BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Quizlet is better than Kahoot

Sup. Heres my argument as to why Kahoot is better than Quizlet. Both Quizlet and Kahoot have been my old friends throughout my school years. But I must confess, one was a more positive influence than the other. They contrast on how they affected my learning and my work ethic. Kahoot is an effective way in challenging the students' mind whilst being a very fun activity, whereas Quizlet is a metaphorical pair of crutches that students use to cheat, be lazy, or as a last minute tool. Kahoot may be fast paced, but that feature actually helps the students by weeding out the ones who are lacking in performance; the teacher can then decide whether or not to begin the assessment or postpone it. By mimicking a real assessment or a pretest/quiz, students will be more prepared and more confident in taking the test.
Masterpiece Cakeshop Rightfully Won

He used religion as well a law, as I have stated too many times you have the right to refuse service on anything besides race or sex. Your yellow on Tuesday things is completely okay. It's totally lawful. Your just giving examples where it's totally okay to do what you're doing. And by the way it's not a public place of business, it's private as it's owned by the baker. Once again, you have the right to refuse service on anything besides race or sex.
Masterpiece Cakeshop Rightfully Won

I am not going forfeit. My statement was "I am not religious. But I respect everyone else's right to do whatever." All that means is be religious. Whatever... I am arguing that you should not be able to apply your religious intolerance in a public place of business. Technically yes, per the current LAW, "Masterpiece cakeshop rightfully won."... But I knew he LEGALLY won before I accepted the debate. Everyone does. He had the law on his side via unproven, religious grounds. This is simply the first time it was publicly applied and challenged in the high court. Now, since you posted your statement on a debate website, it seems you wanted to debate it. I am pretty sure we were debating the 'interpretation of the law and the final verdict.' If that is NOT what you wanted, then it means you simply made an un-debatable statement. I am debating the rightfulness of the verdict as I personally see it. I believe one cannot physically prove a persons consistent application of conviction and commitment to their religion. (unless of course as in Christian Mythology, you are willing to kill your own son as God asked Abraham to kill Isaac on the mountain) It is my understanding the Cake Shop owner did not have to do anything other than "SAY".. not prove... that he was adamant to stand by his convictions. As I have been saying... to use religion to justify and enforce ANY discriminatory position you do not agree with is nonsense. Particularly since one cannot confirm a persons conviction to their claimed religion. Recognizing ALL religion is protected, there is no end to the amount of prejudice and discrimination that will now take place under the veil of religious beliefs. (real or conveniently made up) I could wake up tomorrow and invent another religion that states I am offended by people who wear yellow on Tuesdays and immediately begin refusing service to people that come into my shop in yellow on Tuesdays. Now prejudice and discrimination may run rampant with unchecked bias toward any marginalized group under the guise of religious intolerance..... whether its real or perceived.
Masterpiece Cakeshop Rightfully Won

Violation as he shouldn't have been sued in the first place. I too treat people with dignity and respect. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with or accept people living in a sexual fallacy (a whole other debate if you want to). Saying you "respect everyone else's right to do whatever" shows you really agree with me as the baker had the right to refuse service. So is this a hint wink-wink that you're forfeiting?
Masterpiece Cakeshop Rightfully Won

Well the Baker won. So not sure what violation you speak of. I am a business owner. Like you, I am also not a big supporter of 'gay, trans, whatever'. But I treat everyone with dignity and respect. The baker won on religious grounds. Just shows how petty he was. It was not about standing by his convictions. I don't know a single 'believer' of any religion that follows their scripture and guidance flawlessly. ALL ( yes said purposefully) faith followers pick and choose what and when something applies when it best suits their personal needs. I am not religious. But I respect everyone elses right to do whatever.
Masterpiece Cakeshop Rightfully Won

Everyone knows the ol' "We Have The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone". It 'was' exercised usually for the drunk, unruly, etc. Usually only applied in situations that required little 'defense' by the shop owner. Applying it to a protected class or marginalized class is another story all together. No one wanted a discrimination case brought against them. Not sure you are keeping up with the news. Lawful or not, the cake verdict set a new 'social precedent.' Already other store owners are openly placing signs on their shops stating no-gays. Simply in the aftermath of the baker case. All a shop owner has to do now (not prove) is state its in violation of his religious position. Furthermore, it was all over the news last couple days.. (and the cake case referenced) how people can now get kicked out of restaurants for your political views. And it may become normalized like the cake / gay case.
Masterpiece Cakeshop Rightfully Won

No, it doesn't cause unbridled discrimination. I'm not coming from a religious side (being Catholic) I'm coming from a lawful side. The law says you are allowed to refuse service to someone on anything besides religion or race. He refused service for sexual orientation. That's completely fine. Would you make a black baker bake a cake for a KKK rally? Or what about a Jewish baker for a Neo-Nazi rally? It's technically the baker's privately owned property. So really anything goes as a rule inside his private property.
Masterpiece Cakeshop Rightfully Won

