BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Buddhism! :)

My argument against Buddhism consists of the following:I. Buddhist scripture, to reliably preserve the philosophy, must be shown accurate.II. The same standards of manuscript evidence should be applied to Buddhist scriptures as the Bible.III. The Bible has more ancient evidence of preserved scriptures.I argue that Buddhist philosophy, commonly claimed as more ancient than that of the Bible, when examined by the same standard of manuscript evidence as the Bible, appears poorly preserved, so that Buddhism was quite probably influenced by the Bible rather than the other way around.Biblical EvidenceUltimately there are 100,000 Dead Sea Scroll fragments of approximately 800-900 original scrolls dating from approximately 350 B.C. to 65 A.D. The Great Isaiah Scroll in particular was carbon dated as old as 350 B.C.[2] Some passages of the Old Testament are preserved as old as 1,000 B.C.[3] and 650 B.C.[4] The New Testament has over 24,000 manuscripts[5], some dating as early as 125 A.D. (P52), and the oldest complete version dates to 250 A.D., the Sahidic Coptic Version. As such, the entire Bible is reliably preserved by 250 A.D. at the latest.Buddhist ScripturesIt is my understanding that the Buddhist scriptures, specifically the Pali Canon, were allegedly preserved through oral tradition for centuries, unlike the Bible which always claimed to be preserved through writing. We just recently discovered the oldest Buddhist preserved scriptures, which now total 77 documents made of birchbark dating to approximately 50 A.D.[6] The first printed copy of the Pali Canon was not made until 1893.[7] The oldest recorded evidence of Buddhism's existence whatsoever is to my understanding the Edicts of Ashoka dating 269 B.C. to 231 B.C.[8]ConclusionNow, given all of this, I question the common claim that Buddhism is an old religion. The Edicts of Ashoka show it is older than Christianity - barely, but the scripural evidence for it is barely older than Christianity, let alone Judaism's Old Testament. Buddhism has FAR fewer ancient manuscripts supporting it than either the New Testament or Old Testament, was allegedly preserved orally for centuries unlike the Bible which was always recorded via writing, and its most sacred and supposedly oldest scriptures were not put into print until the last few centuries.If I am misunderstanding anything here please help me understand where I am incorrect, but it is my current understanding that the manuscript evidence showing the Bible's preservation is vastly greater than that of Buddhism, as the sea is to a puddle. As such, if any religion influenced the other's pacifism, I would argue Christianity influenced Buddhism, rather than the reverse.Sources:[1] http://articles.chicagotribune.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://articles.cnn.com...[4] http://www.biblearchaeology.org... [5] http://books.google.com...[6] http://ebmp.org...http://www.sciencedaily.com...http://www.washington.edu...[7] http://www.books.google.com... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Children should be kissed and tickled and licked by grown ups

Children can be kissed, Tickled and licked by grown ups, However, The 4 year old girl you see walking down the street. You do not know her, She has never seen her before. You pick her up, Kiss her, Lick her, How do you think she will feel? Especially when she's only 4 years old. Of course she will detest and loathe your actions, What can she do? Nothing. She is basically vulnerable to you. You could just carry her and take her in your house or car and do whatever with her, Why? Because you believe that children should be allowed to get kissed and tickled and licked by grown ups. Tickles and hugs are alright, But kissing and licking? ! If the person who is kissing and licking the child is from a parent, Then they have their rights to do so, But from a total stranger? ! Definitely not!
Children should be kissed and tickled and licked by grown ups

When I walk on the streets, If I see a child alone, I am going to kiss it. Children should be kissed and tickled and licked by grown ups. It's natural. When you see a cute little 4 year-old girl, You get those feelings, You just want to touch her. I want to kiss a pretty 4 year-old girl and lick her cheek. She is a little lady who likes to be kissed, And tickled on the tummy. Some people say this is very bad. Are they accusing me of practicing love? To that crime, I plead guilty. For I have given my love to the little girl I found sweet, And in her company I found comfort that not all humans are evil.
Joseph Stalin

