BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Opponent picks topic.

I confirm we have agreed on our topics and positions. DefinitionsExtraterrestrial: of or from outside the earth or its atmosphere. Likely: such as well might happen or be true; probable. Very: EmphasizeVery Likely: For this matter; more than 90% because of the size of the universe. Beings: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. Arguments The Drake equation. The Drake equation is Nc = N* fp ne fl fi fc fLN* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way GalaxyEstimates about 100 billion. fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around themEstimates from 20% to 50%. I will take 35%. ne number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life1-2 I will take 1.5fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolvesStars that are capable of sustaining life, should have some life evolving on it. 50%. fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolvesThis is highly debatable. Estimates range from 100% to 0%, I will take 50% but it is a very high estimate. fc is the fraction of fi that communicateAround 10-20%, possibly around 15%fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations may surviveThis estimate is taken from the expected time humans will survive on Earth. 10,000 is an good estimate. The lifetime of our solar system is estimated to be around 10 billion years. Thus the fraction is 1/1,000,000. Multiply them together! The answer is 1968.75 stars that have communicating civilizations on them. This equation is definitely not foolproof, but it gives some idea of how many stars that have communicating civilizations on them. Now, we are talking about beings, the species of Homo sapiens. This species is unique to Earth, and we must calculate the fraction of Homo sapiens out of the communicating civilizations that may survive. So. .. I add another variable. fH is the fraction of fL that are Homo sapiens. Since Homo sapiens are unique to Earth, as they most likely originated & traveled to the same place, called Earth, there is little likelihood of the exact species appearing on other planets. I need to prove that fH is less than 0.04571428571%. Even if humans were to exist extraterrestrially, they would exist near Earth, but we have no evidence of Homo sapiens living on other planets. So, most likely fH is 0, or, much less than that figure (0.0457. .. ). Thank you.
Should Canada be a Republic

I believe Canada should actually strengthen its monarchy. In fact, it should be an absolute monarchy, where the crown has absolute life and death authority over every citiizen. However, I do not think it should be under the British Royal Family, because that's a dumb idea. I think a new royal family, a new king, should be become the tyrranical head of state for Canada. I humbly throw my hat into the ring. Long Live my Imperial Canadian Majesty, King LuciferWept I.As my first decree, I declare that all lands are now possessions of the king!
Should Canada be a Republic

I believe that Canada should be a republic! As a man who wants to be Prime Minister of Canada a.k.a the greatest country in the world (follow me on Instagram @primeministerjoshua812 to keep in check on my policy growth). Canada is trying desperately to improve its democracy and one of the ways we have found that we can do that is by abolishing the weak monarchical system and replace with a stronger parliamentary democracy and weak presidential system and according to polls more than half of Canadians would support such a move (after Queen Elizabeth dies)! As such for the betterment of Canada, we must abolish the monarchy and yes if you are wondering we, of course, can stay in the commonwealth like India has.
5 Bible lessons they don't teach you in Sunday School

5.Well the verse also doesn't say exactly what you're talking about either, so we both have to make some assumptions. My God is only bad in this case if you chose to view him in a poor light, in which case ofc he's gonna look bad.ElishaSame as 5. I don't know, but neither do you. Both of them are equally valid interpretations.TreesYou have to assume trees are sentient for your point to make sense. If Jesus made trees he would know for sure. If he made them he also has the right to unmake them. We're not God, so no we don't have that right.Tell you what, I know what's taught in my church. I only attend one church fulltime and never claimed to do anything else. I do, however, travel and visit dozens of churches around the states, and even some in other countries. I've heard what they teach, many of them repeatedly.I also take the time to enjoy life, to relax, sleep, get out and do things that I can do provided that my health and money allows it. Can you say the same? Ab-so-lu-te-ly not in any way can you. if you say “yes” to that, I 100% know that you are flat out lying.After telling me how you don't know that much your proceed to pretend like you know everything. Interesting.and you both were to be asked to decipher the book of Nahum, you and that someone would come up with TWO...Sometimes. I've done many studies with people from many churches. Sometimes we reach different conclusions, and sometimes we reach the same. Regardless, we usually leave agreeing with one or the other, as they would proceed to present a case as to why they interpreted their text some particular way.well let’s go for broke and say the NIV version. How’s that? Its a pretty easy version to understand - right? I mean after all you think you are so smart. I don't use NIV for the most part. The people I know use a wide variety of versions from KJV all the way to MSG. No one just uses one exclusively though. I don't quite understand your point here.I googled “torah”Have you read the lexicon? Have you researched the language here? Have you spoken with Hebrew professors who understand the original text? Have you cross-referenced nearly a dozen different Bible translations on this passage? If you answered no to any of these questions it would seem I'm more qualified to discuss the translation of this passage than you are, with your five second google search. Who is the one not presenting true evidence here?
5 Bible lessons they don't teach you in Sunday School

