BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God does not exist

You have no basis for the claims in the first paragraph. Claiming that we can't understand is a claim unto itself about God. It' akin to emailing me a message saying messages never get delivered with computers. Answers to the questions: 1. The shining is well written too. Musta been magic. 2. The fact that Adam and eve didn't happen. The fact that there was no worldwide flood, etc. Not historic, science. 3.Same author perhaps? Or same group of people. Or plagiarism. 4. Because they are stories. And lots of people died in horrible ways back then. Doesn't make all the supernatural claims true. 5. Because regardless of how good paul was, it doesn't mean that the bible is true. And all that forgiveness like god supposedly showed sodom and gomorah? In summary: That which cannot exist does not exist( IE square circles, triangular-rectangles,omnipotent omnipresent omniscient sky daddies) You have no evidence to back up any of your claims that you made. Apple pie is delicious. Thank you.
God does not exist

God can hear me talk, and He hears you talk and He sees all of our actions. When we die we will face a some sort of judgement based upon our lives. Probably an entire look through from birth to death. He and you will see every little thing and hear every little thought. You say how can I know anything, how can you then? I have some questions for you sir. Who made up the sermon on the mount? and they must of been a great writer. Show me anther history record or any other document recording the history of the Israelites that contradicts the Old Testament. Why do the Gospels match up and every one has a slight different account but the same basic principles. Why would Jesus put himself to die a horrible death and 11 of the 12 original disciples die martyrs deaths besides John and Judas? And if you look at the books written by Paul, they support peace and love and forgiveness, why would you hate on something like that they are not supporting killing like the writings of Mohammad?
God does not exist

Forgive me for misquoting Richard Dawkins, I think we should be open minded, but not so open that our brain falls out. The fact that I am open minded is why I hold the positions that I do. But the default position of being open minded isn't Christianity. You say you have a "relationship" with God. But if it is true that he is beyond our ability to understand then how can you have a "relationship" with him? Again, who are YOU as an insignificant human to claim to understand even a little bit about what hes about, much less what he wants? So you've read the Bible and you believe it because the bible said the bible is true? And from that you deduce that Zeus can't be real? *clap clap clap* good job sir. You ever read Lord of the Rings? It's a great series. I'm also a fan of Stephen King novels. Animal farm is a good book as well. You know what those books have in common with the Bible? They aren't real. Even though if you just took it at face value you'd think they were. You'd be wrong.
History: Controversial Debate Challenge

Thank you. I choose the following resolution: Muslims made major contributions to driving the Dark Ages out of Europe. I am Pro. I will argue that Muslims, during the Islamic Golden Age, contributed heavily to bringing medieval Europe out of its dark ages by achieving scientific prosperity, such as in astrnomy, medicine, etc. Societal topics are also included. I ask my opponent to conduct himself, and naturally, I look forward to doing the same. Semantics are not allowed, thank you very much. Golden Age: http://dictionary.reference.com... Dark Ages: http://en.wikipedia.org...
History: Controversial Debate Challenge

The premise of this debate is that my opponent will select the topic to be debated. I do have some stipulations: First of all, I wish that whatever the topic may be, it is relatively clean. Secondly, I would appreciate that this debate regard a controversial or debateable topic; it cannot be particularly pitched or one-sided (if it is, I hope the voters will acknowledge that fact). Thirdly, it must be historical (dating before the 1980s). We will have 72 hours to debate and 8,000 characters per post. I have chosen four rounds due to the fact that the first round shall only address the rules of debate and introduce the topic. My opponent may assume either the pro or con stance. Thanks and let us have a stellar debate.
The hunger to know about our past and present is helping to build our future in no way.

With the very honour of having a competent opponent, I would justify my inability to post as a personal problem. But after reading all the argument by my opponent I would like to present my views on these arguments. As stated, it is very important to know about past so as to carry out better operations for futures, but tell me is it necessary to create a condition of big bang by spending billions of dollars instead of solving food problems and saving those peoples who are dying because they are not getting food for survival. My point is, there is no need of performing massive, expensive experiments which are probably not helping to better our present and future. It is a very need of research about our economy, climate and population but not of those which just claim that 'Our earth, before many million years was like this'. Referring to the same 'Collider experiment', is it important to know how our earth evolved and how the big bang took place?, or to save those who are dying because of shortage of food. And in my view some of the experiment and researches, are performed for the only purpose of achieving fame and name and not for development of humanity. Knowledge of past is of utmost importance and quintessential of further developments, but now a days most of these researches and experiment are done to get those facts from past which may not be helpful. Just knowing our past by conducting huge and expensive experiment shall not improve our future but there is a need of performing select researches and experiments which may help to solve issues of prime concern like food problem, like climate condition and a much more prevailing in our world.
The hunger to know about our past and present is helping to build our future in no way.

