BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
a simple argument for God's existence

the law of thermodynamics says energy is always breaking down from higher states. that means, if you take things back further and further in time, something must have caused the highest energy level after the big bang. we could call that unknown, God. a reason why we might call it that, is because the phenomenon violates natural laws as we know it, the law of thermodynamics. thermodynamics, as we know it, basically negates the idea that there is something in our physical universe that goes on and on back infinitely. there can be no infinite beginning, because there is no infinite end. we see an end point coming. that means there must be a finite beginning. this acknowledges that there could be other naturalistic explanations. nothing has to be definitively proven for it to be a proof. and, given what we know, the fact that there is something rather than nothing, combined with the issue with thermodynamics, both seem supernatural, cause they do not accord to our rules as we now them. sure there are many fancy footed lousy ways to 'define' God into existence where it isn't appropriate. but at least here, but definiing it that way at least has some substantiation to it.
White southerners are a nation.

Actually, I am in my late 20s, and I grew up in an extremely liberal environment. The American people do not fit the definition of nation, being that many different nations are in America, such as southerners, Mexicans, new englanders, Canadians, cascadians, Californians, and others. The reason I put Canadians in there was because I am talking about America not the empire that is the United States. You have two more chances for putting forth an argument.
White southerners are a nation.

I will argue that white southerners are a nation. The word "nation" for this debate will be used in it's both historical and Biblical definition: "A large group of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history". Nation can also refer to "a people, race, or tribe; those having the same descent, language, and history. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... The second definition includes the word "race", which white is one. White southerners, or southrons, have a common language: English, a common culture: Southern culture, a common ethnicity: White (or, if you want to get specific, people from Western Europe), so therefore a common decent, and a common history, such as the civil war. So White, European, English-speaking Southerners, are a nation. The League of The South, a Southern Nationalist organization, has information further explaining what the southern nation is. I invite my opponent, or anyone, to check it out. Furthermore, I am not coming from any position of bigotry or hatred towards any group of people, I am simply stating the fact that white southerners are a nation.
The character of God is consistant between the Old and New Testaments.

The first commandment (as stated in in Exodus is 20:3) is "You shall have no other gods before[a] me. You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them..." It goes on but that is the important part, Jesus is a being from "earth below" and therefore, according to the first (or secound if you're Jewish) is violated and therefore makes the God of the OT inconsistent to the NT. That's my opening argument, let's have fun and try to stay productive!
The character of God is consistant between the Old and New Testaments.

The purpose of this debate is to rebut the idea that the character of God described in the OT is far different than the God in the NT, whether it be a change in personality or person. I will be taking the position that the character of God did not change through the course of the Bible. Con must demonstrate that there are too many serious differences between the God of the Old and New Testaments for them to be of consistent character. Since pointing out all the consistencies in a 1000+ page book would be impractical in this format, and an unfair burden, especially if I am right, Con will have the first word in evidence, and I must respond. My objective is to demonstrate that the character of God as described in the Bible has been consistent throughout.
Embryonic Stem cell research is beneficial to society and should continue.

It is unfortunate that my opponent chose to forfeit the last round. But, I will state my main points again: 1) There is great potential to be had with researching embryonic stem cells, with potentially millions of people being able to benefit from treatments. Even if some treatments aren't fully understood now, further funding and time put into understanding stem cells should greatly improve treatment options and effectiveness. 2) The majority of embryos used in the research come from in vitro fertilization facilities. These embryos were not created to be used for stem cell research, but rather are excess embryos from the external fertilization process. As they are out of the womb, and would not go on to become life anyway, it would be a waste to not make use of this resource.
Embryonic Stem cell research is beneficial to society and should continue.

As the side of the con I accept the challenge, Definition: Embryonic Stem cell - This pluripotent stem cells derived early stage embryo. I respect any of your opinions To think about it embryonic stem cell treatments has its popularity growing as time goes by apparently this kind of treatment has not been fully understood for the treatment has side effects that might encounter in the future that we haven't realized. Second in embryonic stem cell treatments, we have to kill the embryo, making it like a form of abortion. In our society there are religions that do not accept this proving this to be not beneficial in the society, imagine that a small living cell would have genes like Einstein and we killed it, you wouldn't like that either would you. A number of studies have found the injection of embryonic stem cells to result in minor miscalculations resulting in the growth of strange objects such as teeth, bones and hair in areas where they were not intended, often resembling tumors. With embryonic cells, these growths continue for the remainder of the patient"s life. Making it an actual disadvantage to the society. source:chem445stemcell.webs.com/risksanddisadvantages.htm it would be an honor to hear your side.
Art Challenge (1/2)

