BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Full Drug Decriminalization and Legalization

Drug legalization is an often shot-down idea, however solely due to ignorance. First of all, the Federal Government does not have the constitutional authority to prohibit a substance. A law of that nature can only legally be put into effect by the states. (1) That said, consider the consequences of this poorly thought-out law. The crackdown on drugs generates violence, theft, and criminals. It indirectly funds cartels, ensuring their place in power. If drugs could be bought in a conventional manner, they would be run out of business, along with drug dealers. This would in turn cut down crime because those seeking the currently illegal substances would opt not to buy from dangerous sources. Along with reduced crime, legalization would offer extraordinary economic benefits. Millions of people would buy the new line of products (2), boosting business and lowering prices. Taxes would significantly decline because prisons would house less drug users, who make up around 25% of the prison population (3). The resulting lower taxes would also boost the economy: everyone would have more money to spend. (1) "Constitution for the United States of America." Constitution for the United States of America. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2013.(2) "II. AmericaÂ’s Drug Abuse Profile." II. AmericaÂ’s Drug Abuse Profile. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2013.(3) "Lowering Non-Violent Incarceration Rate by Half Would Result in Billions in Savings for Cash-Strapped State and Local Governments | Press Releases." CEPR. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2013.
problem of suffering, and God - a loving God can still exist

1. If we were created with a limited amount of light that is too little for us to be worthy by the same deity then our nature is predetermined and therefore we are unworthy by design. If we are unworthy by design as per the hard limitation then there is no way that a loving creator deity can be considered as that is equivalent in human terms to setting someone up to fail giving them just enough to function but not enough to prosper. 2. If it is not the deities decision how things are then the question is begotten of whether it is the deities decision to love and pursue the alleviation of suffering. Presuming the deity is loving but without power to do anything and is not the creator deity is the only functional way to make sense of the proposition of acceptance with what is equivalent to basic pity. If the deity is the creator deity then the world is flawed and the creation is flawed and no attempt to fix this has been made. If the deity is powerful then the inaction seen in the world is troubling and inaction or indifference is not loving. However if the deity is both then tyranny is present. 3. You brought up Jesus. By doing so insert blood sacrifice as that is the literal role of Jesus in Christianity. Returning to minimalism there is still no valid reasoning for why the deity is, has, or was a loving being relative to the pain present in the world. If we presume nothing but a hand's off presence in the universe, that it is not the creator, it is not powerful, and it is not even connected to humanity directly, we are at a loss for the ability to show for it's nature whether that incorporates being loving or otherwise. Putting that wall between humans and the deity grants us no further insight. 4. Actually the deity must be true for your theories to be even testable if at all true (if a deity isn't proven how can you prove or assess it's nature?). The argument of inadequacy also needs backing (and a tangible scale, how do we know we're inadequate other than your declaration?). At it's simplest all humans will experience in contrasts because that is how our brains our built, whether it is what we see in light and dark, what we touch in hot or cold, sharp or dull, solid or liquid, etc. or whether it is more intangible such as happiness and sadness, suffering and strength, love and hate, etc. The core reality is that at the most basic level everyone will experience these contrasts based on their perceptions alone and it has no need for a deity, loving or otherwise, a soul, a "light", or any form of adequacy.
problem of suffering, and God - a loving God can still exist

1. it's not about God judging us as unworthy. it's about us being unworthy. we have only a certain amont of light within us cause that is our nature. that is the way of the world, the science of things. God can't intervene much, or doesn't, as he just les the universe do its thing for the most part. 2. it's like like it's God's decision. it's a matter of the way thigns are. if you drop an apple, it falls. if you have lower light within you, you can expeience problems and pain. 3. all your theological points are up for debate. blood sacrifice to atone for ins, everything. all im providing is a minimalist approach. a possible explanation for how a loving God can allow a creation that is in such pain. i don't see you thinking of much anything better? at least, without reject the idea of God. if we retain the idea of God, I'm doing hte best thee is possible. 4 God does not even need to exist for my theoiries to be true. but the bottom line is that we are inadequate by nature so we expereince pain.
problem of suffering, and God - a loving God can still exist

