BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should there be NASA be less used in America

The argument that "we didn't accomplish" is not very strong. We still have not accomplished much with it, but that could be only a impression and, if not, observe the following points: 1. Mainly, the fact that we didn't accomplish much does not mean that we will not. 2. NASA has found out much about the universe and will still find out much about it every single day. We can not simply ignore the universe around us because not only we are destroying the planet we live at, but also because there might be more out there for us. 3. The universe offers dangers. Many fiction depictions of the end of the world show a very common occurrence: the lack of vigilance striking the humanity with the end of the world. Of course that saying that maintaining NASA is preventing the end of the world is also something not very strong to say, but I would point out that whatever the danger is, we should watch for it carefully, as the dinosaurs didn't. It is, indeed, very expensive to maintain such research. However, we might also point out that most cutting edge technology, in any given given time in history, would be costly. And the reason why the technology that was really advanced years ago is cheap today, is because we didn't stop to invest and work on it, until we knew enough about it to integrate it with our costs, needs and with our budget. Finally, NASA is responsible for many inventions that are not as much space-related as you would think, but have a significant impact in your life. To name a few useful contributions from NASA to the world, the agency is responsible for the invention or improvement of cordless technology, water filters, long-distance calls and smoke detectors. (http://science.howstuffworks.com...) To close my argument, one single word: satellites.
True Blood is better than Twilight

That is true. Granted in Trueblood, it is impossible for vampires to birth children, or to impregnate a human woman. However, there is a very strong romantic, and even sexy aspect of the show. In the first episodes of the show, Sookie(main character) fall deeply for a vampire by the name of Bill Compton. Through out the show they are faced with many obstacles that threaten their relationship. Multiple times during the show, Sookie and Bill split up. Once Sookie even has an affair with another vampire name Eric Northman. What I am implying is that Trueblood has a very deep and intricate romantic aspect.
True Blood is better than Twilight

Thank you, also I would like to say that wile in twilight there may be Vampires v/ Werewolves v/ Vampires v/ Humans, however in True Blood there is Vampires v/Werewolfs v/ Fairies v/ Humans v/shape-shifters v/Werepanthers (like a werewolf, only a panther). Therefor your argument is invalid. Also, you say that twilight is "the best movie in existance"(you spelled existence wrong), however you give very little to back up that statement. Yet another reason Trueblood is better than twilight, is that twilight lacks variety among characters. Everyone in twilight looks incredibly similar. Granted, the movies partially take place at a school yard, therefor most characters are the same age. Even still, you can't even compare twilight to trueblood on the spectrum of ages, races, gender preferences, and the many types of creatures in the show.
True Blood is better than Twilight

I believe that True-blood is an all around better, and more entertaining show to watch than Twilight. For my first argument, I will say that in true blood vampires don't sparkle. When sunlight hits them, the vampires in true blood go up like a pellet of sodium dunked in a bucket of water. Sparkling is for small delicate Victorian ladies unaccustomed to the heat, not powerful nocturnal predators with an insanely powerful thirst for human blood. If Meyers(author of twilight) were writing comic books, Superman would probably not lose his super-powers when he touched green kryptonite, but would instead have diarrhea, and get a bad rash on his tongue. Also, Sookie goes her own way and generally does her own rescuing. If Bill Compton has to save her from being hit by a van, it's not because Sookie is a helpless damsel in distress, it's because she's poked around in a hornet's nest and stirred up trouble. The underlying theme is one of equality; it's backed up with strong female characters. Fragile Bella not only lacks the Stackhouse backbone, but probably couldn't hold her own against any of the powerful women of True Blood--human or otherwise.
The U.S. Should allow free trade with cuba

I await my opponent's affirmation, definitions, and supporting information for the affirmation. Affirmation - an affirmation is a statement you are trying to debate for. Usually done in the "I affirm that _Topic___of___debate" format. In this case your affirmation would be I affirm that the U. S. should allow free trade with Cuba. Definitions and Explanation: Here is where you should define the words: free trade, and set up a strict standard for the what is free trade and what isn't. Make it clear where to draw the line between free trade and restricted trade. These lines should be clearly distinguishable. By which standards should this debate be judged? Should judges weight the economic benefits, the political benefits, or moral reasons for doing so? Are all three completely equal? Are there any other benefits other than those already suggested? If so how do they rank with the other categories? Supporting Information - This is where you would include reasons why the United States should allow free trade with Cuba. What would the US gain politically, economically, morally, etc. from trading with such a country. The supporting information should utilize your definitions and explanations. You should clearly show why the US should allow the free trade with Cuba. As the person who created the resolution, you have the burden of proof and thus must prove, (using your definitions and explanations) along with examples factual/logical information why the protests are justifiable. You should also give your opinion on other countries that the US does not trade with such as North Korea, Iran, etc. . Should the US trade with them too? Thanks and good luck on the debate!
God can't be proved by this universe

