BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Unless God can find the square root of a negative number, he is just as imaginary as the answer.

Imperfect has to understand that mathematical operations areinvented by humans. While math is an extremely useful tool for us to understandthe universe, it is far from perfect. When you divide 10 by 3, the answer is3.3333333... and it goes on infinitely. What does this show? It shows that theanswer lies somewhere between 3 and 4, but our numerical system can’t trap the answerwith precision. And hence the solution to that problem keeps slippingendlessly. This is the fault of the human numerical system. To blame theimperfections of a man-made system on God is not fair. Another angle to look at it is this. There are a lot ofthings that the human mind can’t grasp. This shows the limitations of the humanmind. But to say that because I can’t understand something, God doesn’t existis absurd. For example, we may never get the answer to the question, “whichcame first, the chicken or the egg?” That doesn’t mean God did not create them.These are part of divine wisdom, and if God chooses not to disclose it to us,then who are we to challenge him.
changing the curfew time

Your welcome. I think you are crazy, or any for that matter, if you believe the curfew should be at 9pm. Also do you think this should be a nation thing or local decision. If you wanted it to be a nation decision it would be crazy. There isn't rampant crime in every town, suburb, or city. At best it should be a local decision. Also to put the curfew at 9:00pm you are really restricting the rights of citizens. It is reasonable to have a curfew at 12:00am or maybe even 11:00pm, but not that early. I am not sure if where you live, or the areas surrounding you have major problems, but not every town does.
changing the curfew time

There should be no curfew. The curfew is a waste of time and only waste jail space, and the law enforcers time. Also lets state what curfew is acceptable. There shouldn't be a curfew under 12:00am. Once 12:00am hits usually the hoodlums will come out, but if the curfew is set to 10 or 11 pm then it is a waste of time. Those hours are innocent and people won't be coming out of bars until later in the night. Also we all can agree that the people causing the problems are the bumps in our society, most of whom are probably in poverty. So instead a better resolution to property damage, and murders would be trying to eliminate the poverty sections of that city.
changing the curfew time

Connecting A major assumption of curfews is that they reduce risk by removing juveniles from public space. However, there is no systematic study of the effects of curfew. Instead of presenting controlled data, proponents and opponents of curfews have made anecdotal statements to the media such as, "Monrovia, California's curfew adoption was followed by a 32 percent decline in residential burglaries" (Ricardi 1997). However, this assertion and others like it require scrutiny. For example, Monrovia had already experienced a forty percent decline in juvenile burglaries, and only had about a dozen juveniles arrested for burglary for each of several years prior to adopting curfew (Criminal Justice Statistics Center 1978-97). Their decline is also not compared to cities that did not enforce curfews. Thus, it is interesting to note that the following hypothetical but factual statement could be made with equal justification: "In 1992, San Francisco authorities dismantled their previously vigorous curfew enforcement, which had resulted in 1,400 arrests during the previous five years. Only three curfew arrests were made during 1993-97. Crime plummeted. From 1992 to 1997, juvenile murders declined fifty percent, property crimes reported to police declined thirty-six percent, and violent crimes reported to police declined by forty-one percent, the latter of which was the largest crime decrease of any large California city. Therefore, abolishing curfews is a crucial step to reduce youth crime and victimization."
Is there a Flying Spaghetti Monster living in a teapot hanging on the horn of a pink unicorn

This was by far the most disappointing FSM argument I have ever seen. Not only did you fail at the FSM argument, but you also failed at making creationists look silly. The uneducated creationists do a good job of that on their own. That being said, I think you need to keep in mind that Evolution does not conflict with a non literal reading of Genesis. See . http://www.debate.org... for a fantastic debate on that subject.
Is there a Flying Spaghetti Monster living in a teapot hanging on the horn of a pink unicorn

Transishunal? If your going to screw around at least forfeit. Anyway, see.... http://www.talkorigins.org... And the cosmological argument is a valid argument, however this neither proves or disproves FSM. |||||then why don't we just go on a killing spree? Because you don't want to go to prison and get raped. |||||Look at the bacterial flagellum (incidentally, it looks like a pasta too). How do you propose that such a complex thing came about by random chance? Scientists do not quite know exactly how yet, but that does not imply that they will never know. So far, you have failed to prove anything. I hope in the last round you can at least use spell check.
Is there a Flying Spaghetti Monster living in a teapot hanging on the horn of a pink unicorn