Fig TreeJesus did not kill a child in this passage. Don't change the subject. You don't know that trees are sentient, so to argue that this was immoral on his part is illogical. Who decides what has the right to live? Who says you can't just kill trees?The verses I provided are sourcing for what I said. You can choose to look them up or not, but you're effectively ignoring all source work by doing so. 1. You're telling me what is taught in churches? You know exactly what's taught in every church? Unfortunately you're wrong. Please stop pretending to know more than you do. The issue has been brought up in my church, and I've heard it brought up in nearly a dozen others. It's not an uncommon topic, so please stop lying.Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - I use KJV, ESV, NKJV or NASV for translations, as they have a habit of being the most true to the original text. In addition the source I linked was from the Lexicon, which is a literal word for word translation. You cannot get more accurate than that. Unless my opponent knows the Hebrew language, which I'm willing to be he does not, he cannot tell me which translation is superior. The fact of the matter is that the lexicon, most translations, as well as the parallel passage in Exodus all agree with me. You have close to nothing going for your point of view except your opinion on how to interpret it.I know what rape is. Not only have I been victimized myself but I know many others who have. Don't tell me I don't understand things if you have no idea who I am. I've also heard both passages you proceed to cite discussed in Sunday School, so again you're lying about things you don't understand.I've already talked about the Deut. 22:28-29 passage. The 22:23-24 passage condemns the woman because she did not call for help and thus must have wanted it. Context reveals the woman who did call for help was not killed, and the woman who was raped where help was not available was also not killed.2.My opponent has said nothing intellegent in this part. Women are different from men, and perform different functions. No one would uinderstand this better than the hypothetical creator.3.If I lost the debate how come it says that the winner is Con? Interesting. If you deem anyone who disagrees with you insane you'd be correct. Unfortunately that's not how it works though. The rest of what my opponent has shared here is simple nonsense. If God hated children he wouldn't have made them. If God wanted to abuse children he wouldn't have let us grow out of that phase. If God wanted to brainwash us all into following him he would have done it, not let us reason out of believing in him.My opponent did not address point 4 or 5, nor did he answer any of my questions directed to him. He has provided no substance. There is nothing redeeming about my opponent in this debate.
God vs. Naturalism

This debate should be impossible to accept. If you accidentally can accept, your acceptance without permission will lead to an automatic loss. I'm looking for a good debate. The topic of this debate: Is it more likely that God exists (Pro), or that naturalism is true (Con)? The debate doesn't require either side to prove that God or naturalism definitely and necessarily are true or false. The goal of this debate is to show which side's claim is more probable. Some may argue that there could be more than one God. Feel free to substitute the word God with Gods, but for this debate we will assume that there is one God. Also someone may argue that there are other theories besides the God hypothesis and Naturalism. For this debate, we'll assume that these are the only two possible scenarios. I will admit that this will be a tall order for me, but I look forward to an exciting debate. I am not looking to win this debate as much as garner an excellent discussion. I hope Con would share my sentiment as well. Definitions God – An intelligent supernatural being that created the universe(s), existed before all things and was not created. [No citation – My definition] Naturalism – The view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual [1]. Rules72 hours, 10,000 characters, voters must have at least 2000 Elo points 1. No forfeits 2. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 3. No trolling 4. BOP is Shared 5. First round for acceptance only6. Violation of any of these rules merits a loss [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Grand Theft Auto 5 is too inappropriate for people 20 and younger

I would like to introduce a recent event that took place to support my claims. Recently, a young adult killed his father and younger brother. While in police custody, the police were able to find that his actions were inspired by a video game, which took the young adult's simple feelings about his parent and sibling to an entirely extreme level. He felt the need to kill his family over a small argument. The police were also able to find out that his favorite character in the game was Trevor, a crazy man who would kill someone in an instant with no rational reason; not even for a criminal. For this reason, I would like to add, that teenagers, of any age, are likely to learn from this game. These people are at such a young age, where their brains are still developing.
Grand Theft Auto 5 is too inappropriate for people 20 and younger

In Grand Theft Auto, the game shows heists; how they are set up, how to make an easy escape from the cops, and give the player an objective to steal as much as they want and kill as many cops as they can. Thus, these might make some think that heists are easy and profitable in real life. The heists in the game depict actions which have already been mimicked by teenagers, children and young adults.
Descriptive writing contest

