BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
RE: Agriculture was mankind's biggest mistake.

Thanks for a timely response. =====Arguments===== I'm sorry but I believe you are the one who doesn't understand overpopulation. Having children is not something that you get according to your amount of money. It is caused by sexual intercourse which is sometimes not in peoples control because they have urges and hormones coursing through their body (I will not go into depth about this, sorry). So they all might exist, but the difference is, those ten people you claimed would not exist, will suffer through their whole life until they eventually die of starvation. This would all happen unless they had a surplus of food which came from agriculture. My opponent stated, "It is likely that people did something like fall off a cliff and break their leg or lose their arm to the animal they were hunting, but the fact of the matter is that they were stronger." Now notice that my opponent didn't say why they were stronger in their bones and how they could take the impact. This is not at all true. They would have less bone density because they didn't get necessary vegetables from agriculture. My opponent also said agriculture led to disease but I'm sure my opponent didn't think this statement through. Hunting and gathering caused many more diseases because if meat isn't cooked properly, than it will cause disease and if the gatherers get something poisonous, this will obviously be bad for their system. My opponent stated himself that variety of foods was key to a healthy lifestyle. This proves that agriculture was a good thing because if you ate some meat and some vegetables and some seeds from gathering, your diet would be more diverse which my opponent stated was a good thing. Now I believe I have covered all of my opponents arguments. I shall now proceed to my conclusion. =====Conclusion===== I believe I have covered all of my opponents valid points, so I shall now move on to my conclusion. =====Conclusion===== I believe this was a good debate, but I do believe that I made some better arguments than my opponent. I certainly did enjoy this debate and I feel like I have learned alot in this debate and I certainly enjoyed reading my opponents point of view which was very interesting and unique. I also hope that I can debate again with my opponent. For all the reasons I have stated, I strongly urge a Con vote. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate with you Mikeee. Thank you for taking the time you have taken to read, comment and vote on this debate to all of the viewers. Thank you for everything, S98Samman
RE: Agriculture was mankind's biggest mistake.

Thank you for a timely response and thank you for the opportunity to debate with you. =====ARGUMENTS===== There are many flaws in your case that I shall attack now. My opponent stated "no one would have to [die], population explosion only occurred after agriculture started to provide enough food to have surplus." So basically you are agreeing with me by saying that if we didn't have agriculture, people would die. So yes, people would have to die to solve overpopulation regardless. Also my opponent said "migrate to a new one," if your old home was out of food. Well sire, it's not that simple. If there was a shortage of jobs in your area, it wouldn't be so easy to just get up and go to somewhere else. Leaving your home isn't a simple task and if they took too long, they would die of starvation because they haven't a surplus of food for emergencies. My opponent also stated "you have to work to make money," which is a contradiction of himself. He himself said that there would be no war because you don't own anything and here he is trying to talk about money. Money is one of the main causes of war so once again war is inevitable. My opponent also said "[disasters] cannot be controlled or prevented," but the truth is, you can always prepare for the inevitable and a surplus of food would definitely help you survive. My opponent expanded on his race argument and I thank him for that. He basically said that agriculture causes racism and sexism which is VERY untrue. He mentioned that in India, "when the husband die, they would throw themselves on his funeral fire." This is a matter of culture and diversity and devotion to your spouse. It has nothing to do with agriculture. Everything my opponent mentioned in his second argument was false. This is all a matter of culture. As you all can see, now we still have agriculture, women's rights are available, but as you know, in many countries, there are no women's rights which proves my point that this is all about culture. =====CONCLUSION===== I have argued my case successfully and I stand ready for next round. Forgive the quality of my post this round but I have been very busy. Thank you, S98Samman
The Great Flood

"1. Noah, his family, and the animals didn't die from lack of oxygen, hence the extreme altitude."They could have simply brought plants with them into the ark. But we don't even have to go there.As the water rises, so does the oxygen, since it is less dense then water. "2. Die of extreme cold, hence altitude. "a) Fire.b) The body heat of all those animals.c) Genesis 7: 11 says "on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth" that would heat up the water, & hence the atmosphere.But,as before, we don't even need to go there, if we know how the universe works.Why is it colder at higher altitudes?Basically, the simple answer is because there is less air pressure.If the earth is covered in water, all the air goes up to the surface, thus the air pressure did not decrease as the ark rose, & thus it would not be cold.This also answers:"Wouldn't the surface of the water at such extreme altitude freeze over after 40 days and nights? "Not to mention that pro gives no reason to assume that the water didn't freeze.
Voluntarism vs. Democracy