1. If we are not sufficient as we are then we are being condemned for what we are which is far worse than condemnation based on what you do. "Sin" may have no basis and be arbitrary but outright racism against the human species is petty and the capital example of unloving behavior. There is no way to claim to be loving and so harshly judgmental as to reject anything based purely on it's nature and consider it too inferior for your presence. 2. If #1 were true the "Sin" problem no longer matters. If #2 is true then we are not condemned based on our nature (the "dimness of this light") and were made sufficiently to emulate the light. The "Sin" standard is set forth by the deity therefore what makes a person clean or unclean is based on their behaviors and measurable actions not their nature which makes it completely arbitrary to the whims of the deity. Unless there is reasoning behind the deity's decisions it is functionally arbitrary and a matter of "like" and "do not like". 3. Faith in a deity is not required to live a full and happy life. Faith in a deity does not denote faith in a specific doctrine either. The fact that we are relinquished to faith to justify our suffering is problematic, the fact that a man (Jesus) had to die for our suffering and that we could not be forgiven or cleansed by the grace and power of the deity we worship is problematic who creates for us the "Sin" and wages of sin which is Death, and then the fact that we long-suffer and are expected to praise our progenitor for no other reason than they are our progenitor whether the "Sin" weighs against us or our "Nature" weighs against us presents the ultimate problem. In essence we are a failed experiment, our servitude is nothing more than slavery, and we seek to through blind faith fulfill the tasks rendered unto us which is to do nothing more than propagate our progenitor. The deity who could not love us enough to allow us inside demands our homage and sacrifices lives, whether they be of animals or humans, in blood in order to grant us peace? On what plane does blood sacrifice make sense? In what realm is violence the only way to salvation? 4. Yet the concept of a loving deity is not inherent. That's the problem, for all we could know the very cosmos is conscious and loving and doesn't compass a deity or deistic role. If that's the case there's no credence granted. The only problem with the assertion that it corresponds with who we are is that there's no proof that it does. It's a baseless assertion.
problem of suffering, and God - a loving God can still exist

1 to be more precise i said we aren't being punished. and it's not per se about sin but then it is. we live whee the level of light corresponds with who we are. it's innate. we have problems because our light is not bright enough. 2. God didn't arbitrarily decide who is clean or not. everyone has a sin problem. that is not arbitrary. as for elijah who cares about bible stories maybe it was a made up story. the bibel doesn't have to be infallible fo this debate i'm having to be true. and whateve made elijah legit fo heaven was sufficient, we may not know, but it doesnt mean it doesn't exist, that standard. 3 all we have to go on is faith. faith that there is a way to get out of the bad that we are in. the gospel of Jesus Christ. if this is true, the most innocent would want to be here to spread the message. but all fall short and we are where we fit in, that's just the way it is. and ou life is not totally disordered. thee is much good ness to life, and we can assume God wants it that way. 4 i don't have to prove a deity here. i'm just stating some alternative physics theories that would minimize our pain and suffering in the bigge picture. that would onl y help support the idea of a deity ause that idea is supposed to eb based on love, and a shortened time frame is a loving time frame. bottomline "but why does it have to be this way?" "because it correponds with our nature and who we are"
problem of suffering, and God - a loving God can still exist

The love of the deity is non-existent. In direct contention to your numbered points I will offer my own. 1. The proposition of "sin" has no verifiable value. The deity in question simply decides what is sinful which in turn puts us at odds with the deity itself. It is no different than your parents wantonly deciding what is sinful and then punishing you for things regardless of their moral or ethical value while also being immune to the same judgments regardless of their moral or ethical value. The statement that we are "sinful by nature" produces the problem that we are essentially not what this deity wanted at all and we fall short of the design and somehow we are punished for this rather than implying that we've any chance at attaining the perfect state we needed to be in to not be discarded. 2. The proposition of "innocence" has no verifiable value for the same reason as the proposition of "sin". The deity in question arbitrarily decides who is and is not functionally innocent; stories of ascension for instance (using Christian Mythos for this) such as Elijah boggle the mind. Elijah was human, faithful, and holy but he was not sinless, so then how did he ascend into heaven? 2 Kings 2:10-12 KJV [10 So he said, "You have asked a hard thing. Nevertheless, if you see me when I am taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if not, it shall not be so." 11 Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. 12 And Elisha saw it, and he cried out, "My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and its horsemen!" So he saw him no more. And he took hold of his own clothes and tore them into two pieces. ] (https://www.biblegateway.com...) This produces a conundrum in the case of the innocent. How those who did not do anything or have been pious still suffered under the guise of a loving deity even though in the time of this writing for Christian Mythos all humans went to hell, none were spared, and it did not matter since you were boring into sin. This renders the concept of "innocence" itself null to the deity. No one can be innocent as all are born under the burden of sin, yet some were spared for their works and service and faith. 3. The insistence on life and living however may not have anything to do with the will to thrive under the notion of spreading a deity's message or serving a deity's purpose. The concept of the human tool does not necessarily coincide with the notion that we strive to live and to feel pleasure amongst the pain of life. There is no reasonable assertion that assumes the two are one-in-the-same. 4. The problem is that it does not deal inherently with the necessity of a deity. It doesn't attempt to prove nor disprove nor addresses the nature of a deity if one is in the model itself.
problem of suffering, and God - a loving God can still exist