Euphoria. I skedaddled out the book store into the vacated gloomy empty parking lot. I was mesmerized by a philosophical book I just finished on the most profound questions about our existence while contemplating and pondering the deepest of questions I siphoned in this frigid, marvelous essence of artic atmosphere. This majestically exquisite force encompassed me it surrounded me.I exhaled slowly as my breath produces a miniature cloud only to soon diminish away into the brisk night air as it never was there. The icy air whistles around my ears, causing my skin to tingle and sting. Fingers and toes are numb, but it's a good feeling I zipped my jacket and started to walk. Every step I take leaves a fresh, crisp footprint in the snow, as if I am the only person to have ever been here. Yet meandering through this eerie grim lot in this frigid winter wonderland all the while pondering the deepest of thoughts I attain an unparalleled sense of unfathomable thrilling feeling of awe and wonder as I marvel at the glistening reflection of light on the endless expanse of snow slowly twinkling down from above. For a brief moment all seemed well in this second reality ceased to be for these emotions of bliss swept over me that all was perfect everything was at peace and tranquil with the world. This was euphoria.
Story Challenge: Moat Maiden

The third and final story in this challenge is as follows. I have not done a story challenge before and am uncertain how difficult it would be for CON. PRO can set the goal and initial scene, but CON has the advantage in that PRO must work toward a credible resolution in CON's round 4 and CON decides the final solution. I also tried to have at least one possible solution for each story, although CON would certainly develop the narrative as s/he wises. That way the story was at least minimally solvable. The minimum solution to the following is to have satchels sewn, fill them with ash, pack them up the mountain, let the wind blow the ash onto the snow and thus melt the snow more slowly. I might try another story challenge some time, but for now am on to other ventures. ~~~ SNOW STOPPER ~~~ Behind the Reeve's desk is a window, which looks out onto the makings of a major mole hill or maybe it is a mountain. Wise wanderer, the Reeve begins, hear the winter wind blow. This castle at the mountain's base, accumulates with snow. An avalanche will crush us all, and disappoint the king. Strong winds prevail on mountain top, we cannot wait for spring. The shops will give what goods they have, with generous ration. Please help to melt the snow slowly, in some controlled fashion. The castle encloses a courtyard and a number of small shops. The carpenter has wood blocks and a couple large wax candles. The seamstress has many bolts of broadcloth which she can sew into long dining tables, clothing, awnings, pouches, and the like. The smithy has the usual bellows-fed fireplace, anvil, hammers, bits of iron, and also large bins of ash collected from the castles many wood stoves. The stall has work horses and mules, located just after the blacksmith's shop, on the road leading to the mountain summit.
Story Challenge: Moat Maiden

As mentioned earlier, I planned three story challenges in a series set at a roughly medieval level of technology. In the first story we had to replace the bridge, building on the makeshift T-shaped combination of shovel and plank. In second story in this series, Cottage Cart, the hero crosses the moat and enters the cottage in which a maiden sits beside a stack of woven cloth. With all this cloth I've woven here, aid me to that castle. The king will surely pay us well, weaving is not facile. Yet all must come with us at once, leave none for fear of theft. Perhaps you need repair the cart, this is too much to heft. One cart wheel fell from its axle, its washer broke apart. Metal fatigue on rough terrain, makes jostling an art. The cottage contains: • a fireplace – unlit, but prepared with logs stacked on kindling • a loom – mostly wood, but powered by a steel foot pedal • a handcart – which seems to be missing a wheel Behind the loom rests a tool chest. The tool chest contains: • a new washer – a disc with a hole in the middle, like a flat donut • a pair of tongs – iron and look like pliers with long handles • a glove – thick leather with a long sleeve By the fireplace is a chunk of flint. Closer inspection of reveals that: • the flint is an egg-size sedimentary rock • the glove is like the kind used by a blacksmith • the new washer is like the axle washers, but slightly too small for the axle In Round 4 I will introduce the third story in this series.
Story Challenge: Moat Maiden

Suppose CON Round 1 provided: I carry the boot and shovel with one arm, dragging the plank with the other, then drop them back at the clearing. • Dig a trench perpendicular to one side of the moat. > Set the shovel across one corner of the moat. • Toss the boot into the moat. The shovel forms a hypotenuse to the corner of the square moat. The handle and blade dig into the moat corners securely. -------------------------------------------- Then here is PRO Round 2: The shovel is sturdy enough and secure enough to stand upon. It just isn't close enough to the other side to attempt even leap of faith. > Slide the plank across the shovel toward the cottage. • Pull wooden strips from the weathered shed. • Wear the boot found in the shed The shovel plus plank form a makeshift T shaped bridge. One end of the plank rests on the shovel; the other on the cottage-side of the moat. Balancing carefully, I cross over to the cottage, but just barely.
Medicare For All Should Replace the Affordable Health Care Act