Sets a horrible precedent. Both sides are 'marginalized' or otherwise a protected classes anyways, so that made it interesting to watch play out. (LGBT / Religious.) I personally do not fall into either category. But I do not like the precedent it sets. It creates an 'open season' environment for unbridled discrimination. Admittedly, I find religion false and hateful anyways. As history has demonstrated, using religion as the basis to openly discriminate another person (or business patron) is the epitome of low. It is truly indefensible.
Does the Big Bang Theory supply evidence that there is God

My opponent has brought a forth preposition that suggests that before the Big Bang that there is an equal opportunity for there being a God, or not being a God, but how? Saying that we don't know what caused the spark to create the universe, is much more realistic then saying that it must be God. Did the Christian God ever describe anything about the Big Bang? So why should you reason it with being God? This is just looking for any evidence for God, where there is not. It doesn't say that there is no God, but it does say that there is. The Question is"Evidence" there is no, for sure evidence that there is or isn't a God.
Does the Big Bang Theory supply evidence that there is God

My opponent neglected to define anything. So we will, assume that God is the god of the Christian Bible; and that the Big Bang is what the commonly accepted theory is for it. My opponent also neglected to define possibilities, alternatives, so I will define two possible outcomes that the Big Bang suggests: Option A: Evidence for God Option B: Evidence against God; Natural causes Alright, let's Begin: My opponent used his knowledge to describe a chronological argument with physical concept application, but ultimately put himself in a slippery slope fallacy by defining only what we know of the current, physical universe. Considering that theorists believe that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, it would suggest that an external, physical force that does conform to our current understanding of Physics sparked the universe. Since we don't exactly know the events of the Big Bang as a definite, we can only assume: Either A or B, or A & B. The argument: If A or B, then A. If A, then not B. < -- This would be affirming a disjunction by supposing that just because some evidence of non-naturalistic properties suggests evidence of God, it disregards the evidence for B. Therefore, it's impossible to suggest that it is one or the other, using our modern logical thinking. Therefore A is B, --> A, Therefore B. There is a middle man argument here, where while it is impossible to predict if the Big Bang suggests evidence of God, it is safe to assume that it's possible that it suggests both. That's my opening statement. I tried to make it as little semantics as possible, but if evidence suggest both God's existence and not God's existence, then it still suggests evidence of God, as God works outside the laws of physical application; and a chronological cycle of preceding God is illogical.
Does the Big Bang Theory supply evidence that there is God

The big bang theory does not supply evidence for there being a God, because you could say that there is something before, or created the big bang, but what was before that, or who created it? And if you say God, what was before God? Who created God? It would go into an endless cycle. supplying something that created the universe, with nothing creating it, has no difference in saying that the universe had nothing before it, or creator. I'm up to any style of Debate.
Space exploration should not be allowed unless it is shown that ET microbial life will not be harmed

Well this is all me still... I don't see any reason to halt our exploration. I'm not sure how much more we can even explore at this point but if we have an opportunity to gain more knowledge with empirical data we should use it. Sorry if anyone was actually looking forward to reading more out of this... I can't refute anything since nothing at all has been asserted or answered.
The derogatory term "gay" should be replaced with "obese"

It is true that some people may be offended by the use of the phrase "that's so gay" when it is used in a context that is not related to something that actually is gay, but free speech is free speech. If someone feels that saying "that's so gay" is the best way to state something, such as the bar's lack of Grey Goose, then they may. The same goes for replacing "gay" with "obese" in that context. It affects some people to use the word "gay" in derogatory context, however, some others simply do not care who they offend, and that is fine. The Constitution protects that right, and that is how it should stay. So, it should not be a forced change.
The derogatory term "gay" should be replaced with "obese"

My opponent is correct that the phrase "that's so gay" is sometimes used quite legitimately to describe something effeminate, for example: "Where's Elton John tonight? " "He's gone to the theater with Ricky Martin to see the Billy Elliot stage musical. " "Oh, that's so gay. " Or: "I'm going to order a 16oz rib-eye steak cooked rare and served with fries plus a large beer to wash them down with, what are you having George Michael out of the 80's pop group 'Wham'? " "Can you order me the mushroom vol-au-vents plus fairy cakes served on a paper doily for desert, and I'll have a nice cup of chamomile tea to go with them. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm just going to follow that big hairy truck driver into the gents toilets. " "Oh, that's so gay. That's gayer than AIDS, that is. I mean that's gayer than a pink leather posing-pouch with studs on it and a big slit up the back. In fact, that's even gayer than an Abba tribute album by Justin Bieber. " However, in the opening round I was referring to the more general use of the phrase, as the following definition from a respectable online dictionary illustrate: 'A negative and ignorant way to express how one feels about something they dislike, think is wrong, or don't care for. 1) "That's so gay my property taxes are going to be $9,000 this year" 2) "That's so gay the bar didn't have Grey Goose. " 3) "Dawg, That's so gay the price of gas keeps going up. "' . http://www.urbandictionary.com... In this sense, the term "that's so gay" stigmatizes the pillow-biting community and should be replaced by "that's so obese". Thank you.
The derogatory term "gay" should be replaced with "obese"