My opponent seems to be stunned by the eloquence of my arguments...or something. I'll reiterate my position. Only by evaluating the past and present through scientific methods can we have a chance to know that anything is wrong, that we can fix it, and that what we are doing to fix it is working. I look forward to my opponent's response...any response for that matter.
The hunger to know about our past and present is helping to build our future in no way.

Now, to business. - "It is better to know about our past, but not at the cost of our future. If such effort is done in order to make our future better, for improvement of climate, for reducing food problems and a lot like these (which are of major priority), our world would be a better place to live in. " Without proper knowledge of our past, how would we know about these examples you gave? Without decades of collecting data regarding the past, such as geologic formations and chronology, historical weather patterns, glacial composition and retreat, how would we know that the climate needs to be improved? Without statistics involving population increase, water quality, germs that live in food and the countless drug trails to counteract these germs, how would we know that there are food shortages or certain problems with quality? Such statements are dependent on past and present knowledge, especially since data cannot be collected, analyzed and responded to instantaneously. - "An experiment, that is performed to make the conditions just like after big bang, costs about 5 Billion dollars… Such amount of resource, if properly used along with such a great knowledge, should have made our present problems less intensified. " Where would this 'great knowledge' you allude to, come from? How will you know where to spend such vast quantities of money without looking at previous trends within similar parameters? If you're not drawing on experience put through the rigors of repetitive testing, what are you using to make such judgments? - "Moreover, there is no use of conducting such experiments, as what we will be getting after completion of it, will not be of much use and application. Instead, try to use same force and resource for better purposes. " Must be nice to know the future like that. You've already seen the outcome of the experiment and all possible conclusions and future questions that may arise from that outcome. How can you say that there will be no use in conducting such experiments? If not for the actual results of the experiment yielding a greater understanding of the universe, then consider that many scientific breakthroughs, such as penicillin and Teflon, have been a result of serendipity arising from other experiments. True, basing research funding on what accidents might happen is not the best of ideas, but claiming to know the utility of the outcome is almost equally fallacious. - The very purpose for any facet of science, be it economics, physics, medicine, etc. , is to use previous data and experience to understand the world. From there, knowledge can be used to better our lives.
The hunger to know about our past and present is helping to build our future in no way.

In today's world, the hunger of scientists to know about our past is nowhere helping to make our future better. A lot of researches had been done and a lot of resources have been spent only in order to know 'How did the earth evolve?'. And for this a lot of money and time is being spent. It is better to know about our past, but not at the cost of our future. If such effort is done in order to make our future better, for improvement of climate, for reducing food problems and a lot like these (which are of major priority), our world would be a better place to live in. An experiment, that is performed to make the conditions just like after big bang, costs about 5 Billion dollars. http://news.bbc.co.uk... Such amount of resource, if properly used along with such a great knowledge, should have made our present problems less intensified. Moreover, there is no use of conducting such experiments, as what we will be getting after completion of it, will not be of much use and application. Instead, try to use same force and resource for better purposes. For the facts that there is no use of conducting experiments and researches which helps to know about our past as it may not help to improve future, I stand firmly FOR the topic that 'The hunger to know about our past and present is helping to build our future in no way.'
New Zealand is a better Country

New Zealand was one of the last places to be populated by the English and when they arrived at the capital city Wellington they had almost no supplies and instead of turning them away like the natives of America would have The Maori gave them food and the knowledge of how to grow food in New Zealand so this sums up the alright attitude between the local Maori and the English And on the quality of life I don't think you understood what I was saying when I mentioned quality of life new Zealand is one of the most racially diverse places and naturally gifted places in the world and I know this because I live there and on the topic of political stability to become prime minister you don't have to be a relative of an old president or a billionaire show host. And also financial stability is another reason New Zealand is better than America we don't owe 20 trillion to China that they will never pay off and that only to China mind you so, in conclusion, New Zealand may be smaller but we are better than America cough cough. heath care
New Zealand is a better Country

Okay, you've given three different 'reasons' why you believe New Zealand is superior to the United States, and each one is false. First of all, political stability. Political stability is where the government is less likely to fall apart because of protests, clashes between the views of people and of politicians and other factors. New Zealand is a small and not highly populated island nation, especially when compared to the United States. The government is unlikely to fall apart in a country the size of the United States, given its importance in the global view. Secondly, quality of life. Both New Zealand and the United States are first world nations, and I feel the difference between their qualities of life would be a much of a muchness. This isn't enough to make the United States as vastly inferior as you seem to paint them. The only differences in the quality of life are unimportant statistics. And finally, sporting achievements. New Zealand, in terms of football, are a big fish in a small pool. I mean come on, their nearest competitor is New Caledonia, an island who up until recently wasn't even a country! Yes, maybe New Zealand beat America once, but let's take other sports. Football? In their 3 meetings to date, the United States have won two and drawn one. That means they maintain an unbeaten record, while New Zealand haven't won a single game.
Waffles are better than Pancakes

