to all voters.
Video games(PRO) vs books(CON) for learning

The Value of Books in Learning ScenariosI present two core points that grant books greater value in learning than videogames. The first is that books are physical things giving something tactile learners to touch and thus engaging at least two, if not more, senses relating to sight as well as touch for those who trace the words. This is enhanced by the ability to segment, alter, inscribe, highlight, and otherwise interact with the medium in question versus being more or less idle and at the whims of those who present the data without nearly as much effort as it would take to modify the base data without a developer's kit. Furthermore imagination, understanding, and mental engagement is far greater in a book than in any other medium relative to images; one need not imagine for instance a design when they are shown de facto what it is on a screen but ask people to draw a design described to them and you will get varied takes depending on the level of detail in the text. This flexibility allows also for a greater ability to mentally encapsulate how one sees things in the world; you need not feel trapped by a single type of text as you can look up many texts to express the same concepts in many different ways which video media may not do due to budget production and audience layout.The second point is that books simply require no power; they do not "turn off", do not become impossible to read, the tools that enable reading in the dark such as booklights take far less energy than backlights or screens, require no "controller" other than one's hands, and can be utilized just about anywhere. They do not require the internet, do not break when dropped, are rarely stolen for their value, are easier to rent out or loan, and are infinitely less expensive in the general sense. They also are very good for referencing materials as they often contain easier to use methods of bookmarking such as a simple bookmark, folding the tactile physical page, and other tricks. While they do take up more space than digital media, presuming text, that also works in their favor as they can be easily categorized and organized without fear of computational error and with an easier to correct system. In learning these particulars are very important; with many presentations such as McGraw Hill Connect (http://connect.customer.mheducation.com...) and JSTOR (http://about.jstor.org...) requiring registration and payment for materials as well as an expiration date on the use of said materials spanning text and video it is unlikely that permanent ownership and access to video media and interactive media of any sort would be, without a hefty fee, likely. The library systems even now are not necessarily strong in their ability to digitally rent out new books and there are many issues involved with the process of ebook rental in general due to so many issues with various legal matters (http://www.digitaltrends.com...).
Amelia earhart ran out of gas and crashed

I would like to define the word "crash" before continuing, since Pro left out any definitions. crash: (of a vehicle) collide violently with an obstacle or another vehicle This term is inconsistent with recent findings, however. New evidence suggests that Amelia was able to safely land her plane on the island of Nikumaroro, not crash it. After landing, she attempted to make over 100 radio transmissions that were never received. Source(s): . http://www.msn.com... . http://www.bing.com...
Captain America only beat iron man in captain america:civil war because of plot armor

There was no reason why Tony would have wanted to kill Cap. Bucky was the one he wanted to kill, since he killed his parents, and in the first moments of the final confrontation, Tony did nearly kill him. Secondly, later in the fight we see Cap use his shield to block a stream of repulsor energy, so blasting him would be less effective than simply blocking the passageway. As for his illogical actions, you have to remember that Cap had some help, even if it isn't direct help. The villain of the story had revealed to Tony that Bucky was the one who killed his parents, and we are shown that Tony became enraged because of this. The rage became blinding as he only had one thought on his mind: To kill Bucky. Even when Cap confronts him by saying that it won't change the past, Tony says "I don't care. He killed my mom." While he might seem to have a cool head, regular common sense might have been clouded by emotions. Tony always had always fought with a cool head, so strong emotions in a combat situation would be new to him. This inexperience gives Captain America and Bucky the advantage.
Samsara would suit a just, loving god's purposes better than Heaven and Hell.

That is madness. If you think you are God, suffering from amnesia, trying to find himself, then you are spiritually deluded. I noticed also your denial that God created the universe, I guess that shuts down the discussion. So you think God put his consciousness into a universe he didn't create? So the universe happened all by itself? Just like that? Well, maybe hell happened just like that too...have a great day.
Samsara would suit a just, loving god's purposes better than Heaven and Hell.

In your twisted theology the soul which is sent here to understand is God, trying to understand himself! What kind of insane being is that you are worshipping? If the consciousness we have is nothing more than God's consciousness, then God is the one who does all the bad stuff that ever happened on earth before he attains to nirvana and realizes he is God. If the doctrine of hell is as immoral as you cliam, then your god would have to be immoral because his consciousness (be it in human bodies) came up with this doctrine in the first place. So I don't see that you have a case either way.
Samsara would suit a just, loving god's purposes better than Heaven and Hell.