I believe, like you, that homosexuality is a genetic mutation. With that genetic mutation come certain characteristics that will come forward because of it, such as male femininity, changes in one's voice, etc. Certain people, myself included, may not like these particular characteristics. Therefore, if I saw a men's shirt with daisies on it, I could be prompted to say "that's so gay," because it resembles a quality that gay men often possess. If someone is even against gay people in general, it is within reason to use the phrase to describe something else that they do not desire. Challenging the use of the word "gay" in a derogatory sense really makes no sense, for it is not derogatory, it is simply a comparison.
The derogatory term "gay" should be replaced with "obese"

How often do you hear someone say "that's so gay" about something they wish to insult? Many times a day, I'm sure. This term of abuse represents an outrageous slur on gay men - male homosexuality is a disability just like any other - queers cannot help having defective genes that mutate their sexuality, so they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, just as if they were normal human beings. Therefore, it is important to challenge the use of the word "gay" in a derogatory sense. Instead, people in authority should encourage the use of the phrase "that's so obese" to describe something unworthy instead. That's because, unlike male homosexuality, obesity is self-inflicted. Thank you.
The LDS Concept of Faith is Unreasonable

Resolved: The LDS Concept of Faith is "Unreasonble" Defning Terms: LDS: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka MormonsUnreasonable: "without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason."(1)Clarification:Faith is not defined in round one as surely the definition will be a point of contention. It is likely that any judging this debate will be unaware of what the LDS conception of faith is. Thus I want to leave this open for debate through-out. I was born and raised in the LDS Church and have recently step away from the church. One of my primary concerns is the understanding that Faith is inheriently irrational. Varrack is a great member here on DDO and is an active member of the LDS church. I can think of no one better on this site to debate this with. I hope he acceptsI accept the full burden of proof to demonstrate that the LDS concept of faith is irrational. Thus Con's role in this debate is to negate my arguements. For reference throughout the debate, here is the official LDS website. (2) Format:4 rounds/72 Hours/6,000 Characters ELO Restrictions 2,000 to voteSelect Winner VotingRound 1: Defining terms and acceptanceRound 2: Opening arguement/first rebuttalRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Overview of debate and closing statements (No new arguements)Varrack: If you would like to tweak any of the format etc... let me know before acceptance and we can negotiate terms. Sources: (1)http://dictionary.reference.com...(2) www.lds.org
The LDS Concept of Faith is Unreasonable

Thanks for the debate Kasmic. I am glad I was able to participate.Faith and EvidenceThe biggest issue with Pro's case of faith being unreasonable the question of evidence. As I have argued, the process of faith leads up to the revealing of knowledge. Many verses promise that gaining of new knowledge when one exercises faith through the process I have outlined. I have shown a reason that is inherently connected to faith, and that this reason is experimenting whether this process works or not.To attempt to show the irrationality of faith, Pro argues that the entire process of it is based on no evidence, but the whole purpose is to go from no evidence to evidence, and this how I have explained it is the LDS concept of it. There seems to be a bit of circular reasoning on the side of Pro - if seeking proof isn't allowed, how is proof for anything ever found? The scientific method also begins with no evidence and uses steps to seek it and learn from the experience the scientist has had with this particular experiment. That is also true for the LDS religion - if one wants to seek for and receive spiritual enlightenment, they must use faith to get there. It is like a stepping stone across a stream and is necessary for one to land on the other side.In Round 2 I related the process to discovering whether the BoM is true. On the second step I stated that there must at least be belief that the process will work, not that the BoM is necessarily true or false. No one is ever required to believe in the object of truth, but that the stepping stone, if anything, exists. Hope and belief do not apply to the object of question, but to the process. For example, if I wanted to know whether the world would end, I would hope for an answer, and believe that an answer could be received, but not necessarily the hope or belief that the world will end.The same goes for the Book of Mormon. Is it reasonable to hope and believe that the BoM is true? Maybe, or maybe not, but that is not a requirement for knowledge. What is essential is the hope and belief that the answer itself will come, whether it be an affirmative or negative one.ConclusionSince my opponent dropped a few things I said last round (such as the math argument), there's nothing else to say but to conclude.It is practically impossiblen to argue that LDS faith is unreasonable, and Pro never showed us how it is. Since faith is taught as leading to knowledge, and Pro never argued how such a process fails in achieving knowledge, then there's no reason to buy his argument at all. Thus, the resolution was never affirmed. I think the outcome is pretty clear, and thanks for reading.
The LDS Concept of Faith is Unreasonable