it is often argued that God doesn't exist or doesnt care, due to the problem of suffering. here i am mostly looking at suffering of people who did nothing to cause it, and not at issues with evil acts. mostly natural suffering like being born in pain or dying in pain due to disease. i admit this is a tough philosophical problem. here are some ways i reconcile this with a loving God: -first, it's important to note that i do not argue that we are being punished for being sinful, as some traditionally argue. 1. we are born in the condition where we belong. we are sinful, by our nature, so we only have so much of his nature to sustain us. without all of it, there are problems, including pain. we are imperfect pictures. we can will ourselves in God's light and move on into a better picture. so this is to say.... can't God fix our situation? no, he can't. just like God can't lie, God can't do something to us that our vibrations don't allow. the science of our situation is set, and God tends not to meddle in science. 2. for the least innocent, it might be seen as maybe permissible to allow pain. but for the most innocent, how could God allow that? id argue that if they were so great, they would want to be put into an existence with the possiblity of pain, so they could spread the news of God's love and help bring the problems to an end. plus even the most innocent are sinners, and are where they belong this doesn't really address extreme situations, that's in the next point. 3. if you were to ask almost anyone, would they rather never live or live a somewhat pained life, almost everyone would say live anyway. there is an extremely small fraction that would say never live, especially for extreme situtations of suffering. but i could only chaulk that up to demonstrating that we are put here to conincide with the level of God's light in us. without it all, we have problems, and pain. 4. if you look into physics, there are theories that say our life is fleeting, and in reality could be seen to have occurred in the blink of an eye. i've looked into the theories and it makes sense, if the theories are true. this points out that it's almost a dream, that our life may be pained, but it's really of extremely little consequence in the bigger picture. this is my weakest argument, cause it is still of some consequence. i concede my biggest weakness is that God even allows any of this stuff to begin with. which is why i still struggle with the point. but, God can only allow for what coincides with our inherent nature and free will decisions.
Tony blair should be USA president

Hello, and good luck! First off, I will state the obvious. According to the natural-born-citizen clause of the US Constitution, to be eligible for US Presidency, you must have been born on American soil. Now, Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom. Simply making Tony Blair the United States president, is a massive violation of the US Constitution. Now to retort your claims; 1) Hillary Clinton is 68 years old, and after one 4 year term she will be 72. She probably won't die of health complications. At age 69, Ronald Reagan was the oldest US president to take office, and he served 2 terms. (I didn't realize you put such a hefty character limit on this, so I have to stop argument here)
Tony blair should be USA president

USA politics is beyond a joke Hilary who won't live out her presidency due to health issues and a possible new dictator war criminal. We in england should lend you the USA our very own ex p.m tony blair to run your country for next 4 years. He lked our country out of poverty and into fun rich lives. He'll do the same foir the USA to. So presidential candidates are not much to be excited about Hillary will probably die in next two years due to health aged health issues. Trump will start a war four the sake of starting a war he'll moist defiantly press the nuclear weapons button he won't take advice he'll do what he wants because he can he's mister power happy. So tony Blair iis young fit and not power happy Blair for USA president YEAH
Rap Battle 2A: Jean-Paul Sartre vs. Albert Camus

I've got women in abundance - I could run a brothel [1]You can't even keep one - guess that's why you're so hostile And don't lie about coming to support the SovietsThat's why we stopped being friends - but nicca I'm over it [2] It's clear Sartre's not smart and that's why I'll beat emI won't kill myself cuz it's the antitheiss of freedom [3]So looks like it's he who belongs in liar's prison Cuz I spent my whole adult life rejecting nihilism Look I've got better myths - B!tch I'm the best there is You're lucky they group me with you existentialists Now I've got groupies that wanna do me from all ideologiesAll eyes on me - I'm a prodigy, I make no apologies My writing's witty, bleak but unique and inspirational Yours is pretty but too weak and painfully dull Like your philosophy you've put forth nothing but fluffYou should read some Camus and learn to get tough It's true I out-do you in just about every areaYou're so harmless it's like I can't even get mad at ya Now I coulda straight up killed you in battle for the fun of itIt's too bad I'm not into capital punishment [4] [1] http://www.independent.co.uk...[2] http://www.tameri.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rap Battle 2A: Jean-Paul Sartre vs. Albert Camus

I'm polyamorous, I use my wit and genius to get b1tches You're all alone, now fulfill Sisyphus' legend and dig ditches I'll change one opinion and one only, other people aren't hell Hell to me is people calling me an existentialist with you as well I didn't support the Soviets, I'm so true to Marxist philosophy My views towards those "communist" thugs was consistent animosity I'm an egalitarian through and through in the most consistent way No one rules over another, take your lies and go away 'The Myth of Sisyphus', where you speak of meaning and suicide Why don't you kill just yourself, and save me the homocide Don't worry Camus, it will make it less painfulf if you do Remember that when I take the time to make threats I carry through.
Rap Battle 2A: Jean-Paul Sartre vs. Albert Camus

