BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Cosmological Argument is Sound

Ave.Q1 Answer: The nothing that ex nihilo nihil fit talks about is an absolute nothing. It contains no metaphysical principles. It contains no concepts. Thus, time doesn't even exist when nothing doesn't exist. How does it make sense to talk about 'before' and 'after' when nothing exists? (That's not a question.)Q2 Answer: God can lift however much it is logically possible for him to lift.Q1: You argued that I contradicted myself by saying that an actual infinite cannot exist, but also saying that god exists eternally. However, I also said that god is timeless. The existence of god doesn't require time to exist forever as well. God would exist sans time. What do you make of this?Q2: As long as metaphysical principles are established using logic and reason, why not accept them to be true? Logic is objective, so any true metaphysical principle derived using logic would have to represent reality.Q3: What do you think about probabalistic casuality and quantum fluctuations?Q4: Empiricism isn't metaphysical, but it's a philosophical claim. You seem interested in getting rid of philosophy, yet you think that science is better than philosphy because it's empirical. You can never demonstrate that empiricism is true using science, so you have to resort to philosophy. Thoughts?Vale.
High heels should be renamed 'ramp simulators'.

Yes, that's right, I came up with that all by myself.Women have always been known to give ridiculously uncreative names when naming shoes. Take 'flip flops' as an example, they're named after the sound they make. I bet it was a woman who named 'sidewalks' too."Buwa?" I hear you all cry "High heels do have a simple name, when you wear them, yo heels be high!" But the thing is, the name 'high heels' sounds much less cooler than 'ramp simulators'. It also makes women feel a little less thick in the noggin.Another reason my name is better is because women are also known to give shoes cool names, such as 'stilettos'. Whilst not as cool as 'ramp simulators', it certainly is cooler than 'them shoes what have them spikes what make your heels go all high'.I thank you.
heath care reform bill

I believe that there should not be a heath care bill because it will cost more out of taxes and furthering America's debt to society. I know that I don't want to be paying higher taxes just so the non working population can have health care. According to http://edlabor.house.gov... everyone will pay the same amount of money from the same company. now to me that doesn't sound like I have a choice and in America aren't we the the home of the brave the land of the free. Well paying for health care I don't want and I did not choice definitely does not sound like the land of the free.
heath care reform bill

my opponent says that congress made a mistake by passing the health care bill, and I say they made the correct decision. All my opponent has done is just restate our views. In order to prove my point over my opponent's, I will restate the reasons why the health care reform is good. 1. It will give insurance to over 35 million people at a lower rate. 2. it will release the debt on our country. ( see previous argument) 3. all in all it will fix the system that has been broken for so long. My opponent says that the government has not been paying for our health care and if they did why would they need to pass the health care reform, my opponent has obviously never heard of Medicaid or Medicare. They have been and since they have, the government has been in debt. The health care reform was designed to lessen the amount of money that the government has to pay for OUR health care. It was also approved by congress because it will let over 35 million people have health care.
heath care reform bill

If congress agrees and approves something does that make it the correct choice and does that allow you to not be responsible by not analyzing their decision? I say no. 1 are government officials computers don't humans make mistakes. If I was a governor and I say everyone gets free houses does that mean its ok to waste money. NO. 2. my opponent fails to see that the government has not been paying for health care because if they did why would they need to pass this 1990 page bill. Did you think that any of the senators actually read it. 3. Majority rules right well there are more democratic government officials and since our democratic president likes the bill naturally the senate wants to listen to their leader and does what he does. Then again some are trying to play kiss up and probably get a raise. 4. There are crooked people in politics and are only interested in the money and power. not everyone in the government needs money or power but how do we know that bill doesn't say that government officials all get 200'000 dollar raise. In conclusion the senate is human and can make mistakes no matter what passes through senate and our president thinks this still is a free country and it should be the peoples vote not the government because its affecting the us.
heath care reform bill

my opponent fails to see the big picture, this health care bill is needed and congress agrees, THEY APROVED IT! When someone without insurance receives health care, that money has to be provided by the government. If you didn't already know, our country is in debt. When everyone has insurance it releases the strain on the government and indeed does good. my opponent also states that they don't want to be paying higher taxes so that the non-working population can have health care. Well put yourself in our government's shoes, they have been paying for our health care for decades and in order to provide more financial aid, they need more money, more money comes from (not china) us. Financial aid is a good thing, you cannot deny.
Should NERF guns be banned