But... but there are no transishunal fossils... In order to prove macroevolution, show me ONE fossil that shows an animal transforming into another. Like a mermaid. Half human half fish. See, you can't. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is immaterial. He only "appears" pasta. He is actually beyond space and time. I can easily prove this with a form of the cosmological argument. Everything needs a cause. That cause must be an uncaused cause. That cause has to be FSM. Simple logic is simple, isn't it? Your pasta "rebuttal" further proves my point. Double helix pasta equates to double helix DNA. This proves FSM. So you are suggesting that morality came about through natural causes? Through evolutionary gradations? If there are no set morals then why don't we just go on a killing spree? Moving on. Design can be found in all of nature. Look at the bacterial flagellum (incidentally, it looks like a pasta too). How do you propose that such a complex thing came about by random chance? Like in a mousetrap, every part needs to be functional in order for the flagellum to work. Irreducible complexity. This blows Darwinism right out of the water. You didn't decimate anything. Vote pro. Free spaghetti bolognese in heaven.
Is there a Flying Spaghetti Monster living in a teapot hanging on the horn of a pink unicorn

|||||"macroevolution. Sadly, you can't prove it. " See . http://www.talkorigins.org... for 29+ evidences of it. Proof? not exactly no, your right, but evidence is in my favor. You still bear the burden of proof. |||||"Explain why cosmological or microscopic patterns are usually shaped like spaghetti then" You can shape spaghetti to look like anything. So are you talking regular Spaghetti? or Tagliatelle, Cavatappi, Stringozzi, Pizzoccheri, Pappardelle, Mafaldine, Linguine, Lasagne, Fettuccine? FFS I could list these all day. .. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Anyway, they are all Pastas. Pasta (Italian pasta, from Latin pasta "dough, pastry cake", [1]) is a generic term for foods made from an unleavened dough of wheat or buckwheat flour and water, sometimes with other ingredients such as eggs and vegetable extracts. . http://en.wikipedia.org... |||||"If the FSM doesn't exist, where would you get your moral values from? " Evolution, read: . http://www.talkorigins.org... or . http://www.talkorigins.org... Pros arguments have been utterly decimated.
Is there a Flying Spaghetti Monster living in a teapot hanging on the horn of a pink unicorn

:: "More like additional evidence for Evolution and a common ancestor if you ask me." But... that's microevolution, reproduction within its kind! The unicorn didn't give birth to a blind mole rat, did it? That would be evidence for macroevolution. Sadly, you can't prove it. :: "No, it's actually due to evolution." No. Explain why cosmological or microscopic patterns are usually shaped like spaghetti then. Look at the shape of the Milky Way Galaxy. That is solid proof of FSM's signature in creation. Moving on. If the FSM doesn't exist, where would you get your moral values from? There must be a moral giver, and, as shown above by many lines of evidence, that moral giver has to be FSM. Vote PRO. He's a teapotistic pastafarian. You don't get many of those around.
Is there a Flying Spaghetti Monster living in a teapot hanging on the horn of a pink unicorn

||||"Throughout history there has been many eye-witness accounts of this magical creature. " ||||And "There has been a lot of eye witness testimonies too" There have also been accounts of Big foot and UFO's, does that prove them? No. ||||"Furthermore, a close relative of the unicorn, Elasmotherium, is further proof that unicorns exist. " More like additional evidence for Evolution and a common ancestor if you ask me. ||||"evident of its intelligent designer" FSM has an intelligent designer? That's a new one for me. Did you mean, it *is* the intelligent designer? ||||"DNA. It's shaped like spaghetti. The human eye too. The membranes look like spaghetti. This is definitely a ||||signature from our creator, FSM" No, it's actually due to evolution. . http://www.talkorigins.org... My opponents incoherent ramblings have done nothing to prove FSM exists. Pro bears the burden of proof.
Is there a Flying Spaghetti Monster living in a teapot hanging on the horn of a pink unicorn

Con argues that I cannot prove the existence of the pink unicorn. This is untrue. Throughout history there has been many eye-witness accounts of this magical creature. For example, the unicorn fossil found in the Harz Mountains region in Germany. There has been a lot of eye witness testimonies too. Furthermore, a close relative of the unicorn, Elasmotherium, is further proof that unicorns exist. Likewise, there is abundant proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Lines of evidence include cosmological images, ancient carvings, mysterious imprints and microscopic patterns which look like the FSM, evident of its intelligent designer. Con argues that "everything we see disprove FSM". But wait, complexity implies design! You aren't suggesting that we came about by random chance, right? Now look at the genetic code, DNA. It's shaped like spaghetti. The human eye too. The membranes look like spaghetti. This is definitely a signature from our creator, FSM.
Is there a Flying Spaghetti Monster living in a teapot hanging on the horn of a pink unicorn