You said in round 1 that pancakes are fluffy, but pancakes are only fluffy when made 100% perfectly. Waffles in a waffle maker are always fluffy. This isn't about which is more accessible, because yes you have to have a waffle maker, but its worth it. more reasons are: You can make anything into a waffle. Waffle Sandwiches. Even frozen waffles are far superior.
Education in America is Fundamentally Flawed

okay fine , if you said that about safety for everybody.... but i just already said, everything is depend to us ... no other :) okay ,,, nobody can blaming your opinion .but remember this.. for bad moral or anything can be valid around us ,, but you can be your self only with your principle ,,, "if everybody have each principle then we can be my self" all of thing around us can't come to our life ,,,
Education in America is Fundamentally Flawed

yup you said that ,,, but if you want to know ,, many people in other country will be going there ,,, ya i know just because you so scared with moral maybe or for many child ... but if you can open your eyes for more large you will be find ,,, Wow America is The Nice Country :P i wanna ask you a question,, do you want to go there just about knowledge?? in your statement you said about wisdom , , , no no no ,, i don't say like that before :p so I think ,, Knowledge is important than anything hehehehe ya about "HOW CAN SOME PEOPLE TO OPERATION ......... ?" i think its not our problem, because its just the person's problem :)
Education in America is Fundamentally Flawed

As far as factual attainment, yes. But knowledge must conform to truth. Our children are lost in this regard. We have children who can spout facts, but few who possess any conviction to attend the facts that they have learned. What good is it to be uncertain of what you know, and at the same time be overconfident about who you are. Knowledge is only useful if it is wisely applied. Without the basis of moral virtue, or for that matter, a fixed point at which truth can be established, facts are useless. If I could tell you the physical properties of the operation of a motor vehicle, but lacked the knowledge of how to operate it, or the wisdom to do so responsibly, what use would my factual recitation provide beyond novel use?
Education in America is Fundamentally Flawed

Education in America is flawed in a very basic foundation. Namely, I feel that there must be a philosophical basis extending to morality that undergirds it from it's primary years for it to have better use in society. Otherwise, our children will lack the proper mental, emotional, and civic construct with which to process and successfully utilize the voluminous information they are inundated with. To give the what to the utter neglect of why and how grossly depreciates the intended purpose of a well rounded education. This is a friendly debate intended merely for dialogue.
The Patriots Will CHOKE!

Well the Patriots are emotional team and they have trying to stop the BIG HYPE of going undefeated get to their head. You said that "The second instance of cheating/ poor sportsmanship was Vince Wilfork poking Brandon Jacobs in the eyes in their final game in New York. Pretty poor sportsmanship and highly against the rules." Well this game was to see if the Patriots are able to go undefeated and this game was the record-setting game. You said that "It is absurd to put Tom Brady in the same sentence as Montana, Elway, Young, and Marino. Brady couldn't hold their jockstraps. They had a better respect for the game and their opponents." Come one TOM BRADY is the greatest QB of all-time. He is still young and has time to get 5-7 Super Bowls (3 Currently)He holds offensive records that teams thought of impossible. He deserves that credit.
The Patriots Will CHOKE!

Their hype is absolutely ridiculous. They bullied Miami and Washington. Both of whom we all knew stood no chance against them. The scond instance of cheating/ poor sportsmanship was Vince Wilfork poking Brandon Jacobs in the eyes in their final game in New York. Pretty poor sportsmanship and highly against the rules. Why hasn't the issue recieved more attention? I like how the Giants are called "good", just to esculate The Patriots even higher. The fact is that The Giants capitalized on weaknesses the Patriots demonstrated. Nothing more. They burned out in the second half as I expected them to. It is absurd to put Tom Brady in the same sentence as Montana, Elway, Young, and Marino. Brady couldn't hold their jockstraps. They had a better respect for the game and their opponents. They knew the game inside and out and didn't need sideline videos of hand signals. I can't wait until the Playoffs are over and "The Upset Of The Century" occurs.
The Patriots Will CHOKE!