Considering your entire argument is his mass killings I will be breaking down my argument to refute his claims on 4 major points Labor Camps, Millions Murdered, Famines, and Third World Country. I still stand by my opening argument on my reasons why he was not a bad man. REFUTES 1. Labor Camps Your argument opens with listings on "his" apparent murdering of millions of gulag prisoners, there were 14 million there. Now moving on to my refutes, now my key point on this refute is simple. How could one man write millions upon millions of files to send these people to death camps? The NKVD had entire towns hunted down and was the main reason for mass murders, they ordered mass trials and were the main tool of the purges. Yes Stalin set them up but I really don't think he knew much about the NKVD activities. Also I would like you to know that everyone in gulags were CONVICTS they had participated in illegal activity. I will say that policies under Stalin were defiantly flawed but it is impossible that he kept track of everything under his rule. 2. Murders Again Stalin most likely only signed 200,000 or so death papers, for actual convicts. His purges of his army weren't wrong either, not only did the remnants of the white army still have power within the Red Army. Countries like Germany, USA,Britain,France, and Japan still have massive influence within the USSR. 3. Famines Famines begun when Stalin attempted to industrial the country but a minority of the peasant class called Kulaks burned their crops and fought his rule. This for sure damaged the economy and of course would case a famine. 4. Third world country Well this one is very easy to argue. He made safe places for woman to give birth, many diseases disappeared etc. etc. They created nuclear weapons and sent a man into space. That doesn't sound like a third world country to me. One last thing I would like to add is that he prevented Hitler from killing 95% of the Slavic population and made Russia into a Superpower. Sources . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Joseph Stalin

My first point of my argument is that he was a very influential force in the defeat of the Nazis. Which I assume we both deem evil. It is a know fact that Stalin's five year plans bolstered the Soviet economy to challenge and destroy Nazi Germany almost without help, he also industrialized the Soviet Union and made hospitals and academics much more important than they were in Tsarist Russia. Disease like Typhoid fever fell to next to zero, he reorganized a corrupt decaying system. Last but not least the criticisms for his purges is illogical, he purged the populous because the a minority of the peasant class burned crops and resisted collectivization and caused famines. Then his military was not loyal to him because of western influence. I apologize for the short argument, I am just arguing that it is impossible to say anything about Stalin's era because it is unknown and there is much western propaganda. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Roblox is a childish game

1. Programming ROBLOX is site for games, not a game. You don't see a game called ROBLOX on the site, now do you? One thing I like to think ROBLOX is is that it's a game engine. If you have ever tried to make a game on ROBLOX you know that it's downright impossible to make a game on build mode. Instead, you open the program called "ROBLOX studio" that was downloaded along with the ROBLOX player. When you open it up you get this screen: http://blog.roblox.com... As you can see, there are a lot of options, not just "build what you want with these blocks". Here, you have to make your own textures (well, you don't HAVE to, it makes the game better though). So, a child could do that right? Let me introduce you to one of the things that make ROBLOX unique, programming. Do you have to program in Minecraft to build a "game", no. What child would know how to script, and then put it all together? This makes it so the games can be so different. 2. Games Pro argues that you can play anything on Minecraft. My question is; can you? Sure, you can play survival, sandbox, shooters, and RPGs on Minecraft. But it's hindered by Minecraft's already in game mechanics which you HAVE to work with. In ROBLOX you can make... Well pretty much anything. Survival, Sandbox, Building, RPG, Simulations, Shooters (with actual guns with good sound effects, and SCOPES) RTS, etc. As you can see there's a lot of games for adults to play too, and it doesn't get boring with all the games on the site. Unlike Minecraft's repetitive gameplay. 3. Sound Effects Pro argues one of the reasons why ROBLOX is childish is because of the terrible walk sound effect? The newest updates have made the sound effect better (and it wasn't bad in the first place), plus there are a lot more sound effects on ROBLOX. Plus, you can make your own music, not Minecraft's, boring, repetitive and calm music. The sound effects can actually be pretty good if done correctly.
Roblox is a childish game