Alright, let me show how shallow my opponent's case is. If, according to him, animals didn't acquire their innate abilities through their genetic information, you're arguing they somehow just knew these abilities. First explain how. Second, I want to clarify that intelligence through nurture doesn't have to be within one generation. According to theory of evolution, it took many generations of animals to change their genetic makeup in order to adapt to new settings. Third, the argument my opponent posted is universal. If God doesn't need a cause, neither does the universe. Why can't the universe just be the creator itself? His justification that God is timelss but universe isn't isn't true because we don't know whether universe will ultimately end. Fourth, after all, God can't be proved by this universe because we haven't seen any evidence of him in our everyday life. If God were so perfect, you would expect his words, the bible, contain a valid justification of the end of this universe. From all scientific knowledge, it is highly improbable that angels will someday pop up, and we all get judged by God. Observing my opponent's vain attempt to refute my arguments, I urge my fellow debaters vote for my argument.
God can't be proved by this universe

My opponent has not provided any structure, so please forgive me for the relative lack of organization in mine. It is hard to follow his argument, as it seems to be more of a stream of conciousness than an actual argument. However, it appears that my opponent has two distinct lines of arguments, and some rebuttals to what I have said. Argument 1) God must have a causeMy opponent argues that God must have a cause, because if he causes something he is governed by the laws of cause and effect. However, the laws of cause and effect only hold any sort of sway in temporal environment. Cause and Effect implies temporal sequencing, so if God is omnitemporal, as the monotheistic religions posit, then he is able to cause without being caused. There can be no effect that causes God, as God exists at all times (and before time) and therefore cannot have a preceeding effect. However, since God exists at all times (and before time), but can interact with time, he is able to cause things. Argument 2) God exists beyond what our knowledge can comprehendWhile many Christians posit this, it is not a necessary aspect of the definition of God. In fact, many Catholic theologians, as well as liberal protestants, posit that God is aprehendable via nature. This is called Natrual Theology, and the concept is that God has imprinted enough information into nature in order for us to know him (primarily drawn from Romans 1). This school of thought would absolutely argue that God is knowable by the laws of physics and nature. RebuttalMy opponent has attempted to rebut my explanation of innate vs empirical knowledge by arguing that animals have instincts because the genes contain previous knowledge. However, if we observe what my opponent has said about intelligence in the first section, he argues that intelligence is "nurtured through constant practice of imitation of something that already existed. " We can see from the example of birds who know how to fly without ever seeing another animal fly, that this is not the case. Although not as high of an intelligence as humans, birds make decisions, learn, and remember things. We see in these cases, that the birds in question exercise their intelligence in flight without ever having seen flight. This, by the very definition of the word, is innate knowledge. Now, whether that innate knowledge exists because of "genetic knowledge" or not does not make it any less innate. Thank you, I look forward to the final round.
God can't be proved by this universe

While my opponent seems to be gaining ground in refuting my sole contention, he has overlooked an important point about the debate topic. I am arguing that the knowledge of this universe is not enough to justify the existence of God. To be specific, even if God were eternal, there's no knowledge or experience that can justify that state of being. Arguing that God doesn't need a cause also violates logic because if the relationship between this universe and God is that of effect and cause, it implies that God is also bound by the fundamental law of cause and effect. After all, that shows God isn't the creator because he wouldn't even need to try, and mere thoughts would just create the universe. But, wait a second, thoughts are also agents of causes. If God had no cause, he didn't cause the universe. Also, the biology and examples my opponents introduced are at best pseudosciences. To say that animals have instincts without a cause is false because they have genes that contain previous knowledge. Moreover, even inanimate objects follow causes since everything obeys to gravity, and stars rotate without an intelligent cause. My opponent has substituted some physics laws with claims of previous knowledge. If my opponent can't disproof that things here all have causes, he can't disproof that God didn't have a cause, assuming he is the creator of this universe.
God can't be proved by this universe