You cannot prove there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster who lives in a teapot hanging on the horn of a pink unicorn Look around you. Everything you see is evidence that the teapot unicornian FSM does not exist. Everything you see disproves creation and his noodly godliness. The FSM is out of space and time, therefore does not need to be created. And I know all this because I have no faith. Thank you.
Is there a Flying Spaghetti Monster living in a teapot hanging on the horn of a pink unicorn

You cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster who lives in a teapot hanging on the horn of a pink unicorn. Look around you. Everything you see is evidence that the teapot unicornian FSM must exist. Everything you see proves creation and his noodly godliness. The FSM is out of space and time, therefore does not need to be created. And I know all this because I have faith. Thank you.
Democtras and Republicans Pivot Strategy

Well: if you will accept a "fallacy ad hominen" I'm not alone in this thinking, take a look to the opinions expressed in PBS http://www.pbs.org... And it's not just because the comentators cited above say so, but it's also my personal humble opinion: every time that it comes a primary elections time, call it: Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee or Donald Trump, is all about what are our troops doing in Afganistan, or what the solutions might be to deal with illegal immigration. I'll make a question that might result a little bit incendiary: might be this focus on the foreign matters a smoke curtain to hide their inefficiency to solve dimestic matters?
We have to much homework so kids play electronics for a break instead of doing something productive.

I, the Con, will argue that less homework will make kids no more productive. 1. Opinions =/= Evidence You said "I think homework makes kids go on electronics because it takes so long, then afterwards kids want a break." You say you think instead of you know. This isn't about opinions. You need to prove that homework is causing kids to play on electronics and is therefore making them unproductive. 2. Assumptions Back on the topic of your first statement, you're assuming that kids only play with electronics because of homework. It can't be because children find it fun, it must be because of homework. Second assumption, "With no homework kids will have time to learn skills from their fathers and grandfathers that they would not have time for with homework" In theory, yes. In practice, no. This is assuming that even with the time to learn more, kids won't just play with their electronics more with the added free time. Third assumption, you are assuming that the parents or grandparents have skills to teach their child. While in some cases this may be true, some parents or grandparents might not have the skills to teach the kid anything that would be relevant to today's society. Even if we assume that all parents/grandparents know how to balance a checkbook, what's to say the kid will actually care or remember it. 3. Homework Length The CDC defines a child as someone age 6-11. The NEA states that for the last 50 years, homework for the majority of U.S. students regardless of age is an hour or less. The NCES states that the average time spent in school is 6.64 hours. The NSF states that children in the demographic we are referring to need 9-11 hours of sleep. So basic math says 10 hours of sleep at the middle plus 6.64 hours of school and add an hour of homework, that is total of 17.64 hours soent on sleep+academics. Leaving 6.36 hours for other activities. The battery on the electronics won't last forever. Kids already have the time to learn the things you want them to, they just don't want to do it. Sources http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.nea.org... https://nces.ed.gov... https://sleepfoundation.org...
Acting takes intelligence

"Cinema should make you forget you are sitting in a theater." - Roman Polanski I strongly agree with Roman Polanski, that the theatre should be about having fun and not about how smart you are. Because I stand in the strong negation of this debate, I have three main contentions as to why (1) You don't have to be Einstein to act (2) Acting should be seen as a way to get away from stress, not something to be worried about because of your knowledge and (3) How the theatre is simply for entertainment
USA should adapt Australian Gun Laws

I would have to disagree when you said: "A lot of people will use this excuse in America, saying they like hunting, but a majority of the population lives in suburbs", this is untrue. I live in the suburbs and I go hunting during the holidays. Your location of which you live does not affect your activities. I would have to say from a point of objective, most people who say they go hunting, probably go hunting. Firstly, we need to define the term "Semi-Automatic". A semi-automatic weapon is a gun which shoots as fast as you pull the trigger. Pistols fit under this category. Banning Semi-Automatics would pretty much ban all guns which can shoot when you pull the trigger. Guns which do not fit under this category are older guns such as bolt-action rifles, etc. When I googled a semi-automatic, pistols did appear as they technically count. All guns are capable of killing. Automatics should be banned, but not semi-automatics. All we need to do is make it harder in America to obtain a firearm, with all of the restrictions, but do not restrict guns altogether.
USA should adapt Australian Gun Laws

Australian Gun Laws do not restrict the purchase of weapons, but makes it hard for the general public to purchase them and there is a long waiting period. While it may be nessecary for America to have guns for protection, a simple Glock could do the trick. A semi-automatic kills a large number of people quickly and that was the reason it was made. In Australia, someone could buy a Glock as long as they are a registered criminal or if they have a history of violence. The only people who have access to "the big guns" are hunters in rural Australia who have a kangaroo hunting license. A lot of people will use this excuse in America, saying they like hunting, but a majority of the population lives in suburbs. Australian Gun Laws does not ban weapons all together, it bans semi-automatics and allows most of the public to buy simple guns which cannot massacre a large group at once.
USA should adapt Australian Gun Laws