Ok. This is one of the last two art challenges that I will be able to do...The theme will be PEOPLE(S).No digital art or editing is allowed.Any media shall be allowed.The art pieces can be any size. Each side shall present two art pieces. One piece for each round (r2 &r3)First round is acceptance.The art pieces have to be of your own creation and yours only.Good luck.
Animals can be deserving of Personhood

My opponent's forfeiting of the round, whether it be intentional or not, leaves no more time for rebuttaling as we will now both deliver our closing statements.In conclusion, I believe I have presented an innumerous amount of facts and information that support my Pro stance on Animal deserving personhood. I gave more than enough arguments defending the fact that animals do have a consciousness and, while I was unable to attend to the rationalization factor, I do believe common sense can play a part there.My opponent refused to counter my philosophical points, thereby confirming that he either A) Couldn't debate them, B) Accepted them, or C) Both, all three scenarios of which support my side.Con instead attempted to bring this argument into a hypothetical one wherein he attacked the principles of animals possessing equal opportunity to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness/Property. However, he once again failed in this aspect as I 1) proved that animals could keep their lives whilst still maintaining the economic industries that rely on them, 2) Proved that granting animals rights does not mean giving them every right, thereby creating legislative confusion, and 3) Setting aside land for animal sanctuaries in order to protect strays was a proper right under the natural right of Property. Both of us agreed to happiness so no debate there.In conclusion, I believe I beat Con in this debate and I thank my opponent for accepting the challenge and presenting his side in a dignified manner. Regardless of your personal opinion on the topic itself and whether or not I have convinced you, it should be clear that Pro (me) is the winner.Thank you
Animals can be deserving of Personhood

I accept. As the con, it will be my burden to prove that animals are not deserving of person hood. Definitions: -Any such living thing other than a human being. Counter Definitions: -Person hood: The state or fact of being an individual or having human characteristics and feelings. -Person: A human being as distinct from an animal or thing. These definitions are from the same site which you found your definitions from. I would like to point out to the voters that his definition of a person is tagged with the word "philosophy" Clarifications: In our society, every person is born with certain "unalienable rights" that have come to be defined as the Rights to "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness/Property". A person is entitled to all these rights by definition. Animals however do not qualify as a person and therefore are not have an unalienable rights.
Animals can be deserving of Personhood

This is to be a mature debate on the issue of personhood for animals. The 5 round debate will be divided as follows:1. Acceptance, definitions, and clarifications (any further clarifications will be handled in the comments section)2-4. Opening statements and rebuttals/arguments.5. Concluding statements (no more rebuttals).Definitions- Personhood: "the state or fact of being a person"- Person: "A self-conscious or rational being"ClarificationsIn our society, every person is born with certain "unalienable rights" that have come to be defined as the Rights to "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness/Property". As such, granting any animal personhood would gain said species access to these same unalienable rights.Sourceshttp://dictionary.reference.com...
Should Justin Bieber continue his career in the music industry

Since this is the last round I'll post direct responses to Con and give my conclusion. "is it right to show them how to use drugs? "Is it wrong? Con hasn't established this. Furthermore, JB didn't show his fans "how to use drugs". He was simply photographed smoking pot. As stated previously, this argument Con is putting forth, if taken seriously, is enough to justify the forced retirement of several singers before JB, as many singers have been caught doing worse things. Con has failed to dress this criticism. "is it right to show them on how to dress improperly? " This is a new argument. Con has not established that JB dresses improperly, nor that he teaches this. Furthermore, even if he dressed "improperly", Con has failed to show why this justifies JB discontinuing his music career. "people in the music industry are like leaders" Perhaps, but we are the one's who choose who gets put up on a pedestal and who does not. We needn't listen to JB if we don't want to, and so he's only a leader for you to the extent that you view him as your leader. The problem is with you the listener, not with JB making a living off his singing. "what do you think will happen to the followers of course their life will become miserable. "Ignoring the shoddy grammar here, Con has in no way established that listening to JB will make your life miserable, nor why that is enough to justify JB retiring. It's his life and his voice, so if he can make a living off of singing he should have that option and Con has given no compelling reason why this ought not be the case. ConclusionCon frequently dropped arguments and added new arguments in to his last round. His arguments are sometimes difficult to follow due to rough grammar and he failed to source any of his claims. The one argument he did retain (drug use) was not defended, just re-asserted ignoring my criticisms. In short, each and every one of my opponent's claims have been refuted, with no attempt from Con to defend his arguments. As such, his position has not been established, he has failed to fulfil his burden of proof, and has lost this debate.
Should Justin Bieber continue his career in the music industry