The logic that universe was created by God because everything has a cause is an innately self-defeating one. Intelligence, as proved by everyday experiences and all human observations and everything ever existed, is nurtured through constant practice of imitation of something already existed. There is no way that an "intelligent", in the way we define the word, being can create the universe if he has 1)never seen it done before; 2) never done it before; 3) never get the idea of doing such thing from observing something even a bit similar to the universe. Therefore, to admit that God has created anything at all is to say that God himself was spontaneous, and someday he just suddenly "created" the universe without "intelligence." To account for the existence of God, therefore, would require us to invent a whole new set of reasoning system directly opposite of logic. This implies that God can't be proved by logic.
Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race

It is so ridiculously easy to see why my opponent is a teeny bopper and does not understand the English language and because he is only 16 is completely unedumacated, unintelligent and has the brains of a spitball splatting on his you know where areas when he showers. What was stated in RD3 should have kicked his a$$ into high gear, meaning that his juicetromitor screwed up somewhere along the lines. Nah. That'd be far toooooooooo easy for even a lowlife degraded simpleton like my opponent to figure out hands down in a pile of maggot poop to use the slightest bit of total recall on. But he didn't, and instead started bickering his white noise pitter patter of his mad hatter scarred brain tissue to blow out of his nose ring so he believes I should follow him down his yellow thick frozen toad ready to be brought back to life. Well things do not work that way. So let's refresh shall we to completely demoralize the idiot because like the typical christian that my opponent clearly is he CAN'T READ. Now what was stated in RD2? Well duh for the bubonic plague that my opponent clearly is " then what your bible points out to be is one big massive hypocritical contradiction and inconsistency, in other words, one true big mess if there ever was one, more on that later at the end of this broadcast" Now what does that mean when stated "more on that later at the end of this broadcast?" Well by gum gosh golly gee gosh darned it all had my opponent even READ WHAT WAS STATED RATHER THAN OPEN HIS GOD DAMNED MAW it was clear because AT THE END OF THE BROADCAST IS STATED: "And now only some of the verses that make you look like s--t and you deserve it because YOU don"t know YOUR bible AT ALL." Now what part of that DOESN'T YOUR TEENY BOPPER 16 YEAR OLD MICRON BRAIN NOT UNDERSTAND??????? Goodbye. You lose. You did not pay any attention to them. It is so clear, that you, just like soooooo many christianss cannot, no matter what pay any attention to actual evidence especially when slapped in the face with it. Have a nice jesus jujitsu life without not even knowing the difference between spam and eggs. And get some genuine friends for jeez sakes. Go outside. Breathe some fresh air.
Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race

My opponent's own framework suggests that I need only prove that the Bible states that God cares about the entire human race. Therefore I shall first point out some verses that assert that claim. "If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not worry, saying, "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?" or "What shall we wear?" "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." these verses and innumerable others, too many to list here claim that God Cares for Humanity. I can provide more if you want. My opponents next point is irrelevant in the debate. the debate is not over the existence of God and thus his ability to love or care, by your own framework which states "The rules are simple enough: Prove that the god ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race " My opponents next point regards the existence of Evil. Evil is a necessary consequence of free will. while most exercise their free will to do good, there will always be those who exercise it to do evil. it does not reflect the nature of God. God will not assume direct control of the universe because he wants people to choose him. As a result, evil will always exist. This is not in any way a losing issue.
Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race

The rules are simple enough: Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race - not just part of it which means he a bigoted racist pig who loves to sandwich in people for his own private little affairs. And since this god doesn't care nor love the ENTIRE human race, then why create anyone to oppose him knowing all to well that uprisings and bloodshed will occur especially when it isn't necessary which is not love nor care that is if god is a true god in which he is not because nobody can prove that this god even exists. And why be evil and hate in the first place rather than bringing in peace, harmony, love, care, kindness etc? Nah. So either way its a losing proposition for those that believe. But have at it. And another question that remains is Why believe? dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
The legalization of marijuana by the Federal Government

