BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The earth is expanding

1. Just because there were no deep oceans doesn't mean that there weren't plenty of shallow oceans. Note - All the ancient sea life fossils have been found on land. What is now land was once shallow oceans. The early Earth most likely didn't have any dry land and was just a huge shallow sea. Life would emerge more easily from small rock pools. One must understand the nature of light. Light is spin torque energy from the sun. This spin torque energy travels through the aether and winds up some selected molecules to give them animation that we call life. Note - DNA is a double helix which has the same form and shape as light energy. Thus, all living things are like little wind-up toys which are powered by the suns spin torque energy. Forget about photons, this is not how the universe works. 2. The aether is made of positive and negative particles which spin at the speed of light. Positive and negative is really left and right spin energy. When these particles approach a large celestial body they are pushed together and stop spinning which releases the spin torque energy.(E=MC2) Thus, two particles of aether (C2) are pushed together to produce (M) mass or neutrons which releases (E) energy. Thus, this is how matter is created outside the atmosphere of suns and in the interior of planets. Planets will eventually grow into suns given sufficient time. Suns will grow into black holes given sufficient time. A solar system is a small galaxy in the making. A planet and its moons are a small solar system in the making. Thus, everything is expanding and contracting at the same time in an endless cycle. Note - Black holes return matter back to aether again. This is contraction. Note - The sun passes through a layer of dust every 26 millions years which lies in the galactic centre plane which is similar to the rings of Saturn. At this point the Earth may experience some extinction events happening due to meteor impacts. This would accelerate the mass accretion process.
The earth is expanding

Wow! What an interesting video! I am now convinced! All jokes aside there are two major problems I see with the logic presented in this video: 1. How did life start in the oceans, if there where no oceans? It is very clear that life started in the ocean, not only because it was an easy way for molecules and compounds to bump into each other and provide water to very basic, single cellular life forms. We also have evidence, that the oldest life forms were in the water, so if there were no oceans, explain to me how is this possible? 2. Where does all the mass come from? The idea of something expanding, without having a source for all that additional matter is absolutely preposterous. This theory, or least how it is presented in the video, simply ignores the fact that all this additional matter for earth to grow doesn't just simply appear, but has to come from somewhere. One of the most important figureheads of this "theory" (albeit more of an idea), James Magslow, simply said "I don't know" when he discussed the question at one of his presentations. If we are going to bring up videos as arguing points, might I suggest this fantastic work of art:
Knights vs. Bishops in Chess

Well. My opponent forfeited. I'll just take the opportunity to post my position, and briefly explain why, and then leave it to my opponent.Bishops are superior in chess to knights. Firstly, their mobility is extremely valuable. Knights have limited range, and while a centrally posted knight has good coverage over the board, they are only useful in tight spaces. Tight spaces mainly arise out of dense pawn structures or a cramped defensive position, again due to the pawn structure. In the beginning of the game, Knights are useful, especially for black if they play hypermodern defenses like the Pirc Defense, or stick to more traditional defenses like Philidor's Defense, the French Defense, or Four Knights game. The Knight's usefulness is immediately forsaken the minute liquidation occurs, however. Once the cramped positions are freed up, either by exchange or by the natural course of the game, the bishops take over.The Bishop is superior in the middle and endgame, and as a chess player, you should be making exchanges with the endgame in mind. For this reason, exchanging a Bishop for a Knight is generally a very bad choice, because as the game goes on, your opponent will have the two bishops to utilize as weapons, while you will have only one. Thus, even in the opening, you should be prioritizing your bishop pairs over your knights. Your knights should be utilized to either blockade pawns or occupy a central post. The Bishops are weapons, and when utilized correctly in space open enough, will outshine their Knight counterparts.The Bishop is superior in the endgame because of it's range. A bishop can move the length of the board in one move to come back and act as a blockading piece, albeit a weak blockading piece, but sufficient under the right circumstances. A knight will waste four or five moves to reach the same position, meaning if you wish to utilize it as a blockading piece or to present a threat to your opponent's endgame strategy of queening pawns, you must begin the long trek early, and in the process, forsake other strategy.The Bishop also has an advantage in the Bishop-pawn pairing. While immobile, it is extremely strong and resistant. In a game with few open files, a bishop-pawn pairing in the right place can completely block off an open file to your enemy. A knight lacks the strength, because it does not protect the pawn, while the bishop and pawn protect each other.Finally, the most important aspect that demonstrates the Bishop's superiority. The bishop can both fork and pin. The knight can only fork. In the endgame the ability to pin is extremely valuable. Pinning a piece forces your opponent to waste a move to free it up, or lose the piece until he does. Knights cannot perform that function, while the bishop can, and in the endgame, a pinned piece can be a momentum-shifting event.I will now hand this debate to my opponent, with the hopes that it can continue without forfeiting. Should he forfeit the next round, I will refrain from posting any relevant content until he is able to conduct the debate.
Parents must take classes and pass tests before being allowed to have children.