I accept the terms and conditions of this debate. Medicare for all should not replace the ACA. I support my stance with 3 main contentions. 1) Universal health care will not work 2)Universal health care will be too hard on doctors Onto my first point which says that Universal Health Care Will not work. To support this, we look at the health care system of Canada. Canada has a universal health care system. Meaning every citizen of Canada has heath care. An article from CBS says (1) "Americans who flock to Canada for cheap flu shots often come away impressed at the free and first-class medical care available to Canadians, rich or poor. But tell that to hospital administrators constantly having to cut staff for lack of funds, or to the mother whose teenager was advised she would have to wait up to three years for surgery to repair a torn knee ligament." There are extremely long wait times for those who visit hospitals. Another reason why this won't work is that there are too many people that would suddenly become insured, and the only way to pay for that is for higher taxes. A PBS article says (2) "About 44 million people in this country have no health insurance, and another 38 million have inadequate health insurance." Just to suddenly employ them will skyrocket hospital visits, hospital wait times, and taxes. Now on to my second point which says that Universal Health Care is too hard on doctors. A Wall Street Journal article says just that (3) "Doctors must now see many more patients each day to meet expenses, all while dealing with the mountains of paperwork mandated by the health-care law. The forecast shortage of doctors has become a real problem. It started in 2014 when the ACA cut $716 billion from Medicare to accommodate 30 million newly "insured" people through an expansion of Medicaid. More important, the predicted shortage of 42,000 primary-care physicians and that of specialists (such as heart surgeons) was vastly underestimated." There aren't enough doctors to meet the needs of all patients as it is now, much less with many more people becoming insured with the proposed Universal Health Care. Another part of affecting doctors is that becoming a doctor will not be as good of a reward for the work. For this, a Wall Street Journal article states (4) " As patients shift to a lower-paying government plan, doctors' incomes will decline by as much as 15% to 20% depending on their specialty. Physician income declines will be accompanied by regulations that will make practicing medicine more costly, creating a double whammy of lower revenue and higher practice costs, especially for primary-care doctors who generally operate busy practices and work on thinner margins. For example, doctors will face expenses to deploy pricey electronic prescribing tools and computerized health records that are mandated under the Obama plan." So for these two reasons, I say that Medicare for all should not replace the ACA. Thank You. Sources- 1-http://www.cbsnews.com... 2-http://www.pbs.org... 3-http://online.wsj.com... 4-http://online.wsj.com...
Medicare For All Should Replace the Affordable Health Care Act

The ACA is flawed legislation at best. When building anything the most important component is it's foundation. If the foundation is rotting nothing will stand on top of it for long. Our health care system's foundation is not stable and anything thrown on top is just going to add to that instability. There are three main hurdles that the ACA fails to negotiate: it fails to cover everyone, it does very little to prevent bankruptcies due to inability to pay medical bills, and so far has done little in controlling costs. Why do we consider it a victory when the ACA has not lowered cost but merely slowed their rise? To be able to buy insurance from an exchange you have to show a certain level of income. If your income is below the acceptable amount then you are just out of luck, especially if you also do not qualify for Medicaid. Welcome to the uninsured. One of the most popular saying I hear on progressive talk shows is "you no longer can be dumped if you get sick." However, what they don't say is if you fail to pay your premium in full every month you can in fact (and will be) dropped and held responsible for full payment. If you have Medicare you truly don't have to be worried about being dumped because your bills will be paid. As all health insurance cartels will tell you the formula for reducing costs is really quite simple - the more people you have to spread the costs lowers what each person will have to pay. So if you have a premium with a small company you will pay more than you would with a large company. The more you have to cut the pie the smaller piece you are going to get. The insurance cartel know this very well and they are very, very greedy. While our costs continue to rise, their profits soar into the hundreds of billions of dollars which they use to manufacture reasons for not paying your claim. Medicare has been functioning for almost 50 years now and has proved its effectiveness in taking care of our older population very well. All we need to do is lower the age requirement to 0 years. All the billions of dollars that the insurance cartels are making off of our misery will be redirected to pay actual medical costs and not towards making unscrupulous people perpetually wealthy. My dream is to be able to say what our good neighbors, the Canadians, are able to say, "when you go into a doctor's office here it does not matter if you are rich or poor, or even a citizen; we will take care of you." We cannot say the same. Here it is "you are on your own". We need to take the profit out of our health care system. The well being of our citizens and our economy depends on getting our health care system right. We need Medicare for all and should not let this issue fade away.
sight is the speed of light

Sight cannot be the speed of light. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s and is written as C. Though the speed is affected from traveling through different mediums such as water, air or glass. The rate that light travels through a transparent medium is determined by the refractive index of the material, N; V=C/N. The refractive index of air is about 1.0003 meaning that the maximum speed of light traveling through air is 299,702,547 or about 90 km/s less than the speed of light. Since light traveling through air is not traveling at the speed of light, sight cannot be the speed of light!