Voluntaryism (or sometimes voluntarism) is a libertarian philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary. The principle most frequently used to support voluntarism is the non-aggression principle (NAP). It is closely associated with the anarcho-capitalist philosophy; however, almost all anarchists and libertarians believe in the NAP. We believe that this moral standard is superior to other forms of statist governance such as democracy. . http://en.wikipedia.org... In this debate, I will be arguing that voluntarism is the superior moral principle to democracy. Democracy is a form of government in which eligible citizens may participate in government either directly by voting for the passing of specific laws, running for office, or voting indirectly through elected representatives. This stands contrary to voluntarism which does not allow for citizens to legally violate the NAP through voting (even by majority consensus). . http://en.wikipedia.org... The NAP asserts only two basic rights: the right to one's person and property living free from aggression; no laws can justifiably violate the right to non-aggression. According to the NAP, any violation of one's person or property is always illegitimate when backed through force or violence rather voluntary, non-coerced exchange. . http://en.wikipedia.org... I very much look forward to an interesting discussion on ethics and political philosophy. Thank you again to my opponent for his time and dialog. I will begin my argument in R2. Best of luck! Danielle
Jesus did not fulfill Genesis 3:15

"This is when Christ will crush Satan's head" I am glad that you agree that this prophecy was not fulfilled yet if we follow Christian Theology. "if Jesus didn't fulfill ALL Old Testament scriptures that were based on the Messiah, then he's not the savior of the world." Sometimes, we think that prophecies were fulfilled, but were they really? Just like Genesis 3:15 was not fulfilled, I do believe that Jesus fulfilled no prophecies, or they are part of his second coming prophecies, or they are fulfilled in heaven (which we cannot verify) or they are misquoted. I would like to answer some of your arguments anyway and see if it really makes sense according to the Hebrew Bible. "The Serpent is Satan" As per the Hebrew Bible, the serpent is not Satan. In fact he acted as an adversary, but as Genesis said, G-d created the animals and they were good. The serpent was created on the sixth day as the other animals. https://www.blueletterbible.org... "the fallen Angel of Light" You must refer to Isaiah 13-14. Where Isaiah 14:12 is translated as Lucifer. The whole prophecy is about Babylon, not about Satan. In fact, "Lucifer" should be translated as "morning star". That did not look good for Jesus, who was also called "morning star", so they changed it for Lucifer. But again, this is only an allegory about the Kingdom of Babylon who will be destroy. And in any way, if Satan really possessed the serpent, then the Satan should have been cursed, not the serpent. A more literal way to see that curse (not prophecy) is that the women will have hatred for the serpent and the serpent will try to bite the heel and the women"s descents will crush the serpent head. It talks about a mutual hatred for each other. The head is a fatal area to strike for the serpent and usually serpents bite the heel. There is no reference to Jesus as per the Hebrew Bible. And as per the New Testament, this is part of the prophecy that we cannot use to prove Jesus, because it has not been fulfilled.
Jesus did not fulfill Genesis 3:15

Please note that the previous round was only for question. The argument should have been posted on the round two. Let me first clarify, I am not a Christian, but let me first put my argument, and I will answer Con's argument on the second round. There is first a lot of preconceived idea about this verse. The first preconceived idea is that only man can have "Zara" seed. First all women have seeds, which in this context should be translated as descendant. You can see that Genesis 16:10. "And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude". So if all women can have seed, it does not refer to a miraculous birth as portrayed in Matthew 1:23 and it can be any descendant of any women. If you tell me that Genesis 3:15 was fulfilled because Jesus was born of a woman, then this is actually the case for everybody and it does not help to determine who fulfil that prophecy. Second, even if I am not a Christian, the New Testament itself mentioned that Satan is not Crushed yet. Romans 16:20 says "the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen. " If Satan was crushed at the cross, then he would not need to be crush again. Furthermore Revelation 20:2 portray Satan as free. He will be bound for 1000 years and then he will be set free again. As long as Satan, who is the Serpent as per Christian theology is still free to go round the earth as he pleased, there is no reason to believe that he was actually crushed at the cross. A prophecy that cannot be verified or that will happen at his second coming cannot be use to prove that Jesus is the messiah. So, because the Serpent (Satan) has not been bruise by G-d/Jesus yet, there is no reason to believe that Jesus actually fulfil that prophecy.
Jesus did not fulfill Genesis 3:15

