BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
911 was an inside job (2)

The first three points are a demonstration of the "Hasty Generalisation" fallacy and "Poisoning the Well" fallacy. Even if all of the first three points are true, they don't support the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. So they will be disregarded as irrelevant. Now let's look at point 4: a) Irrelevant. Why does this make the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job a reasonable conclusion? b) Irrelevant. There were many other things on the jet that also survived, though we're not likely (cards, wallets etc). c) Do you have evidence for this besides YouTube videos? d) It's faulty, but it's not impossible. Also consider the fact that the hijackers were flying into a building, and were therefore much lower than a normal jet would actually be. So phone calls were more probable then normally. e) Irrelevant. A verbal slip-up is not evidence that the largest terrorist attack in the world was actually a conspiracy. Besides, many MANY other witnesses in the area reported seeing a jet, not a missile. [1] [1] http://911research.wtc7.net...
911 was an inside job (2)

False flag events are very common in the history books if you know how to read between the lines and research the fine print. 1.The Gulf of of Tonkin attack was a case of American aggression, not Vietnamese aggression. The American destroyer was only 30 kilometres off the coast of Vietnam looking for trouble, so when a few torpedo boats came near to investigate; the destroyer decided to get some target practice. Thus, we had the beginning of the Vietnam War. 2. Pearl harbour - The Japanese navy had radioed Pearl Harbour to advise them that they were going to attack days before hand. The radio message was not passed on. Thousands of civilian lives were lost unnecessarily as a consequence. This gave the American Government an excuse to enter the Second World War. 3. The Lusitania - This ship was loaded with passengers and ammunition at the same time. A German newspaper in New York tried to publish a warning about submarines in the area where the Lusitania was about to cruise. The article was stopped by the American government who needed lots of causalities so that America could have a reason to enter the First World War. 4. 911 - Suspicious circumstances - Marvin Bush (George's brother) was in charge of security of the World Tower buildings. - Passports of terrorists found totally intact without any burns or damage. (very convenient) - George Bush's friendly relationship with the Bin Laden Family. - Mobile phones working on planes at high altitude (impossible) - Donald Rumsfeld slip-up about a missile hitting the pentagon. https://www.youtube.com......... https://www.youtube.com......... https://www.youtube.com......... https://www.youtube.com......... https://www.youtube.com.........
are cats better than dogs

While it is true that cats are fluffy, dogs have served humanity for much longer. Five reasons dogs are better than cats are: - They are actually interested in what you do - They can be trained to detect certain smells and save people's lives - They are more exciting than cats - They can chase after criminals, aiding in arrest - They help with emotional coping much more than a cat would And, some dogs can be just as "fluffy" as a cat.
I think for the job that they do enlisted soldiers deserve more pay.

I would like to start my argument off by saying as an enlisted Soldier myself I think you have good intentions with your argument. You say that you will not debate,"that they signed up for it , so that is the pay they deserve". I think you should reconsider because nobody should start a career whether it be in the military or as a civilian without seeing if they can cover their current debts with the salary they will receive. Another point I would like to make is that the military receives many benefits that are never seen in the civilian sector. I receive medical and dental for my dependents and myself at a very cheap insurance rate. I also receive 30 days paid vacation a year, and 10 paid holidays a year. I am able to debate you now because I am on a 4 day weekendristmas and I will receive another 4 day weekend for New Year's. I also have my PX and Commissary privileges where I can receive goods without being taxed. I am also able to receive thousands in free college EVERY year! The list of benefits are long and could fill up my entire argument. If you care to look at a few here is the link: http://www.militarybenefits.com... Most military jobs either pay more or close to their civilian counterpart Granted the military version can be dangerous, I believe we receive ample pay for our job. When in a hostile enviroment you receive upwards of over a thousand dollars extra each month, plus it is tax free. In my experience in the military the only people that I have seen that have had debt problems are people that do not know how to properly manage their money. No one should serve their goverment with the intentions on being rich. In 2004, the average enlisted military employee earned $42,664.48 annually while the average full-time, year-round civilian employee earned only $36,284. I think JFK said it best,"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
I think for the job that they do enlisted soldiers deserve more pay.