While majority of Justin Bieber's fans are teenagers, is it right to show them how to use drugs? is it right to show them on how to dress improperly? people in the music industry are like leaders, all that follow them are doing and thinking the same thing as their leader, if the leader is not showing proper attitude and proper lifestyle, what do you think will happen to the followers of course their life will become miserable. To become a great person, you must first fix yourself so that the people around you will also become a great symbol for other people as well. If you are consistent on making the same worthless thing over and over again, I guess in the next 2 to 4 years, their lives will be less productive and fortunate.
Should Justin Bieber continue his career in the music industry

My opponent has decided to drop his original arguments and instead bring up a new argument. 1. JB is a poor role model for doing drugs 2. JB is a poor role model because he doesn't teach respect in his songs On point 1, my opponent has provided no source, but I'm assuming he's talking about this photo of JB smoking pot [1]. Let's not blow this out of proportion. As far as drugs go, weed is arguably the least concerning one to take. It's even less dangerous than alcohol to one's health [2]. Besides, like I pointed out last round, James Brown had been arrested several times for drug use (specifically angel dust) [3]. Drug use is very common amongst pop-artists and so if we hold Con's standards universally, there are many other people who ought to be forced into retirement before JB. On point 2, JB's music may or may not tell you to respect your elders, but there's no negative messages to them either. They're usually about a girl and how much he cares about her. There's nothing wrong with such a message, at least nothing that warrants JB to frequently remind his fans not to take his music seriously like Eminem has to do. Besides, even if JB's music did require JB to give this message, why does that mean he ought to quit making music? If Con is okay with Eminem making songs with violent themes so long as he reminds his fans not to take his songs seriously, then Con must also agree that JB, a singer whose songs are less negative, should at least be allowed to do the same. To conclude, JB's drug use is far from objectionable enough to justify my opponent's case without simultaneously justifying that many other (I would go so far as to say most) singers should quite. Secondly, Con failed to establish that JB's music has any negative messages requiring him to make a public statement about, nor did Con justify why the necessity to make a public statement justifies his position anyway, especially when Con himself gives an example of an artist who he feels okay with continuing to make music so long as he does this. Vote Pro. 1. http://www.tmz.com... 2. http://www.saferchoice.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should Justin Bieber continue his career in the music industry

I will keep my argument short and yet simple. He's not being a good example for the people in the world, especially for his fans. A good icon never shows nor let his fans know that he's doing drugs. Is that what he wants his fans to follow and do. I know he has rights to do what he wants, but if you are already in the music industry, you must make sacrifices in order to make your career stable and successful. I know that whether it's good or bad publicity it is still publicity, they will still make money out of the news that are sprouting in the television; All I'm saying is that in order for your fans not to be a rebel, you must also teach them on how to respect and follow their parents. Let's take Eminem for instance, he's a good artist, actually he's my favorite artist. Even though Eminem has many songs that make some people be a rebel, he is not forgetting to remind his fans that his songs are not meant to be take seriously; he even made a song on how to be a good person. If Justin Bieber would be a good artist, dress up properly and be a good symbol for his fans. Then I can say that he should continue his career, but for now he should not continue his career.
Should Justin Bieber continue his career in the music industry

Since my opponent has opened with his arguments, I'll present mine. I'll keep it light. My opponent contends that Justin Bieber (JB) ought not continue his music career. His reasons are as follows 1. His songs are worthless 2. He picks fights with the media, which makes him worse than any other music icon To rebut point 1, his songs are certainly not worthless. His net worth is 110 million dollars [1], so obviously his songs have considerable worth. This establishes that there is a market for JB's music, and so he should continue to supply this demand both for his own well-being and for the entertainment of his fans. If my opponent doesn't like JB's music, then a more reasonable response would be to simply not listen to his music whenever possible, rather than calling for him to retire. On point 2, his "fights" with the media are barely verbal conflicts at most. As you can see in this video [2], Justin's "lashing out" is little more than male posing. Consider the behavior of other pop artists such as Chris Brown, who beat his girlfriends Rihanna [3], or James Brown, who was arrested several times for drug use and domestic violence and even got into a high-speed chase with the police [4], or the many other examples of pop-artists whose names don't end in "Brown"... Compared to this, JB is a harmless kitten. In conclusion, there's no compelling reason here for JB to retire. His music fills a market demand and his attitude, while perhaps annoying, is not an actual threat to anyone. Vote Pro 1. http://www.therichest.org... 2. http://www.youtube.com... [Video] 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...(American_entertainer) 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gun Rights