I know it can sometimes be frustrating to debate topics about which are tied to personal beliefs. I hope this debate has been worth your time as it was mine. Overview of Debate: Last round con claims that I focused my arguments on one sentence of his. This is clearly not true,though he does admit that he left out a key part of his argument. To clear things up he claims that hope+belief+works = Faith This fits with how I have defined faith. In round 2 Con said “Pro's case is a strawman of the LDS concept of faith. His argument is solely founded upon the premise that faith lacks evidence, so to negate it I need show that there is a purpose to faith to allow it to contain reason. ” In the definition Con has given of faith, it is clear that evidence is not part of faith. You hope, believe, and act all without evidence. That is faith. This is clearly unreasonable. Just ask yourself, is it reasonable to believe in, hope for, and act as if something is true for which you have had no evidence? Like the world ending example. Is it reasonable for someone to hope for, believe in, and work towards the concept that the world is ending tomorrow despite any presence of evidence? Or more on point to the LDS faith, is it reasonable to hope that the Book of Mormon is true, believe that it is true and act as though it is true without having any evidence? I have argued that such a concept of hope+belief+works is an unreasonable concept in light of the absence of evidence. In Con’s round two of arguments he said “just because someone hopes for something and believes it is true doesn’t mean it is true. ” I wholly agree, and adding works doesn’t change the concept in a meaningful way. Thus the LDS concept of Faith =/= knowledge. Nor does it lead to knowledge. Hoping, believing and acting as if something is true does not lead to knowledge. I have shown using entirely LDS sources that the concept of faith taught in the way that they teach it is unreasonable. Additionally it causes those who adopt it to act unreasonably. There is no rational way to contend with a religious concept that requires "faith. " This is because Faith as taught by the LDS church is unreasonable.
The LDS Concept of Faith is Unreasonable

Rebuttals: Con claims that my case is “a strawman of the LDS concept of faith.” And that my “argument is solely founded upon the premise that faith lacks evidence.” Note that Con does not demonstrate how my defining of faith is a strawman, he just claims it is. My definitions are intact and sourced from the LDS website. Hebrews 11: 1, Alma 32: 21, and the LDS website definition confirm that faith is absent of evidence. Con defines faith as “hope and belief.” He concludes that hope and belief “together complete faith.” This supposedly leads to “spiritual knowledge.” This is ironic as latter when con address my example he says “This is completely ridiculous - just because someone hopes for something and believes it is true doesn’t mean it is true.” This is exactly my argument, that such is ridiculous. Thus acting on hope and belief that something is true is irrational as hope and belief don’t make something true. This gets even worse as Con has argeed that Faith without works is dead. You have to act on hope and belief that something is true to have faith even though as he conceded, hoping and believing don’t make something true. Con’s Example: Con then presents the process of faith. His example will clearly show how unreasonable faith is. His first step says you must hope something is true to know it is. This is obviously untrue. Whether I hope that 1+1=2 does not affect the truth that it is. Or in converse, if I hope 1+1=3 that does not make it any less true. Thus we see that hope in something has zero impact to truth. Second before you have received any justification for your belief, or had anything other than “hope,” you must exercise belief. This is incoherent. This thus shows that to have faith as Con has defined it you must hope and act as if something is true before having any justification or evidence that it is. Third, after this hope and acting without rational reasoning con claims “The seeker asks and receives their answer.” This is obviously irrational. Again, my opponent has claimed that “just because someone hopes for something and believes it is true doesn’t mean it is true.” And that such a concept would be “completely ridiculous“ He goes on to say that “This is not what I have advocated at all, nor what the LDS scriptures say.” Unfourtanetly for Con it is exactly what he concluded, that hope and belief “together complete faith.” Conclusion Con concludes that “Hope + faith = knowledge.” This is incoherent as he has defined faith earlier in the same round as “believe and hope.” This makes his final statement read as Hope + Hope + Believe = Knowledge. Worse yet, he himself said “just because someone hopes for something and believes it is true doesn’t mean it is true.” So my opponent has said both that hope + believe = knowledge and that hope + believe =/= truth. These conflict with each other. My opponents arguments are shown to be utterly incoherent. This inconstancy in his argument shows the irrationality of the LDS concept of Faith. Hope + Believe =/= knowledge and =/= truth.
courts have the responsibilty to create racially balanced schools.

1)my exact words were may only work in poor communities, I never said would only work in poor communities and this is because the poor communities are more willing to let their children get a better education in the rich communities, the rich will just simply get up and move. 2)these other options allow the parents on both sides of the communities to choose where their child goes to school and not force them to send their children to violent areas. 3)equality is for everyone that's why you let the communities decide where they want their children to go to school.