“You have provided no valid rebuttals to my points. Want to try again? " Pro has made no points. He made a statement of opinion of what is wrong with society,” One of the main problems with society today is that parents have no idea what they are doing and destroy the kids with horrible parenting”, but he did not show how this statement was true. Pro has also failed to show how this statement leads to,” Persons intent on becoming parents should take classes and pass tests about parenting before being allowed to have children. ” Pro has the burden of proof and has left his case without support. Conclusion Children are the future, and we should do everything we can to provide a bright future for them. Limiting future parents with test and dire consequences is not the way. Parents mature as their kids grow. Parents of infants are infants themselves in the parenting world. Infant and parent alike have so much potential at the moment of birth, and neither should have to take a test to get to that point. Thank you for this debate, Pro.
Parents must take classes and pass tests before being allowed to have children.

Pro’s rebuttal consisted of:1. By whose cultural standard do we determine the right answers? Each culture? I suppose.2. It is a severe violation of basic human rights. Says Who? What about all the abused and parentless children? What about their basic human rights?3. This gives extreme power to a corrupt government over a very intimate part of our lives. Perhaps, Perhaps not. Thus the people should have the control, NOT the government. I completely agree that the government itself should never be given this power. This test system can be done without giving any more power to the government. For arguments sake, I have provided the definition for discriminatory: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:[4] 1. This would mean there would be different questions and/or different answers for each cultural group. Not a solid solution and discriminatory based on race.2. The United States Supreme court says the idea of restricting procreation is wrong. "What about the abused and parentless children?" I would suggest violating one group's rights to help another group is a poor course of action.3. We agree the government should not have this power granted to them, but who could enforce procreation restrictions? Would we grant enforcement ability to a private entity? If someone fails the test and has children anyway, what could be done? Overall, the government is the only entity with the resources to enforce this resolution. I am against this course of action. My opponent introduced no more arguments so I intend to follow suit. My arguments are solid, and Pro has done little or nothing in the way of serious and reasonable arguments to dispute them. I look forward to the final round![4]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Parents must take classes and pass tests before being allowed to have children.

1. By whose cultural standard do we determine the right answers? 2. It is a severe violation of basic human rights. 3. This gives extreme power to a corrupt government over a very intimate part of our lives. 1) Each culture? I suppose. 2) Says who? What about all the abused and parentless children? What about their basic human rights? 3) Perhaps, perhaps not. Thus the people should have the control, NOT the government. I completely agree that the government itself should never be given this power. This test system can be done without giving any more power to the government.
yo mama jokes

yo momma's so fat dora couldn;'t explore her yo momma's so fat she bleeds gravyyo momma's so fat her breast milk is kool-aidyo mama so skinny she hula hoops with a cheerioyo mama so short you can see her feet on her drivers lisenceyo mama teeth are so yellow traffic slows down when she smilesyo mama so old I told her to act her own age, and she diedyo mama so old she has a picture of Moses in her yearbookyo mama so old she ran track with dinosaurs
yo mama jokes

yo mama so fat she fell in love and broke it yo mama so ugly she got arrested for mooning yo mama so old she knew burger king while he was still a prince yo mama so fat she has smaller fat people orbiting around her yo mama so old when she was born the dead sea was just getting sick yo mama so poor she goes to restaurants and licks other peoples fingers yo mama so poor she cant afford to pay attention yo mama so poor the closest thing to a car she has is a low rider shopping cart with a box on it yo mama so poor she washes paper plates yo mama so dirty she loses weight in the shower yo mama so dirty i messaged her on face book and got a virus yo mama so nasty her s**t is glad to escape yo mama so dumb she failed a blood test yo mama so stupid she tried to put m&ms in alphetibatical order yo mama so ulgy she had u yo mama so ulgy she took frankenstien to prom
Is there a God