Please, I beg of you, please explain how Jesus didn't fulfill Genesis 3:15. Please. Here's the thing; before I get into my actual argument, I'd like to lay down some theology. Assuming you're a Christian, you should understand this. If not, oh well. According to scripture, if Jesus didn't fulfill ALL Old Testament scriptures that were based on the Messiah, then he's not the savior of the world. He is the savior of the world, therefore he had to have fulfilled all of the scriptures that showed/described the Messiah and who he was. Now, the argument. First of all, this scripture describes part of the curse on man after The Fall. In this verse, God the Father, also known as Elohim or Yahweh, is talking to the Serpent. The Serpent is Satan, the fallen Angel of Light. Satan, aka Lucifer, has successfully brought sin into this world by tempting Eve to disobey God's rule and eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. She took the temptation, ate of the fruit, and sin was born into the realm of Earth. The verse is God laying down the punishment on Satan, telling him first that all of Eve's offspring (everyone on the planet ever) will hate the Serpent. The second part of the verse describes the eventual defeat of Satan, saying that "he will crush your head and you will strike his heel". Let me explain this; Jesus was a human. Therefore, he is an offspring of Eve. Being the savior of the world, he was the most important of Eve's descendants. Now, the verse describes two strikes; the serpent striking the heel, and "He" (Jesus) striking the serpent's head. The heel is not a fatal blow. If somebody hits you on the heel, it might hurt for a little while, but then you'll get up and continue fighting. The head is a fatal area to strike. If a person crushes your head, you have no chance of survival; you've lost. End of story. The crucifixion of Christ was Satan's strike at Christ's heel. It struck a painful blow at the Christian faith, but it really was a great, awesome, amazing thing. The heel had been struck, but it turned out to be a minor blow. Three days later, Christ rose up, signifying that he had taken the sins of the Human Race and atoning for them. This was the fulfillment of the first part of the verse. The Bible then tells of the Second Coming. This is when Christ will crush Satan's head; Satan will be permanently defeated and thrown into the lake of fire after the battle of Armageddon.
This house would support streaming in high schools

My opponent's main point this round is that having non-streamed classroom prepares student's for life, as the workplace will not be streamed, however, I would like to dispute this point. Before I move on to the workplace, let's move on the where most students go after primary education - secondary education, ie: college/university. Now my opponent will have you believe that we need to prepare student's for the world after primary education, which is not streamed, but I argue that student's are in fact, streamed in the real world. Look up the information for any college, and you can find an "average" SAT/ACT score for that school. Simply put, low-ability student's are not getting into Harvard/Oxford, and the high-ability kids there will never have to interact with them while there. Likewise, the high-achieving students are not applying to the Community College of Hawaii, and the low-ability student's there will also not have to interact with the high-ability. This is streaming at it's finest. Nowhere will you see a school where both kids that have perfect SAT scores go as well as the kids who barely passed high school. So what about the workplace? The workplace is very similar in this aspect. Frankly speaking, the high-ability kids go to the top schools so they can get the top jobs upon graduation. Places like Google, Apple, Goldman Sachs. .. are all recruiting high-ability kids only. The top-tier jobs do not even look at the lower-tier schools. Likewise, the jobs that the vast majority of the lower-ability people get, they will not be interacting with high-ability people, except maybe in a manager position. Now, obviously there are exceptions to this rule, but the foundation is solid. You do not typically see geniuses working hand-in-hand with the mentally challenged, or many times, even the ordinary.
This house would support streaming in high schools

Firstly, thank you very much to my opponent for also forfeiting the last round. It was much appreciated. Back to the debate at hand, my opponent has just informed us that streaming in schools fails to meet the needs of individual students with different learning abilities. He has stated that the advanced are held back and the less advanced are either pushed too far or bullied for their lack of ability. Of course, I cannot deny this, but these things should be viewed in a far more positive light. While levels of frustration in a non-streamed classroom may run high at first, they are bound to settle eventually. In fact, working in such an environment trains people to work with difference, to accept different abilities. They develop socially and become well-prepared for what comes after high school and university: work. I don't believe that any workplaces are streamed and lack of preparation for this can lead to social issues between workmates. Those who are more advanced academically may become frustrated having to work with others who are not at their level; those who are not as advanced would struggle. One could argue that workers could become accustomed to this frustration, but it has been proven that the younger the mind, the quicker it adapts. High school students need to learn how to interact well with those of different academic abilities while their brains are still prepared to adapt to their needs. I"m sure that this makes it clear to anyone that streaming in high schools ought to be banned for the sake of students' social well-being later in life.
This house would support streaming in high schools