I am debating enlisted soldiers only because I do not know enough about officers and their pay scale. Also I am not debating that they signed up for it , so that is the pay they deserve. I do not think that enlisted soldiers get enough pay for the sacrifices they make. We need an army and we need soldiers. They protect our country. Soldiers must follow all orders no matter what. Soldiers have to miss holidays, bdays, births of their children, anniversaries, graduations, weddings, etc. They have to go long stretches of time without seeing their families. It is not an easy life being a soldier. They risk their lives in their jobs especially when they are at war. I believe while soldiers are at war , they deserve more pay. There are soldiers with families that are barely making ends meet. I don't think this is fair. I think for all our soldiers risk and sacrifice a bit more pay is deserved. I'm not saying they should be rich , I am just saying they should be able to make enough money to have no struggles while they are away. The NG soldiers suffer because some own businesses and have to shut them down whyile they are gone, that can cause them to suffer in the long run. Many of them take a huge pay cut when deployed in the war because their civilian job pays much more money than the military does. Therefore their bills (mortgages , cars etc ) may be more than they can handle under the pay cut they take.
I think for the job that they do enlisted soldiers deserve more pay.

I have really enjoyed this debate. Definetly the most civil debate I have had so far. I wish you would of told me exactly how much you think Soldiers should get paid. "There is no consideration of family size though , one man can have a wife and no kids and another may have a wife and 8 kids and they make the same." There is a diffrence between having dependents and not for BAH. With ANY job you should know whether or not you can afford to bring another child into the world or not. No job in the world will pay somebody more because they decide to have another child. That falls into personal responsibility. "Some are going up, some stay the same and some go down, ours is going up about $60 a month. While the BAH for soldiers with no dependents in our area is going up about $200 a month." I must say that sounds weird. I am receiving almost $300 extra a month for my housing allowance in my area. If you can get the goverment to pay Army Wives for what they do go fot it. Lord knows you deserve it. I really don't see anything wrong with the current pay system. The Soldiers I have seen with debt problems usually are not living within their means. I have already shown that the military family makes more than the average family. Like I said you heart is in the right place, I just don't see the justification for paying more than is already given. With the job skill and education you can receive while in the military you can get out and usually get a great job. The Army even has a program for Soldiers getting out to set them up with jobs. They have job fairs all of the time at any installation. Thanks again for the debate. Take Care! -Brandon
I think for the job that they do enlisted soldiers deserve more pay.

Okay it may be valid , but I am only debating that they deserve more pay , not if it is fair that they get paid what they do. Remember athletes and pop stars There is no consideration of family size though , one man can have a wife and no kids and another may have a wife and 8 kids and they make the same. Also BAH doesn't always account for the high prices in an area. Some are going up, some stay the same and some go down, ours is going up about $60 a month. While the BAH for soldiers with no dependents in our area is going up about $200 a month. Thats because your wife understands how many sacrafices are made as do I . Soldiers are humble and don't think of yourselves as heroes .. but be assured you all are. Thank you for your kid words and thank your wife as well , I agree we do have one of the toughest jobs in the military , hey maybe its us wives that deserve more pay lol. :)
Sonic Booms Should Be Outlawed In Africa

Thank You, I was getting so sick and tired of people on this website debating non-issuses like gay marriage, health care, or the war in Afghanistan (like anybody cares). But nobody had the cojones to bring up a serious issue like this one so before this debate starts I just want to commend you sir, good luck. You took the con position so you are against Sonic the hedgehogs boat spars being turned into bandits and then being put into a aerosol can, ARE YOU INSANE! !! !! !! !! !! . Pro is the only way to go. This could get us out of the economic crisis my friend. The marketability could grow Lynx Spray Range, they will hire more employees, the employees now have more money, they buy more things, other companies grow and so on. This how this gets achevied. 1. The other day i was at the mall and i smelled Africa the first thing that came to my mind when i got a whif of it was, "this needs part of Sonics boat mixed into it. " Thats how we get it to smell great. 2. If these Boat Spars are turned into bandits that would make National News. Headlines read "Banks robbed by Boat parts. " it's a appealing story. Now that everybody knows about the bandits and is furious with them the spray company can stop them now they have the image of being heroes and saving banks from robberies. Plus people will know about the bandits so they will be intrigued to see what a colonge with the bandits inside of smells like so. .. People buy it and the company has a positive image. 3. Now, Kids don't always watch the news but the company can advertise to them for FREE! The spray can be advertised on Sonics show and Video Games. Maby Sonics adds a talking cologne bottle as a friend I don't know something like that. So now when Timmy is preparing for his 3rd grade dance he'll want the spray he saw on his favorite show/video game Sonic. This plan is bullet proof.
Sonic Booms Should Be Outlawed In Africa