Most relatively modern Nerf guns use two mechanics to function: either flywheels or spring-based propulsion systems. Both do not propel foam projectiles far, or strongly enough to hurt/damage the object at which it is fired, unless it is flimsy (See link 1). Most will not find Nerf guns real, as most Nerf guns look far differently than real firearms, and are colored in vibrant paint (see link 2). Sources: http://bit.ly... http://bit.ly...
conglomeration over creativity

Is there a place in this world for for creativity. with the rise of industry, blooming in the 20th century, the idea of a populous working towards a single goal took root in the city's as new companies begun to mass employ people with the single aim of production. Men would stand at the production line all day performing their one task so that they can save enough money to support their lives. This would grow the company, the company would employ more people, the people would try to earn and the vicious homogenous circle would begin again, feeding itself. I put forward the idea that this cycle has grown so large, so massive that it has spread beyond the mere employees; marketing and and cooperate mergers have left us with no option but to be part of the system. we all work for what materialism holds over our heads; the latest phone, a new car. has consumerism grown so large that there is no logistical place left in this world for the creative man, replaced by marketing teams who are content to manipulate the word to turn a coin. I sadly believe it has, being a young man looking out at the world. My options are logistically are to falter under the weight of society's pressure as an independent fee thinker (be it the solitary nature of independent thought vs the conglomerates) or to work with the system until I work my up the 'corporate ladder' to a position where I could free myself from the system. however when I get to the top of this ladder like many of the great men of history, will I will have had my teeth to the grindstone so long that I will mistake it for the air I once craved. I fear this is the case. I will have become merely the manager of a system that condemns creativity as I will still have to follow the system still further to keep my place of materialistic power secure power secure.
conglomeration over creativity

Aw, Jeezus, dude. Really, you choose literally the last effing hour to make your point? I am just coming home from my bachelor party, you couldn't have picked some time.. maybe 24 hours ago to unleash all this?The lure of materialism is habitually resultant. Source or example or explanation? D'aw, gee. None present."Of course it is easy to say that to be successful you must be talented in combing artistic expression and turning a profit. I wish to find fault in this argument as evidence for creativity in the modern world as surely for every successful artist or professional musician there are a hundred people sat at their bureaucratic desks looking at the outside world wanting to be more, to create." ---- whom were inferior to another. This is not a hard concept. To reference a movie from pop culture, you are NOT a special snowflake. I fail to see a fault of 'the system', if those that are in said system would prefer to hope there best simply don't stack up to other efforts which make the subjective material inherently inferior.'Con argues....' pretty much everything after that is both speculation and reinvention of my premise, both of which are self evident. Infromation is not a precious commidity anymore. Nearly, literally, all the inspiration, failed works, successfuly works, mediocre works are at your finger tips. Pro would like to highlight that people need money to survive, and the terms of their aquisition should be on their terms. That, in short, is horse manure. The death of creativity comes from the overwhelming deluge of 'that which is not creative'. Seriously, look at the movies. How many 'remakes' have we been subejected too? Look at advertising campagins. How many rebrandings have we seen?Pro wants to be a special snowflake for the purpose of being a special snow flake.Look, I want creative folks, but whats NEW is the easiest market decider of what is old, vs what is new. Pro desperatley needs this debate to hinge on an emotional argument. Stifling creativity is the Pro verbiage for 'No one cares'. How is that conglomerations fault? Similar cop outs are 'after his/her time' or 'misunderstood'. Its not conglomeration, or some bizarre conspiracy that wants more, new, different. Its we, as a market place. We have desires, we have interests, and literally, we have voteed with our dollars what variety of threshold to the past we would like to connect too.A novel idea doesn't require an ad campaign.Pro is mounting a GREAT ad campaign for the standardization and acceptatnce of mediocrity. No thank you. Its been done.
conglomeration over creativity