I do believe that just because the Patriots are undefeated doesn't mean that deserve a spot at the Super Bowl, but give the Patriots some respect. You put a whole new subject ot this debate so lets stick to the debate subject. The Patriots have my respect because they proved and really proved it when the Patriots were losing 28-16 3rd quarter to the good Giants team. There resilience in the Patriots squad and that show them they can go 19-0. Just because their margin of victory goes down doesn't mean they suck, it shows us that they don't need that many points to win.
The Patriots Will CHOKE!

After seeing The Patriots narowlly winning games these past few weeks, I firmly believe they are doomed to choke in the AFC Championship Game or the Superbowl. Just because they are undefeated does not guarantee a Superbowl victory, or appearance! It is quite funny how, before the Raiders got screwed over several years ago, no one knew who The Patriots were. Infact, I had never seen a Patriot Fan in my life. Now, everywhere you look there are fake fans out there on the Patriot Bandwaggon who have no idea what their reputation is. They cheat, busted twice this past season alone. They are overly aggressive, ridiculously arrogant, and have zero respect for anybody else but themselves. Ask the Redskins if you don't believe that. I cannot wait for them to be knocked out of the Playoffs and enjoy the silence of the Patriot "Fans".
Computers are Better than Consoles

1.) You recognize that a good gaming PC can cost $800-1000.. while an xbox one / PS4 is $400. I think the affordability would make the console a better option for a majority of people. 2.) You still have not clarified how a keyboard is easier to use than a controller. I would argue the object with the least amount of buttons is easier to use. 3.) If I want to bring my xbox to my friends house it is very lightweight, compact, and easy to do so. If I only have one desktop in my home it is very difficult to take with me. Not only would I have to undo many more wires but then very gently carry my CPU. Once the computer is taken apart and ready to go, I have more than likely lost my home wifi and will have to go through the not so convenient process of getting it back. To make a gaming PC practical to bring with me I would need a gaming laptop.. on average cost around $1,200 for one with a little screen thats lacks display quality. 4.) The Nintendo 64 was released in 1996 and I still play it a couple of times a month.. I challenge you to find a working PC from 1996. I believe this speaks volumes about the life expectancy between the two. A PC from 2005 is undoubtedly much slower than it was brand new.. while xbox 360 still functions basically as it did out of the box.5.) "But we aren't just talking about games here. Consoles can't do the numerous things a computer do." The context of all previous arguments in this debate have only been about gaming. It is no secret that PC's can do more and are more practical.. but this is why they are much more expensive. In conclusion, there is not doubt a PC can be better at gaming than a console.. but not at a consoles price tag. A good gaming desktop is 250% the cost of a PS4 or Xbox One.. which makes it impractical for the average gamer. If we are talking about a gaming Laptop than the price is increased by 300%. Add the fact that a console has a longer life expectancy compared to a PC and I believe the "better" of the two is the modern console.
Computers are Better than Consoles

"There are many more games for consoles than there are serious computer games." That, my friend is false. There are hundreds and hundreds of games that are "PC exclusive" and not for consoles. Take the ARMA Series, for example. They are never let out on the console, simply because the creators can't find a way to set the game up for console users. The basic standard controller needs more functions/buttons to work. Also for games like S.W.A.T, Killing Floor, and many MANY other. And for those games that DO come out for the console as a port, they are an outdated version for the superior PC version. Also, I can see where you are going with the $400 computer. Usually, a good, fast computer can cost around $800-$1,000. I can sort of agree with you on why consoles such as the Xbox One or PS4 can give you better speed based on a $400 computer. But we aren't just talking about games here. Consoles can't do the numerous things a computer do. You can record from a computer, you can edit files, you can create powerpoint and word documents. Hell, you can even make your own games on it. Now, try doing that on a modern-day console. Tricky huh? And all with the benefit of playing games. Two more things... 1. I don't see your argue on superiority based on graphics. (either i didn't see it at all, or you didn't give a strong opinion. 2. When i was talking about my computer in the last round, i meant that i got the xbox 360, and then i found about the benefits about the computer, not when it came out. Sorry... Well, there you go.
Computers are Better than Consoles

"Before, I was in favour of the 360. But when the PC came out, i realized i was living on a lie. There is a reasonable explanation and clear arguement why PCs are better than consoles. And that is what i will explain to you..."Xbox 360 was released in 2005. The PC came out in the 90's..You said a keyboard is easier to use than a controller.. well, thats an opinion, but I disagree. I'll tell you why..A keyboard has 59 buttons. A controller has 12 and 2 joysticks. There are many more games for consoles than there are serious computer games. Consoles are roughly $400 brand new.. a $400 computer would not even remotely give you the graphics and speed of modern consoles.Lastly, Pc's are notorious for viruses.. consoles are not.