Lets Start With Some Defintions (YOU PROBABLY MISINTERPRETED THE TITLE) -Please Read Them Sonic (Hedgehog): The main character in the cartoon series: Sonic The Hedgehog http://en.wikipedia.org...(character) Boom (Sailing) : spar at the foot of a sail on a sailboat http://en.wikipedia.org... Outlaw (Person) : An outlaw or bandit from olden times http://en.wikipedia.org... Africa (Areosol) : A Perfume for men, form the Lynx Spray Range http://www.reviewcentre.com... Therfore, let me tell you what the topic is in case you misinterpreted the title: "Sonic The Hedge Hog's Boat Spars Should Be Turned Into Bandits And Then Placed In An Aerosol Can. " ^^ Now i hope you understand :) Lets begin, i will hand it over to my oponnent PRO first
If there is a God, then it is most definately the Christian God.

The Christian God is defined as the God of the Holy Bible that is endorsed by Christianity. He is the God of Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham. In order for my opponent to win this debate, he or she must either prove that it is most definately not the Christian God or that another god is more correct than the Christian God. I will further clarify as necessary. I will present my main points in the opening of the second round.
Bullying and discrimination is part of "survival of the fittest"

Hitler was ""ready and wanting to dominate the hell out of any one deemed "unworthy of contributing to society"" (Jews) But does that make what he did something to be dismissed as "survival of the fittest"? He did a horrible thing, Ordering the deaths of millions, And I believe he should have been punished for it. Certainly we can and will learn from it. If you are a Holocaust denier (yes, It is a thing) then instead I will cite the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The people that took over planes and flew them in to the twin towers were also ""douchebags ready and wanting to dominate the hell out of any one deemed "unworthy of contributing to society"" (In this case being Americans). They did something terrible, Killed thousands of people, And plunged the country in to one of the darkest, Most hateful periods of its existence. In addition, You never made a complete claim in your first argument, Instead saying "If you think you can back this up, Challenge will be accepted". I have been working with an incomplete understanding of the question being asked, And before I submit my second argument, I would appreciate a definitive stance on your part. Thank you for debating me, And have a wonderful weekend.
Bullying and discrimination is part of "survival of the fittest"

I accept and acknowledge bullying and discrimination are part of animal nature in general, Look at other animals competing for territorial scarcity, Look at other animals battling for dominance, Look at other animals having hive mentalities like bees, Look at other animals looking always for the strongest of alpha males in their land It doesn't get anymore truthful than this No matter how many years of social engineering from "peacemaking", "equality" and "politness" we have, There will always be douchebags ready and wanting to dominate the hell out of any one deemed "unworthy of contributing to society" If you think you can back this up, Challenge will be accepted
Bullying and discrimination is part of "survival of the fittest"

Well alright While those may have been extreme examples, I still gotta accept them as what they are Why? The person in power was dominating those herds at that time Now I ain't no holocaust denier, But a lot of peacemaking isn't even natural human behavior at all. It is enforced through law, Culture and of course, Policy Where as more primitive cultures still follow the same principle Now should a person just bully, Discriminate or intimidate others in the name of that? No, But once again if you look into more primitive socities that's how they operate still Our technology, Our law and our culturalization are all human made as they come, Therefore how would people still be behaving if it weren't for those things? Alright I pass the turn to you sir and hope you enjoy your Saturday.
Best Movie of 2008

Spike Jonze couldn't have done a better job in terms of pacing and craftsmanship of Kaufman's excellent script. The film had been five years in the making and you can feel the issues that Kaufman wanted to address brimming over. Illness, death, transience, love, relationships, passion, devotion, art, theatre, identity, hope, so many topics dealt with in a painfully sincere way. You both laugh and get emotionally affected all the time along with being confused by the twists of the plot and the grotesqueness of the imagery. You get many 'this is so true' moments that you completely identify with and then you suddenly get struck by a completely surreal scene. The brilliant script by Charlie Kaufman makes everything flows effortlessly. The photography assists the script, completing it. It's just incredible cinematography. The cinematography and set design mixes magical realism into the movie and gives a dream like quality to everything. The cast is phenomenal, Philip Seymour Hoffman has to be singled out for his magnificent performance. I have never been much of a fan of his and I was somewhat bothered by the idea of him as a lead in the next Kaufman movie. I didn't think he had a presence for that, but did he prove me wrong! Appearing in virtually every scene, the man has carried this film on his shoulders. He has created a completely lovable and ludicrous character and conveyed Kaufman's ideas splendidly. As a fan of Charlie Kaufman, I was really overwhelmed by this experience. The film is a bit difficult to comprehend instantaneously and Kaufman himself insists it requires a second or third viewing. It is an amazing, honest, and thought-provoking picture.
bible is not clear if we are justified by faith alone or if works are required in justification