Far from addressing these issues separately as Con suggests I seek to demonstrate that the lure of materialism is habitually resultant, in many cases, of the death of creativity and so the two are linked. Of course it is easy to say that to be successful you must be talented in combing artistic expression and turning a profit. I wish to find fault in this argument as evidence for creativity in the modern world as surely for every successful artist or professional musician there are a hundred people sat at their bureaucratic desks looking at the outside world wanting to be more, to create. I belive that maybe at heart some of them they are every bit as artistic and creative as those successful musicians and artists I mentioned earlier but with the exception that they lack the ability to work with the system to turn a profit, to market, to sell their creativity. Con seems to be arguing that creativity is only possible with the ability to turn a profit and I would argue that this means the death of creativity in so many for lack of business know how that being creative is turned into an almost elitist thing for those both creative and business minded. Surely this thining out of the creative for lack of an ability to work with the system to gain a profit is the definition of the death of creativity for many. Con argues that it is easy to abstain from the perks that conforming to conglomeration gives. I would argue that with the rise of social technology (like the smartphone) more than ever the lack of conformity (and so lack of desire for material possession) leaves the practitioner at a disadvantage as the person who is slower to find information , more inconvenienced to communicate quickly on the fly with someone you cannot see in the flesh. Thus the man that does not conform to a system in favour of keeping his creativity is at a disadvantage , making creativity a less viable option. I also would imagine con is not alone, largely because owning a "2001" is really not that remarkable in terms of being independent from the system and I"m sure many other reasonable people have done the same. Thus I would ask why that example is so relevant to showing how con flourishes outside the system and feels so free with this in relevance to this non remarkable gesture towards independence. As I have addressed above, these concepts "Creativity, risk, drive" can be in spades in a candidate however can these really get anywhere without the structure of a corporate ladder to direct the creativity, thus moulding it so much that it is no longer true creativity. I would like to remind con that in his last paragraph he is highlighting the reason than many turn away from creativity in favour of the monetary gain; to achieve these things he lists. In fact, he has done rather good job of highlighting the necessity of monetary gain to the ordinary person thus suggesting the necessity of conformity to the system. My above paragraphis highlight the enevitable result of this conformity".. the majority death of creativity.
conglomeration over creativity

It seems Pro would like to hold two separate arguments in which to demonstrate a point, the first seems attached to materialism, the second being the death of creativity. Con can address these in tandem. Creativity and artistic endeavours are two separate things. Artistic expression for profit can be done, and its not a omni-present boogey man of corporate dream smashing that prevents it from happening. Creativity in the form of Art needs to be good, polished and refined out of the gate if the artist wants to survive solely off that talent. Writers, comedians, painters, sculptors, craftsmen of all stripes, those whom we know by name got to their place in history by being masters of their craft. They employed industrial creativity AND artistic expression in which to make their mark. The fault doesn't lay with anyone other than the one trying to bring that talent to market. I have no desire to own a collection of limericks because a poet decided working AND writing just wasn't in the cards for them. As blunt as it is to say, if the 'creative individual' is bringing something to the market that no one wants, how can you fault conglomeration for it? "We" all work for materialism. Well, since you have identified the problem: stop? I personally don't own a mobile phone. My car is a 2001. Usually, what I buy when the mood strikes is for entertainment, but the remainder is when the need necessitates. While my instance is not remarkable, I am confident I am not alone, and such a decision is not a hard one. I have found that I am more easily able to patronize local artists specifically by NOT buying something for the purpose of having it. That type of buying decision is for lack of a better, a cop out. Your dollars are yours. Blaming a marketing campaign for yours and your monies' separation is the type of creativity that should have been put to work for you rather than inventing a reason for having spent your money. While it is clich" to argue being your own boss, and doing what you want so the money will follow, its just as clich"d to pigeon hole those poor creative spirits stuck in the web of corporate constraints. Creativity, risk, drive... these are all concepts that must be employed if you want to work outside the safety of the corporate ladder. If they are not present, then maybe a 'drone' in the corporate world is the better alternative: the best place for a person lacking those qualities has already been found. Lastly, to directly point something out to Pro's question of living without want, Con noticed how 'Monetary gain' got tacked on at the end with '(to pay our rents)'. Con would like to consider that part reaching, we all need to find an income to keep a roof over our head. Monetary gain is the means by which you keep yourself fed, sheltered, and clothed. Con hardly considers that 'materialism', as the absence of which would be societal donation.
conglomeration over creativity