First of all, I would like to say that, Roblox is a childish game as you can see from the tile. When I first got introduced to Roblox, it was just a bunch of big fat lego figures with bad effects whenever you walked. Roblox may came out earlier than Minecraft, but Minecraft is like the better version of Roblox. Minecraft is just a one time buy, than you can play whenever you want! Minecraft includes texturepacks, mods and many more stuff you don't find in Roblox! Minecraft can be used to plan out your builds in terms of business and for fun! Everytime there is an update in Minecraft, it increases the players experiences on the game! Roblox, you may play a lot of minigames such as, black ops, Slender and mucm more, which I agree is great, but what I don't get is why the sound effects whenever you walk are terrible! I forgot to say that you can state your own opinions for round 1! GL
Ignorance is bliss.

I am trying to go along with it, but I am quite discontented by how you turned this into a debate about ugh...Twilight. Every time you turn a page, Bella breaks a nail. "Your defense is that Bella was unhappy with the struggle she had to endure to win Edward's heart." That is only one of my defenses. I have an incredibly strong immune system from drinking gallons of Florida orange juice, daily. You say: "She dreaded going to school, talking to people, etc. because she was ignorant of their reactions." I say: What? It is true that Bella was unhappy in Forks, but now she had the added burden of stressing out over Edward. If I do remember correctly, Bella's knowing Edward almost led to her own death, numerous times. I would not call it a "fairytale ending." For goodness sakes, the poor girl could not even celebrate her own birthday without getting extremely anxious and depressed over the guy. Observation, definition, whatever. You say: "If a person remains ignorant of EVERYTHING, they cannot achieve "extreme happiness", the definition of bliss." First, I ask why. Then, I say: If a person is ignorant of EVERYTHING, that includes good and bad things. It all comes down to this: People are born happy, but as they learn about the devastations of life, they adopt a certain melancholy that comes with knowing life's struggles. There are no babies on anti-depression pills. I am not saying that ignorance is reality. It may cause a false sense of bliss, but bliss, none-the-less. As I said before, knowledge imposes itself upon the ignorant in the form of reality, whether that be darting deer, or tornadoes that exist, removing them from their happy-place and making them unhappy. Toyota. Itsallovernow: "You are assuming ignorance always brings happiness." No, actually, I'm not. Ignorance does not bring happiness. It leaves you with the happiness that, as a human, you were born with, and leaves you without unhappinesses because you do not know about them. Happy Valentine's Day, Babe!
Ignorance is bliss.

Itsallovernow, we meet again. If Bella had never met Edward/ if she was ignorant of his existence, she would not experience or be aware of the pain and heartbreak of his 'peek-a-booing' in and out of her life. Plus, you can ask any Twilight fan how blissful Bella was as she fought to win Edward's heart and they will tell you, "not so much." They can then proceed to describe to you their anguish during those dark days of Bella's life. I doubt your Twilight expertise. I never proposed that there is bliss in a solitary country or people. You said that: 1. "if a person decided to be ignorant of a situation, he or she would have no idea what good might come out of a situation." First of all, a person cannot "decide" to be completely ignorant of a situation. You are negating your own definition of 'ignorance' ("total unawareness of a subject, idea, etc.)" by saying that ignorance is a decision. Ex) Bella could not say "Oh, I will not fall in love with this guy, Edward Cullen. Using your definition, she would be totally unaware of this vampire-man-guy and all his dashing good looks. Second of all...Exactly. He or she would have no idea what good might come out of the situation, thus never being in want of what that good would be (or in fear of what bad would come of it). You are quite blissful cruising down the highway, or making smores on your camping trip until knowingness in the form of car crash or a tornado imposes reality upon you. But otherwise, the only circumstance where you would be unhappy, would be when you worrying about the oncoming black ice or twister that you KNOW could be a prospective threat. I love You.
Ignorance is bliss.