Hello, Before I begin I would like to state that it is my first debate on here. Anyways, I accept your challenge. I live in New Zealand, and we have similar gun laws to Australia, if not almost the same. Our police do not carry weapons, and neither does most of our population. However, I am going to speak in terms of Australia, as that is what you are wanting. As you may know, Australia does have a low mass shooting rate, and America has a high one. However, returning to the system which Australia would not benefit them for the near future. Firstly, I do need to admit that America's system is not perfect. What I think should occur is that America makes it harder to get access to a firearm, with better screening for terrorists, mentally ill, etc. However, the people who pass the screenings should have access to firearms. There have been numerous occasions where mass shootings occur but are prevented due to someone else using a firearm and preventing it from occurring before it does. An example of this was in Chicago, and an Uber-Driver with a gunshot and wounded a shooter before he could cause any significant fatalities. This is an example of when guns are used correctly. Now, you need to understand that all because Australia has implemented strict gun laws, it does not mean that people do not have guns. No matter how strict, criminals would always obtain weapons. Gangs and mobs have guns, and they get them through illegal methods. Now, if I was an unwanted victim of this mob, I would like a gun to defend myself. What else would you do? Just to go back to point. Mass-shootings would definitely be prevented in the United States if stricter screening was put in place, that is where I agree with you. However, going to what Australia would be doing would not be good, as people would always obtain guns.
USA should adapt Australian Gun Laws

Yeah, like I said, I do agree with the comment that the American screening system is flawed. However, I do think that having access to basic firearms is essential. Now you said that "I agree with you." However, this is not true. Your debate topic is using the Australian Gun system in the United States. I do agree about restricting some automatic and semi-automatic weapons, however, I disagree with the statement that we should use the Australian gun system. The American gun system and the Australian gun system are different. Now, I am not into the constitution rubbish, I just personally agree with the statement that guns can benefit someone in the daily life. People will always have access to guns, and guns are important in the sense of preventing someone from hurting another in the event of one obtaining a gun illegally.
USA should adapt Australian Gun Laws

Yes, but allowing automatic rifles to flow freely into the public is dangerous and this is where the Australian system has succeeded and America has not. Automatic weapons can be bought at Walmart! The freedom to by such dangerous weapons in America is in dire need to be put in check. In Australia, hunting rifles can be purchased, but it doesn"t result in a massacre so hunting rifles are fine, but the dangerous guns are open to the public, which is what Australia has fixed. You yourself said the AR-15 is a problem, but that"s my point.
Life Originally Arose via. Abiogenesis

The answer to the question of the origin of life provides a fundamental foundation to every worldview and therefore the question of the origin of life is an important question to consider at the deepest level. After all, if the worldview through which we filter and process our experiences is wrong, then it follows that many of the conclusions we reach will also be wrong. I am honored to be a participant and it is my prayer that all those interested in carefully exploring this question will earnestly follow the debate! DEFINITIONS. .. . Semiotic language: A system of symbolic communication that manifests code, syntax, and semantics (note: such a system will invariably also manifest pragmatics. I have chosen to leave pragmatics out of the relevant terminology here simply to maintain sharper clarity and focus). Semiotics: 1. A general theory of signs and symbolism, usually divided into the branches of pragmatics, semantics, and syntax. 2. A general philosophical theory of signs and symbols that deals especially with their function in languages and comprises syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Code: A system of signals or symbols for communication. Syntax: The study of the rules for the formation of grammatical sentences in a language. Semantics: the study of the meaning of words and phrases. Meaning: The idea that is represented by a word, phrase, etc. Notice the abstract, immaterial nature of every single component of semiotic language. A NOTE ON PRO'S DEFINITION OF LIFE There is no single agreed upon definition of what life is. Pro's definition, while straightforward, ignores many features which distinguish life from non-life. It is critical that I note here in the definition section that every entity that can unambiguously said to be (or have been at one time) "alive" has a genome. A genome is critical and indispensable to life.
Life Originally Arose via. Abiogenesis

This debate challenge is the arranged debate made with Joepalscak. I would like to make a late apology for a previous debate we held which I forfeited all my rounds. [. http://www.debate.org...] The same will most certainly not be occurring again. Full Resolution:"Biological life on Earth originally arose via. abiogenesis"In this debate I will be proposing that an organism that would have been capable of evolving through evolution via. natural selection would have arisen from purely chemical origins, and indeed is the explanation existing in the first place on Earth. Definitions:Abiogenesis: The hypothesis of life arising from abiotic chemical originsLife: Systems that can self-replicate and evolve via.