However I am not taking the position that there is a christian God, or an Islamic God. Only that the idea that God is a supreme being who made the universe. I take this stance as you did not specify which god. Now in your second sentence you admit that you cannot disprove god. Yet by taking the facts that we know you can make a logical conclusion that there is no god. Please state these said facts in the next round, but I will assume you mean scientific evidence of the big bang. I perfectly agree that the big bang has a strong scientific backing. However there is a strange quirk of God. Who's to say God didn't make the big bang? And if we find evidence of what did make the big bang happen who's to say God didn't do that? And you could keep going on. This is very logical, and proves that the existence of God can coincide perfectly with science. This means that now both are equally logical conclusions. Now let's also look at the fact that scientists, although they have come very far, are no where close to finding the answers to how the universe works, how it exists, why it exists. Why should it? God is really the only answer thus far provided, and he makes sense. Now God is a more logical conclusion. Thus by your reasoning that we should believe the more logical of the choices. Now, as you have not provided any facts that make the existence of God illogical I will wait until the next round to expand my argument. Thank you.
Is there a God

You misunderstand what I meant in my last point. I fully acknowledge that we as human beings don't have true reason to exist, other than to replicate DNA. But why does the universe as a whole actually exist? Why did the big bang happen? According to science, the big bang started as a singular point, a point so small that it practically did not exist. Then it rapidly expanded into what we know as our universe. Yet we do not know why that singular point was there, why in the midst of no time, no space, came forth time and space. Science can explain how that happened, but they don't know why that happened. There's logically no reason it should have happened. If we go back to life for a moment though. Life also has no real reason it exists. It just does. However there is factual evidence to how it did happen. We know that life started as DNA molecules, who eventually started to protect themselves with other molecules, and that it eventually evolved into what we know as life. But with the big bang we can explain what happened when it happened, but we cannot explain how that singular point was there in the first place. You say that the future could become so advanced that they can make little universe projections, like a sims game as you said, and that we are just one of those. Yet what makes the maker of this projection not God? God is essentially the supreme being that created the universe we live in, set its laws, and created its dimensions. The maker of our projection would be our God. He fits all of our notions of God. You say that without evidence it is logical to believe there is no God, and that we should follow science. However I have proved that God fits very nicely with science. Therefore it would be just as logical to support atheism or theism. However because of the questions that science can't answer we have to assume that theism is more logical because of the fact that they can provide answers. My evidence is logic. Your last statement was that people believe in a God by faith, and not by facts. However you can believe in a God by logic. And I have indeed proved that God is a much more logical choice between atheism and theism. I would like to thank you for debating with me. I found this a very interesting debate, and I would like to thank you for including the link to an article on multiverse theory. I tried to argue for the existence of God in a way I don't believe many people have seen before, and I hope you found my arguments were sound.
Is there a God

The most difficult part about this argument is the last point you made. That is the fact that we have to a reason to exist. The simple answer is that we have no reason to exist. As i state previously all scientific data points to the fact, that we are just another species out of the millions that we know about. You also make the point that God could exist within another universe. Even science is working on a explanation for a similar theory, howbeit it is very out there but still a more viable option that a magical being in the sky. This idea plays into the multiverse theory. Some scientist are starting to hypothesize that if a multiverse does exist, we could actually be projections from the future. At this point in the future technology is so advanced, that we could be a simulation. Think of it like a sims game. For more information on the string theory and the multiverse check the link below http://www.math.columbia.edu... When you take the pro argument, you assume the burden of truth. This entire argument is hinged around the fact that there is no evidence to support a God. The essence of belief is faith. Without evidence to support a God, we assume the most logical conclusion and learn from what science teaches us. There is no overall purpose in life, other than to live and to die. As i also stated earlier, without evidence to support a God, the most reasonable assumption is that there is none. The same can be said for any other test or experiment. Without proof, all you have is a hypothesis. It becomes a law when evidence supports it. In your rebuttal you mentioned that the universe could function with a God and that a God would give us a purpose in life but you have not mentioned anything to support the fact that such a being exists. A pro argument supporting a God must offer proof that a God exists, and then i will offer a rebuttal to the evidence that you provide. Until that evidence is provided I still believe that the most logical explanation that people believe in a God by faith and not facts.
Is there a God