I negate the resolution: "Ignorance is bliss. " Definition(s): Bliss- state of extreme happiness (wordnetweb. princeton. edu/perl/webwn) =Observations= 1. Being nonignorant of something does't nessicarily mean that it automaticall has a negative effect on a person. 2. Ignorance is total unawareness of a subject, idea, etc. =Rebuttal(s)= 1. My opponent's only contention, much to my personal humor, seems to be: "If one does not know heartbreak their heart will remain unbroken. " He/she seems to believe that this only pertains to love, and that his one contention is unequivically appurtenent to his standing of the resolution. I must disagree. I'll use the Twilight saga as my example. In the books, apparently, Edward gives Bella the boot on the basis that he doesn't want to hurt her. What if she had bought into that? What if she decided to be ignorant, unknowing or willing to explore other methods in which they could be together? Then she would be heartbroken and, hopefully, her character would have jumped off a bridge and killed herself (I don't wish this upon the actor herself, just the role she plays. ) In his case, ignorance is not bliss. However, this is only 1 situation pertaining to love. What about others? __________ <---==/Contentions\==---> ----------------- 1. If our country had decided to shut the rest of the world out to live within itself to maintain bliss, then other countries would seek to take over. This is much like the Indians vs. the Settlers of this country. It's not exactly, but similar. For the record, the peace-loving Indians lost, obviously. 2. Going to a more base level, if a person decided to be ignorant of a situation, he or she would have no idea what good might come out of a situation. In this ignorance, the person cannot achieve true bliss, or a state of extreme happiness, since nothing would happen to them as a result of their decision. Even then, remaining ignorant of a subject could come to haunt you, like the roadways when they're bad. If I chose not to watch the news about what roads are bad, then I could crash. If I didn't know there would be a twister (tornado) later today and I decided to go camping, that would be very detrimetal to my health if it hit near me. For these reasons I heavily urge you to =VOTE CON=
school vouchers.

1. Re: Separation of Church and State violation Numa, this is an impossibility, because no such clause (in the sense that you are thinking it) exists. In a letter to the Danbury Association, Jefferson wrote that the government should not prohibit the free exercise thereof one's religion, thus establishing a separation of church and state. In other words, the government cannot stop people from practicing whatever religion they choose. He didn't explicitly say (or necessarily even mean) that the government should or can not have any affiliation with a religious institution whatsoever. Also, I ask the readers to take into account my rebuttal against this point in previous rounds. 4. Re: Government funded things should have no religious affiliation. This debate is about vouchers, i. e. the distribution of funds. A religious institution funded by the government doesn't necessarily indicate a relationship with ANYTHING. It merely acts as a source of funding. For instance, if an insurance company represents a Jewish client, and the owner of the company is Christian, it doesn't mean that the owner nor the company affiliate with the same views as the Jewish person they're helping, nor Christian views either. Similarly, vouchers and where they are spent don't recognize or favor any particular group. They merely act as a means of paying for something which society feels should be publicly funded. Clearly, schools already fall under this category.
school vouchers.

1. my point about the funding of private schools had to do with the first amendment and the separation of church and state clause. take your own example (from the forums) of the government funding the boy scouts. it was deemed that the boy scouts should not be publicly funded, because in addition to their private policies (like discrimination against homosexuals), they also endorse a deity. the christian god. people should not have to pay taxes to an institution that endorses or imposes something they don't believe in. 4. ok, the civil rights act defends against things like racism and sexism and discrimination based on religious affiliation. this means our government as a whole opposes them. therefore, our government funded schools should uphold discrimination based on these things. like i said, i concede this debate, but we'll meet again :o)
school vouchers.