First, I would like to take the time to tell my opponent thank you for this wonderful opportunity and good luck. To start, I would like to counter the arguments that my opponent has brought up. 1.There is no reliable evidence of marijuana having negative effects on the body. I would like to summarize these following article: http://www.drugabuse.gov... This article talks about how adolescents who begin smoking around that age can develop long term memory problems. These teens who smoke thinking that there are no health problems end up paying for it later on in life. Also, smoking is more prevalent in bad neighborhoods, low socioeconomic status, etc. It"s harder for the less well-off to focus on doing well and rising above their less than optimal environments if they"re too busy getting high. 2.People have the right to "harm" themselves. This is dangerous territory. You see, since marijuana is smoked, the gases from the joint can affect everyone around them. Since there are no conclusive recent studies that smoking does not have any health benefits, it is not right that others have to breathe in something that may or may not make them sick. Also, take into account those who hold jobs with heavy machinery could be high and harm someone else. Although there is no evidence out there saying that marijuana causes death, these people with impaired motor skills could end up hurting or killing someone else. 3.People will do it anyway. Come on. You could use this argument on murder. I think that the law should never be considered about what people will do anyway. It should be about what helps the greater good; what helps society run cleanly and efficiently To my opponent, I would encourage you to use more recent studies in your arguments. You use a study in the 1980"s and talk about prohibition in the 1920"s. However, on the subject, I think that prohibition and marijuana are two different things. I can choose to ingest a beer or a glass of wine without affecting my girlfriend next to me. Yet marijuana can affect everyone around me. Prohibition failed because alcohol was already established as a pastime and a business; it never could have worked in the long run. To conclude this first round, I will admit that the information related to direct death from marijuana is limited to none. However, that does not mean there are not health defects. It impairs judgment and the senses, causes memory problems, and second hand smoke. I thank you for your time and I await your rebuttal.
Belief in god is justifiable

Conclusion Unfortunately, due to his round forfeiture, Mhykiel has missed his last opportunity to provide argumentation as to why belief in god is not justifiable. Round 5 is for rebuttals and conclusions, and any new arguments are disallowed. Con has not provided a compelling case against justification of belief in god. He has instead been concerned with redefining “justifiable” in spite of the definitions provided in round one. My opponent seems to suggest belief in god is only justifiable if the belief is true. This debate is about whether belief in god is justifiable, and it is not necessary to ‘prove’ god exists in order to show belief is reasonable. However, if the concept of god is plausible then belief is completely reasonable. Logical arguments for god cannot provide evidence (or certainty) for the existence of god, but they do show plausibility. I have provided multiple sound arguments for the existence of god, and thus have illustrated a ‘valuable or right feeling of god is reasonable’ based on this plausibility. I know I have enjoyed the research involved in this debate, as it has broadened my horizons a bit. Please vote according to who has provided a stronger argument for “belief in god is justifiable”, and do not allow misconceptions of the key terms (justifiable/belief) contrary to the definitions provided to deceive. I thank Mykhiel, and hope the reader has found this exchange to be interesting.
Belief in god is justifiable

Thank you again, Mhykiel. Rebuttal My opponent rightly points out an error in my explanation of the argument from desire. I suggested a desire for god speaks of god, and this does not do C.S. Lewis justice. I apologize to any Lewis fans who may be reading this. Properly stated, the desire for something more than can be provided by nature speaks of something other-worldly, more specifically, that would be god. Thank you for pointing this out, Mhykiel. Con mentions the theft example and misses the point of it. I was not interested in providing a valid justification for a hypothetical thief, but in illustrating his improper use of the word ‘right’. In that capacity, my example stands. In Con’s alternative example, a father can justify his belief that his son loves him, but again, this justification does not make that belief true. The son could be deceiving the father intentionally, or the son could be incapable of love and simply going through the motions unaware of this fact, etc. The father’s justification of his own belief is not tied to the truth of his belief. It is quite reasonable for a father to believe his son loves him based on a perceived loving nature by the son. On those grounds, his belief is justified even if it is a false belief based on untruth. Con has also stated something I strongly agree with: “So a "Justifiable" beleif is one that can be demonstrated to be pluasiblly true.” The strength of the ‘argument from desire’ and the KCA is that they are plausibly true. By this statement alone, Con has agreed belief in god is justifiable. The KCA, the argument from contingency, and many of the ontological arguments have stood the test of time (for centuries) because they are very plausibly true. Copleston’s Argument from Contingency 1. Things in the universe exist contingently. 2. Something that exists contingently has (and needs) an explanation of why it exists; after all, its existence is not inevitable. 3. This explanation may be provided by the existence of some other contingent being. But then we must explain these other contingent beings. 4. To repeat this ad infinitum is no explanation of why anything exists at all. 5. Therefore, what explains why contingent beings exist at all can only be a non-contingent being. 6. A non-contingent being is one that exists necessarily, and doesn’t need some further explanation for why it exists. 7. This necessary being is God. Premise one states things in the universe are dependent on other things in the universe for their existence. I think we can all agree to that. Premise two is valid. Explanations are readily available to anything we may encounter in our known universe. Premise three and four are self-explanatory. Premise five follows from four. As a necessity, a being which is not dependent on anything for existence must exist, and that being is god. I apologize for the brief explanation, but as I pointed out earlier, my case is not dependent on the truth of the syllogisms, but on the plausibility of truth provided by logical arguments. This is yet another example.