Sorry Daley, I'm new here and not very good at debating yet. I didn't want you to argue this with me unless you agreed that God created us to understand life. I am not arguing here for a fully Buddhist or Hindu or Sikh or Jain view of Samsara because I am using my own simplified and modified Samsaric (Samsara-based) model, and I do not assert that for God to put the souls that he creates through samsara, he has to split his consciousness. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible for an all-encompassing consciousness to split himself to pieces such that nothing left remains all-encompassing and outside of personal existence. So even with souls that are of the Divine Substance realizing God's Law through Samsara, there is still consciousness that remains in the "Absolute" position, which, for the purposes of this argument, remains the personal deity in its entirety. You can subtract any amount of consciousness from an infinite god and split it off into individuals, and the infinite god will not have lost anything. However, experience of Life (which he could not have had in the Absolute position) when the souls come back to him. And they will if you give them an infinite amount of time, just like how if you give this universe an infinite amount of time to run down, it will certainly reach heat death eventually. All I'm trying to say, Daley, is that God forgives, in principle. The Soul is not Hitler. The soul is here to understand, that's it. God sent the soul down here to Samsara to understand and until it does, it will not go back to God. What kind of fucked up pagan deity are you worshipping that creates ugly people to suffer forever? Why does he do that? for fun?
Samsara would suit a just, loving god's purposes better than Heaven and Hell.

I would like Pro to clarify for us which samsaric model he is proposing. Is he advocating that God should have used a carbon copy of the Hindu model as found in the Vdic writings, that of the Sikhism, Bhuddism, or an adjusted model of his own? If he is making any adjustment, for example, to what the Buddhists teach, what are these adjustments? Further, when you say "God should have used" a samsaric model, are you proposing that the Christian God use this method, or are you using a different definition of God? Do you think this samsaric model could be used by the Christian God if indeed he does exist? do hope these matters will be clarified early in this debate so I can properly address what you mean.
Samsara would suit a just, loving god's purposes better than Heaven and Hell.

Christians claim that God created Man so that there would be someone to become aware of and to share in His infinite glory. I argue that if that's the case, the Christian god has designed the afterlife extremely poorly from a teleological standpoint; by sending everyone to either a realm of eternal bliss or eternal suffering, he has foiled his own plans. Instead, he should have used the Samsaric model of existence because it is infinitely more just and because it would have been infinitely more reliable as a mechanism for fulfilling the potential he created in Man.
People should not eat animals.

Mathnerd: Of your three reasons to be a vegetarian (defined as not eating the flesh of animals, a diet that may or may not include the consumption of eggs and milk) is beneficial to both the vegetarian and to the global community. 1. A vegetarian diet is more healthful. All 13 amino acids and other required nutrients may be obtained easily with very much attention. A vegetarian diet has been shown to decrease chances of cancer and heart disease (because plant foods contain no cholesterol and very little saturated fat). Actually, some veggies contain huge amounts of saturated fats - coconuts for example. So we are in close agreement on point one. 2. Animal agriculture is the number one human-caused source of the greenhouse gas methane, which is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. The rearing of cattle and other animals also contributes to the extinction of many species from habitat destruction, erosion caused by over grazing, excess land use compared to vegetable farming, and water pollution and eutrophication from animal waste and fertilized grazing pastures. To say nothing about the higher costs of vegetables because of the reduction of quality arable land. I'm not terribly concerned about green house gases, as I am not a subscriber of human caused Global Warming Theory, but I generally agree with point two. 3. Common animal farming practices are cruel and unsafe. Most people can agree upon this, however, the morality of animal treatment is highly subjective and I would like to not focus too much on whether a chicken has the same feelings of pain, whether it really matters, etc. My divergence from you position is in the inconsistencies of accepting the consumption of milk and eggs and the fact that your profile shows that you are pro-abortion. Chickens that are used for egg production are kept in tight environments, Additionally their beaks are cut back to prevent damage to their crowded-in neighbors. After a very miserable life they are slaughtered for soup, when they are no longer productive. Presumably, they would still be slaughtered for pet food, even if all persons became vegetarians of the egg and milk variety. In the case of milk cows, heifers are welcomed but (male) calves are eschewed as a liability. Right now they are immediately slaughtered for (monkey) veal. Their venerated sisters will calve and produce milk and calve, again until they no longer produce. They then become food for pets. Not a great life either. Lastly, you favor abortion. Forgive me if I presume that your sympathies are reserved for animals. Even though I am not a vegetarian, I try to limit my intake of animal flesh. I disagree with PETA in their ‘Animal Rights' position. There is certainly, an ethical requirement that we the limit pain and discomfort that farm animals must endure, but animals have no rights. In the other hand . I admire your compassion for animals. Your arguments are well reasoned and strongly stated.