to lay the best examples of the ambiguity, we have two apparently conflicting versions of the story of abraham and his justification. james 2 20You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is uselessd ? 21Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"e and he was called God"s friend. 24You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. then we have romans 4 on the other hand 'What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about"but not before God. 3What does Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."a 4Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 'We have been saying that Abraham"s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. you can find quotes to argue both ways. these are just great examples using the same story and seemingly different outcomes. it's not contradictory, though, just a matter of how you reconcile everything. to be sure, the only place where 'faith alone' is used in the bible is when James says we are not justified by faith alone. but it's too much to take everything from just that one quote. to be sure, works are required in both versions. salvation = faith + works. faith = salvation + works. it's just a technical matter in how those works save or not. really, it's more academic than anything for practical purposes.
bible is not clear if we are justified by faith alone or if works are required in justification

i didn't miss the point. i just pointed out how your arguments are just arguments, possibilities. you have not shown irrefutable proof that it's one way or the other. it could still be faith plus works equals justification instead of faith equal justification plus works. you also notably are weak in other biblical support. and you ignore that jesus stressed works, period. at times he emphaseized faith in him, but the bottomline was stressed to be works emphasized. leading to the equation alterante to what you claim. thus, it is not clear what the solution truly is. only God knows.
bible is not clear if we are justified by faith alone or if works are required in justification

Pro completely misses the point where I explained what the verses were saying.As for what Paul said, the word "work" as a verb has a different meaning than "works." What he said is that you should be God-fearing when you are being saved. Faith without works, or in other words, faith that doesn't produce works, is not faith. That's what he was saying. We should have faith in the fact that what God said about repenting being true.Merriam Webster's Definition of Repentance: to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's lifeWith faith comes salvation, and with salvation comes repentance, which if you are turning from sin, you are turning to good things, which include works. Works are not a requirement for salvation, but a result, meaning that what James said is if your faith is not producing works, it is not faith. If we use it in that context, it makes sense. Yes, Jesus' words concern works, but these are works that came as a result of faith. Works are a result, not a requirement.
bible is not clear if we are justified by faith alone or if works are required in justification

con says that works and faith are both present, even if it's faith alone that justifies. this is all very nice, and a great argument, but there's weak biblical support, and he ignores the works stuff in the bible. con simply ignores the James passage that says explicitly that we are not saved by faith alone. another passage by Paul says that we are "to work out our salvation in fear and trembling". if we focus not so much on the letters of the apostles, and paul, and focus on Jesus, we see an emphasis on works. In the story about Judgment Day, (Matthew 25:31-46) where Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, the only questions that Jesus asks the multitude concern works. Jesus also talks about the necessity to be baptized, participate in the lord's supper, etc. Jesus also gives examples of servants obeying their masters and doing right before the master returns. i could go on and on with examples of works based salvation being emphasized. how can we demarcate how jusitification is technically achieved with so many coflicting passage and theories? we can't. the bible isn't clear enough. we can know both faith and work are present, but not how they play into justification and salvation. as I said earlier, to be sure, works are required in both versions. but con hasnt sshown why it's faith = justification + works..... instead of faith + works = justification.
bible is not clear if we are justified by faith alone or if works are required in justification

I would like to rebut my opponents arguments that faith produces works. Yes, the verses work because faith can only be true if it produces works. Salvation comes from faith alone, but that faith creates works. 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.The faith is dead if works do not come from it. If you don't have faith in God's word, where will the works come from? In Luke 19: 1-10 Zacchaeus has faith in Jesus and returns to every man he stole from four-fold. That act of kindness could only be performed through faith. So Abraham's offering was a work produced through faith. He had faith God would somehow save his son, and that's he reason he obeyed God. He trusted in God. He had faith in him.