I thank you for your rebuttal, but if I may counter... 1. You state that God must exist outside space and time. But perhaps he just lives in another space, another time. As in another universe. Scientists are already investigating whether multiple universes can exist, and many believe they can. Therefore God can simply live in another universe. 2. Your next argument seems to rely on the idea that God is moral. You say that since God seemed to create us in his image he must be about as moral as us. Yet he may not have intentionally created us. He might have created the universe and it's laws, and watching for the results. You could say God is simply a scientist, watching the experiment of our universe. And like a good scientist he won't interfere with his experiment to skew the results. 3. You state that since there are many different religions it is likely that they are all wrong, due to the fact that they can't all be right. However this focuses on organized religion, as I am arguing for the existence of a supreme being that we don't know anything about. There is a difference because of the fact that a supreme being as I am describing it could correspond to any religion. Therefore we must look at organized religion as a whole, and not many different sectors. 4. You say we can live without God, but you could equally say that we can live with God as well. The fact that God doesn't need to exist doesn't mean he doesn't, and in fact I can argue that if God had started the big bang then we would need him. Oh and just a fun fact technically we are the center of the universe. In fact everything is the center of the universe. But I'm getting off track. You lastly say that God must be the most logical conclusion. Given my refutations of your points, and the point I made that scientists still need to answer why the universe exists. Not how, but why. God can provide that answer, as I stated before God may have set up a universe for an experiment. Or for fun. Or because he's God and he can.
Dropping The Bombs On Japan Was Tactically Correct And Morally Right

By august the 6th the war in Europe was over and there was no way that japan could defeat the global superpowers of America and The Soviet Union who were preparing to join. the two bombs that America dropped caused the deaths of around 200,000 people. Around half (the lucky ones) were killed instantly. The rest were slowly poisoned as the radiation got into the water supply and crops making the whole area unliveable in for thousands of years. It is arguable that without the two atomic bombs and the two billion pounds America spent building them we would not have nuclear weapons today. So yes America ended the war quickly and no more Americans died but 200,000 innocent civilians did. and should it ever come to nuclear war think of how many millions would die because America atom bombed japan 69 years ago.
US Government is not a Democracy anymore

Mr. Vendetta, your argument is flawed. You say that the common person does not know 90%+ of what the government does and that it is controlled by an elitist organization. That is ridiculous because the Freedom of Information Act, which was passed on July 4,1966, requires disclosure of documents that the United States Government is in control of. Therefore it is against the law to withhold private government information. For you argument on Iraq, you failed to note that the Democratic Party is actively pursuing the removal of American troops from Iraq. It is the Republican Party (led by the Republican President George W. Bush) that has been blocking them with vetoes and other measures. That, however, is how politics works; two competing political parties each having a different political view. It does not, however, mean that the government is run by an elitist government. In the last mid-term elections in the United States of America the Democratic Party overwhelmingly swept their Republican appoints in the elections because people were sick and tired of the Republican answer to their war questions. According to your argument, if the government was run by an elitist organization then the President of the United States would have pulled some strings with his fellow elitists and then stopped the Democrats from winning the mid-terms.
US Government is not a Democracy anymore

The topic stated above is almost what i wrote my college essay on so therefore i will use things that i wrote in my essay here. i feel that the government has 1) never been a democracy, and 2) will never be a democracy for the fact that high government elitists can control and run the country from behind closed doors and the common person will never know of 90+% of the things that they do. the government when it was fist established was elitist Oligarchy for the sole fact that the common person didn't have the right to vote on certain issues, the high ranking officials choose those results. even now if a person were to look into the war in Iraq and see that, yes most of the nation wanted to go to war immediately after 9/11 but yet now more than half of the nation feels that we should bring our troops home. the government will not let that vote come to pass because they are doing what they feel is best. which in theory is a prime example of the Elitist Oligarchy government that we have now.
Subways (so, underground) trains should be fully automated

My point is that subways should be automated to improve efficiency. Currently(in Toronto), there are drivers in a subway train essentially doing nothing. The door close time and nearly everything could be easily operated with a remote sensor. This would ensure that people could get in and out and the trains would be very on schedule. If a job has no use, then that job should be eliminated. However, these drivers can instead become operators and maintain their livelihood. As my opponent has wanted, I think that if subways were automated and regulated by operators, then subway systems would be faster and greatly improve. -Thank you I wait for refutations and hope that I have made myself clear.