I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment, And all that it entails. I understand the want for more gun control, And perhaps banning certain weapons. This simply wouldn't solve any of the issues though. Making any object or product illegal creates a black market for the illegal product. As seen with most drugs, They are illegal and will land some in jail for a period of time. If someone wanted to kill someone, It would create a market large enough to buy a gun like how it easy to buy weed from the local weed dealer. The subject of gun control isn't shown to work in the United States. California has high murder rates, And very strict gun control, Chicago being the hardest city to obtain a firearm, Has one of the highest murder rates in the country. I simply don't believe that gun control/ban would have any affect on Americas gun problems.
Gender based income inequality

Earlier you stated that "On average Women receive more graduate and college degrees than men, in 4 out of 10 American families women are the main and sometimes only bread winner. " This argument only contradicts your point. If women on average were evenly tied with men for the main bread winner, then the pay should be equal. But men are 6/10 times the bread winner of the house based on your statistics, which leaves a 20% gap, which is approximately the same differential in these "wage gap" studies.
Gender based income inequality

So to make of the fact that about 10 percent of the wage gap can be attributed to women having different work histories than men, or in other words, being much more likely to take time off or quit altogether to care for children? Some women will always prefer reducing their schedules or staying at home with their kids. But our country is also unique in making it difficult for both parents to remain in the workforce, a burden that disproportionately falls to women, a good number of whom may not want to leave their jobs. In fact, our growth of women in the labor force has been falling behind other developed countries thanks to our lack of paid family leave and child care assistance. Plus there"s evidence that paid leave and affordable, consistent child care help boost women"s wages. The choice to be a caretaker may not always be such a free choice. It"s fair to say that not all of the gap is due to discrimination. Certainly women are clustered in low-wage work " they are about two-thirds of the country"s minimum wage workers " and often have to interrupt their careers to care for family members, all of which impacts their earnings. But even when various factors like these are taken into account, the entire gap doesn"t disappear. When the Government Accountability Office last looked at the gap, it couldn"t explain 20 percent of the disparity in pay between men and women, something that could be at least in part caused by discrimination. A more recent study by economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn found that while experience, occupation, and industry explain much of the gap, there is still more than 40 percent of it that remains unexplained, the part that could be chalked up to discrimination. We can also look to the real world to see instances where it"s clear that outright discrimination is still at play, such as the details of a recent class action lawsuit against the country"s largest jewelry store, where female employees across the country and with substantial experience say they were still paid less than less qualified men.
Gender based income inequality

The people who make up this "wage gap" use average pay for each gender overall. This does not document each job individually or take into account how much more men work more than women or vice versa. Also, I would like to bring up another point. The feminists of this country claim this 23 cent wage gap is an atrocity and it's sexist etc. Why don't we focus on the actual crimes on women in the Middle East i.e. Getting acid poured on you for dressing "indecently" and being forced to cover most of your body.
Gender based income inequality

A new fad this year is to fight for what you believe in. One which is particularly important is equality. However we do not listen to what we preach. We say that we all have equal rights, equal opportunities, but now women are being discriminated because of their gender. Our constitution is contradicting itself. Yeah, all of us are equal...Except women. On average Women receive more graduate and college degrees than men, in 4 out of 10 American families women are the main and sometimes only bread winner. Women earn 71 percent of men's wages- that is after you control the age, race, hours, and education. So what does that say!? It's pretty clear actually, after women work, study, and achieve what men can do, they still get payed less. Because women go on maternity leave, doesn't mean that they are not valuable assets to their workplace. Men want to have families too, and women should not get blamed for wanting to start a family. That is just an excuse for those who do not wish to value the working women of today. Women should get paid same as men, end of story.
Gender based income inequality

Men pick higher paying jobs on average. Women tend to occupy the lesser paying jobs. The people who want a even wage gap are technically saying they want psychologists (predominantly women and low paying) to make the same as, say, a dockworker (mostly male and high paying). Being a psychologist is much safer, obviously, and dockworkers deserve their pay for the most part. Yes, women do make 77 cents per a man's dollar, but picking higher paying jobs is what women should do if they are so infuriated about this 23 cent gap. (http://www.npr.org...) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)