That's fine, Numa - no worries : ) However, I noticed that I may have been unclear with some of my positions anyway, so I'll clarify for argument's sake and voter's awareness, and then we can either continue or end the debate from there. Re: Point 1 -- I asked, "Since when does being Pro School Vouchers warrant the opinion that the government should necessarily fund private education?" Obviously some people would use their vouchers to attend private school. However, my question was really in regard to why you think ONLY private schools would be funded (which I explained later when stating that you had to prove a public education system would not exist with the implementation of vouchers, and that if they did, these public institutions would be inferior). Moreover, I asked, "If you don't want your tax dollars being spent on things irrelevant to you [private school], why should the tax dollars of others be spent on things irrelevant to them [public school]? For this reason, I think I have won Point 1. Re: Point 4 -- In response to private schools being discriminatory, I forgot to mention that this is not necessarily a bad thing. For instance, studies show that girls perform better academically in All-Girl educational environments. Mayhaps a parent would want their daughter's school to be unisex to promote further academic achievement. I think my other points have been clear; please extend my arguments. And Numa, good luck responding. If you can't or don't have time, that's fine -- I'd be more than happy to debate you on this topic again in the future.
The Royal Family is Useless

The royals own the palaces. In return for a salary, they let Parliament take the money they would have earned on the property.[1] If the royals are deposed and lose their salary, they have no obligation to pay Parliament money on the lands. If you taking those properties away from the royals without paying for them (which would cost a crap ton of money for UK taxpayers), that would be wrong because they have no right to do so and stealing stuff is immoral.As I have proven the royals are not useless, the debate resolution is utterly refuted. Vote Con!References:1. http://www.cgpgrey.com...
The Royal Family is Useless

Actually the entire royal family spends about an estimated "202 million a year, enough to pay for thousands of teachers, nurses or police officers at a time of sweeping public spending cuts. There is no reason to believe that if Britain abandoned the monarchy tourism would suffer -- that's something even the head of official tourism agency VisitBritain has acknowledged. Britain's history is certainly an attraction -- and the great thing about their history is that it will always be there regardless of what we do in the future. Selling hotel rooms and "I Love London" T-shirts is, anyway, no reason to abandon a proud ambition for democratic reform. Also people don't come to see the family, they come to see the palace. As a national figurehead and leading public figure the queen has utterly failed to do anything of note or worth. After 60 years who can quote a famous speech or point to a moment of crisis or celebration when the queen offered leadership and inspiration? http://www.cnn.com...
Belief In God is Logical

"what about physical proof?" So apparently you're not a big fan of logic? I'm here to prove, as you can see in the title of this debate, that belief in god is logical. So, I need to prove this through logic, and I have already made 2 points you are yet to disprove. " i have never seen a PHOTOGRAPH of god. " Have you seen a PHOTOGRAPH of the Big Bang? No. Please don't be so childish, at least not to the point in which you assume anything that isn't photographed by man isn't real. "a man comes back to life, and there was a talking SNAKE! " First of all, that "Man" was Jesus, and Jesus is the son of God. Do you really think the son of an all-powerful creator is going to die because some humans tortured him? And that talking snake wasn't even a snake... It was a delusion caused by Satan, to trick Adam & Eve to eat the forbidden apple. "have you ever met someone who has died, and come back to life?" This.. It's just the most broken logic.. Just wow. Have you ever met a Universal-wide electric process? NO! Just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not there and/or didn't exist. "the bible is over thirty four hundred years old. it could have easily been destroyed and changed to meet radicals' point of views. " Why, just Why, would ANYONE go through the trouble of re-arranging the entire Bible? It's around 2000 pages! "we are 99% related to prime-apes, so obviously god didn't create us" You can't really say that we're related to apes. That's like me saying, "God is real so belief in him is logical." You can't just say that you're right, so you're right. What if those apes are actually related to us? What if they evolved from humans? Or what if they're... Gasp... Simply animals that are similar to us?!?You need to realize that we're not arguing whether God is real or not. We're Debating about whether belief in him is a logical choice or not.