My opponent would like to have you believe that streaming students labels them for life. She claims that it encourages them to achieve based on where they were placed. However, I disagree. Streaming is a necessary part of the schooling system. The most obvious example is what are commonly referred to as "special ed", or special education classes. These classes are for kids who traditionally struggle in normal classes and are recognized for having lower IQs. To state that these students should be put into classes with normal students is simply preposterous. Due to the various learning disabilities, there are two things that could happen1/ Their more specific needs would cause the teacher to slow down solely for their sake, slowing the pace for the entire classroomor2/ They would become self-conscious of their inability to grasp things as quickly as the other students and stay quiet instead of asking for help, causing their own education to suffer. Imagine being in a Language Arts classroom,where the teacher then asks you to read a section aloud. Due to your dyslexia, you struggle reading the section, going very slowly and making simple mistakes. Finding it funny, the rest of the class laughs at you. From then on, as to not embarrass yourself, you don't bother reading out loud again so while the rest of the class reads, you slowly fall behind. Placing low ability students in a normal classroom will either cause their own education to suffer, or allow the entire class to suffer. On the flip side, high-achieving, or "gifted" students can easily get bored in an non-streamed classroom. This is the sole purpose of Gifted Support classes. High achieving students need to be pushed harder or they may become complacent. To explain it more simply, an non-streamed classroom is like a classroom going on a hike. You will have very athletic kids (high achieving kids), and also very unfit kids (low achieving) with a few people in between mixed among them. The unfit kids will move slower than the athletes and need much more breaks. Simply speaking, either the entire group slows down to cater to the unfit kids or the class moves at a normal pace as the unfit kids struggle to keep up. On the flip side, if you break the hikers up into groups based on ability, you will have the athletes finishing the hike much faster while the unfit kids finish much slower, however, everyone within the group will be at the same pace and become motivated by the other students who share the same abilities. To conclude, I completely disagree with the Pro's motion that streaming is detrimental to students. On the contrary,I would like to put forward the motion that not only is streaming advantageous to students, but a near-necessity in order for students to receive the most out of their education.
This house would support streaming in high schools

Streaming in high schools is often quick to provoke prejudice from students and teachers alike. It has been proven that students, if placed in a lower stream, can start to suffer academically. A test was held where a group of students with mixed academic ability were split randomly into groups. Some were told that they were in higher classes and others were told that they were in a bottom class. Though these students were split randomly, what they had been told slowly became true; those who were told that they were in the top classes achieved well and those who were told that they were in bottom classes began to achieve lower results. Similarly, teachers often only bother to teach top students competently as prejudice causes them to have low expectations for their lower classes. This has the potential to start a vicious circle: The lower the student's achievement, the lower the standard of teaching. The lower the standard of teaching, the lower the student's achievement etc... In conclusion, streaming in schools is a ridiculous concept; it lowers the achievement of students who are already not achieving very well and it lowers standard of education as teachers abandon their responsibilities with lower classes. Why would anyone want this for an institution whose sole purpose is to educate? This house does not support streaming in high schools as it is clearly a flawed, unhelpful system.
Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement)

It is also in the constitution that we have a right to bear arms, but there are laws placed on who and at what age a person is allowed to carry one. Making vaccinations mandatory for those children in school would just be like placing a law on gun carry. Heath.harvard.edu stated that an individual that is vaccinated is less contagious to others, if they were to get sick. So by definition if the majority was to get vaccinated then there would be no worry about getting infected. This is also called community immunity. By not having a child get vaccinated they are now risking the heath of not only those near them, but also the rest of the community.
Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement)

You say and I quote, " There runs the risk of death if a child is not presented with a vaccination," but there also runs a risk of the children dying from these vaccines that are now supposedly saving their lives. Your website cdc.gov also states that "A vaccine, like any medicine, could cause a serious reaction and the risk of a vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is small but not unheard of." So is that one life you say could be saved from spreading a disease worth the risk of them dying from the side effects of the so called life saving vaccination.
Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement)

There are always going to be some kind of side effects no matter what a person does. It all goes back to if one individual thinks that they are more important than the rest of society. Also there runs the risk of death if a child is not presented with a vaccination. It is much cheaper to get a vaccination for an illness than it is to treat one. In fact cdc.gov says that it cost about 15-16 dollars to get a vaccine, where it could cost well over 150 dollars to treat an illness that could have been prevented.
Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement)

The point you brought up is completely irrelevant because getting vaccinations and carrying guns have no connection at all. I can see where you are coming from but the difference between gun control and vaccinations is nowadays the common cold is not going to kill someone like a gun. Then you say that the community is at risk because of one child but according to www.ncoh.net, there are all kinds of side effects that can occur to a person that can possibly kill them just because they had an allergic reaction to the vaccine.