I beat you before - I'm having deja vu And now you're in for what Camus can doI've got no heart - we know what will come from thisI'll rip you apart - show that your Being is Nothingness Like Jay Z and K. West we're two Niqqas in ParisYou're hazy, I'm the best - don't be embarrassed I run circles around you like I'm on methanphetaminesMy writing's respected cuz I've touched on better themes I'm a loner, no hypocrisy - on your own you can't go far That's why you stole your philosophy from Simone de BeauvoirMy bad - did you think I'd be ignoring this tidbit?It's sad that your work still comes up short like a midget See if you'd had heard me in the Myth of Sisyphus You'd know absurdity's the only b!tch I trust And the danger's that I'm a Stranger, of course Tear up your corpse and show no remorse So keep on mentioning your influenceI'm suspending your inferenceNo mending up our differences Just look at these two images - Your gripe with me's that I'm dope and I know itI'm smarter so put that in your pipe and smoke it Perused your confused work and as I suspectedI easily detected your contrary perspectivesIt's scary, I selected the fact that you're Marxist Supporting the Soviets - I guess you're retarded Hailing their failing egalitarian attempts I guess you really hold humanitarian contempt Not that I care, I been acting all barbarian Not scared or beware of the more authoritarian Cuz nothing at all matters, so I beseech you To keep this factor in mind when I beat you
Rap Battle 2A: Jean-Paul Sartre vs. Albert Camus

I'm back from the dead, nothing can hold back me not even a graveNo man dares to cross me, my raps have high body counts like a tidal waveI've set my sights on the Absurdist poltroon across the roomWhen I'm done with you you'll be dead like morality after Hume.My arguments are rigorous, vigorous, and equally dynamicDenial is useless, I'm all-encompassing and panoramicAs a philosopher, there's isn't anyone more influentialFvck reference, 'Being and Nothingness' is my credentialMan has a distinct nature and drawing on this we can clearly seeThe paradoxical tragedy is that man was condemned to be freeCamus you can get the fvck out, grab a shovel and dig a holeHow Sisyphian would that be, exterting control and filling your role.
The US could be economically self-sufficient in oil.

I gladly accept the challenge provided by RoyLatham. I agree with the restriction to oil and oil equivalents. I definitely want to keep coal and dry gas off the table as the U.S. does have a significant reserve of these and likely not what President Obama was referencing in terms of the 2% claim. I would also ask that coal gasification and liquifaction be removed from contention as these were not delimited in the original challenge. I would also like to clarify the terms appropriate to the discussion as they are often used in economic geologic parlance. Using the Society of Petroleum Engineers Petroleum Resource Management System Definitions (1) RESOURCES: '...all quantities of petroleum naturally occurring on or within the Earth's crust, discovered and undiscovered (recoverable and unrecoverable), plus those quantities already produced. Further, it includes all types of petroleum whether currently considered "conventional" or "unconventional."' (ibid) RESERVES: '...those quantities of petroleum anticipated to be commercially recoverable by application of development projects to known accumulations from a given date forward under defined conditions. Reserves must further satisfy four criteria: they must be discovered, recoverable, commercial, and remaining (as of the evaluation date) based on the development project(s) applied. Reserves are further categorized in accordance with the level of certainty associated with the estimates and may be sub-classified based on project maturity and/or characterized by development and production status.' PROVED RESERVES: '...An incremental category of estimated recoverable volumes associated with a defined degree of uncertainty Proved Reserves are those quantities of petroleum which, by analysis of geoscience and engineering data, can be estimated with reasonable certainty to be commercially recoverable, from a given date forward, from known reservoirs and under defined economic conditions, operating methods, and government regulations. If deterministic methods are used, the term reasonable certainty is intended to express a high degree of confidence that the quantities will be recovered. If probabilistic methods are used, there should be at least a 90% probability that the quantities actually recovered will equal or exceed the estimate. Often referred to as 1P, also as "Proven."' An alternative and somewhat more "simple" definition of Proved (Proven) reserves is available here: Proven Reserves: Quantity of energy sources estimated with reasonable certainty, from the analysis of geologic and engineering data, to be recoverable from well established or known reservoirs with the existing equipment and under the existing operating conditions. Also called measured reserves or proved energy reserves. (2) However I think details around the subcategories should come from Source #1 (SPE) I think within the stringence of this we should be able to have a nice discussion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources 1. http://www.spe.org... 2. http://www.businessdictionary.com...