I open with the example of William Wordsworth. One of the Original English romantic poets, a rebel of his day, well known for his alternative political agenda, Wordsworth was worn down by the system which he could no Longer fight against. He took a ephemeral job in his local post office for the want of some coin. I think this is a prime example to my point; that even the most creative and artistic among us cannot survive as individually creative for want of material gain that only the monetary system can provide. Thus I pose my question; do any of us in modern society really live without the want of , a bigger TV, the latest phone, or monetary gain (to pay our rents.) ? I believe that for the vast majority the answer is no.
Abortion is Generally Immoral

Definitions:Abortion- the removal of an embryoor fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy [1]. Moral- of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical [2]. . http://dictionary.reference.com...BoPIn this debate, the BoP is shared, however my opponent bears the majority of it. "I will be arguing that abortions in all other cases are immoral. "My opponent must prove that abortion is immoral except in the case that the life of the mother is endanger and the fetus is not viable. All I must do is to show that abortion can be moral in more cases than this. If I can do this, I will have fulfilled my BoP. Some additional things I would like to add:1. No semantics 2.
Abortion is Generally Immoral

I would like to debate the proposition that abortion is generally immoral.To start with, I do believe that life-saving abortion are morally justified as long as the unborn child is not yet viable. This is because in rare cases (such as ectopic pregnancies), the child's and mother's life are both in danger. If you do nothing, both will die. It is better to lose one life than two.I will be arguing that abortions in all other cases are immoral.First round for acceptance/clarification.Second round for opening arguments/rebuttals.Third round for rebuttals.Fourth round for rebuttals/closing statements.
Robots could never be like us.

Hello, for the final/last round. Ah, where should I begin. Lets start at how "magical" love actually is. As a matter of facts its more like an addiction. But we"ve to talk about real love (so no fake relationships).Evolutionary love like we know doesn"t really exist often. There are rare species that do truly feel the love, and there are jet less species that keep the relationship monogamical. For instance Vasopressin is a hormone that is very important in our social relationship including the "sexual parts" as well, it may also be responsible for longer relations and monogamy. Also during love, special brain parts are full of Serotonin (C10H12N2O). That hormone (Serotonin) is very important, it causes extra happiness and "well being". Evolutionary species don"t need to feel love, its only sexual. Like snails for instance. When they"re ready to mate, they release special molecules that attract the other mate, at other animals the opposite gender (but gastropods are hermaphrodites). However love here is a sort of a mechanism given by evolution. Because parents care about their kids. Many things work also genetically and per instincts. That"s how our species survives, because its much safer for our juveniles to survive. Basically love works as an addiction the same way, because you get "rewarded" in your brain with special chemicals. But if love is magical, then could it exist without the nervous system, reproduction chemicals, dopamine? The answer is Nyet. Because it acts like addiction, it seems magical and special. Only that we all experience it. Also what do you expect from a drug addict, he"ll also say what a wonderful world there is with a drug. But when there is no drug, he"ll experience pain as his body (especially brain) will need that drug and his brain wont "reward" him. We Homo Sapiens experience extra pain with love as we logically think about it. As emotions are only an illusion we feel, and as we can explain how everything works. It wouldn't be hard to emulate everything into a format a computer could understand. Yes the bigger problem is self-awareness and Self-consciousness. But it might not be such a problem after all. There is a theory that mirror-neurons might be responsible for self-awareness. As there are no programmed signs in our nervous sys. The Mirror test is perfect for testing this. The nervous system isn't enough, as less developed animals cant self-aware, its not even known if your baby is self-aware and when it gets. This is still unanswered in bioneurology. It"s a mystery. But the answer isn't God, Magic, Holy-Molly" We still have got to find it. Next, emulating properties shouldn't be impossible. Combining technology and bioneurology with neuropsychology could make it possible to make a real man in a robot form. But it would be very complicated and expensive. But our nervous system is both as well, so it isn't a surprise. Here to show you how biochemistry works in our brain: https://upload.wikimedia.org... I'm just a kid so I don't know everything about Neurology, but not nothing. Good luck to both of us.