BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mars colony

I think Mars colony will use lots of resources and money,with which we can do some more realistic projects such as education,society construction and economic development.Besides,living on the Mars is not secure and convenient.The environment isn't suitable for human's live.Although the high technology can give the possibility of living on Mars,human don't just want to survive on the Mars and they want to have a better life than on the Erath.If human live worse on the Mars,why we should make so many efforts to build Mars colony.
Mars colony

Thanks for the challenge. I think that we should have a Mars Colony or at least attempt to because of two big reasons. The first one is population. The Earth's population is rapidly increasing especially in underdeveloped nations. Even in countries in Europe that are well developed with a low birth rate it is still very crowded, and eventually humans will run out of space on this planet if the current growth trend continues. The second reason is the environment. We are currently declining our environment, and this also correlates with population too. We will need to burn and find more resources for more humans, and if we burn more and more fossil fuels we will melt all of our ice, and we would end up with even less space for a already huge and growing population. We will eventually run out of our non-renewable resources as well.
ATHEISM over THEISM

I believe that debates about Atheism versus Religion are around the world and still the real antagonism is not positioned yet. I understand perspectives from atheists and other religious people and I truly respect that. The following is just my point of view. To me, by the true evidence by nature, I myself believe God does not exist. Science is how we get answers by nature with empirical evidence. Just because that scientists today still cannot proof how, why or what we came from, doesn't mean that Religions can create a nonsense belief out of nothing without any solid proofs. Why must "what goes up, must come down"? That's because of gravity and not because of gods not allowing humans to fly. Would you deny science for disobeying the laws of nature and substitute God with it? No! Because of the evidence by nature, we are able to come up with experiments and get explanations from it. With the help of science, our lives changed and leaped with an abundance since the Newton's first law was born. How about God though? Is there real evidence that shows God's existence? If there is, I, and the people that agrees with me will certainly agree with ANY religions. Thanks for reading my perspective.
ATHEISM over THEISM

Conduct: My opponent forfeited two out of five rounds; therefore, my conduct has been better, for following the rules of this debate. Used better sources: My opponent did not use any sources; my sources were books by physicists such as Leonard Mlodinow, Simon Singh, Joseph Silk, George Ellis, Stephen Hawking, Robert M. Wald, Fulvio Melia, Kip S. Thorne, Robert Penrose and Kitty Ferguson, in addition to the Oxford Dictionary of English and the Discovery Channel. Had better arguments: My opponent's presentation argument did not have any reasons for not believing in God, and merely showed his perspective. His second argument CLAIMED that theists see science as "nonsense", and said they presumed God was a substitution for science. I know many theists who believe God is an enforcer of science, and he had no sources to support the argument. The next argument was questioning the reason for God being seen as an explanation. I provided ample evidence for God existing, and for lack of a proper definition of God, I provided the definition of a creative force, as seen in pantheism and, sometimes, deism. All other rounds were forfeited. Spelling and Grammar: "Indeed, Atheists see God as a nonsense, and the same for how Theists see science as." This sentence is grammatically incorrect; "a nonsense" is not a way to describe nonsense. "The same for how" is incorrect; "the same way" would have been more appropriate. (this sentence was processed by Grammarly, and I use it as my source) Therefore, this guarantees my seven-point victory. Please vote for me. Thanks to JordanCJKM for setting up this amazing debate, and I sheerly respect him for his arguments. No offences intended. Source: http://www.grammarly.com...
ATHEISM over THEISM

"To me, by the true evidence by nature, I myself believe God does not exist. Science is how we get answers by nature with empirical evidence. Just because that scientists today still cannot proof how, why or what we came from, doesn't mean that Religions can create a nonsense belief out of nothing without any solid proofs. Why must "what goes up, must come down"? That's because of gravity and not because of gods not allowing humans to fly." What is different between God and science? As explained in the previous arguments, God is an aspect of nature; not necessarily omnipotent or omniscient, just immensely powerful (with infinite density and zero volume). Isaac Newton, a firm believer in the scientific aspects of God, compared God to gravity. These singularities, described in previous arguments, have large amounts of gravity, absorbing all forms of matter, antimatter and energy and warping entropy such that time itself slows down to almost a standstill; it then radiates the same absorbed energy in a fraction of a second, unseen because time is warped. Is warping time not immensely powerful? According to a widely accepted theory, black holes and singularities can even completely obliterate information. This is God. And, in rebuttal to the above paragraph, and in conclusion: "Science and religion are not at odds. Science is just too young to understand." Sources: General Relativity by Robert M. Wald; Space, Time and Gravity: the Theory of the Big Bang and Black Holes by Robert M. Wald; The Galactic Supermassive Black Hole by Fulvio Melia; The Large-Scale Structure of Spacetime by Stephen Hawking and George Ellis; Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip S. Thorne; The Nature of Space and Time by Robert Penrose and Stephen Hawking; Black Holes in Spacetime by Kitty Ferguson; http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://www.nytimes.com...; Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking, television show on the Discovery Channel (see http://www.discovery.com...)
ATHEISM over THEISM

The definition that all people should know about what God is, is that God is a person that created the world from the very second of the universe. Which is untrue, with the lack of evidence to prove God exists. Science can prove lots of things and therefore show us how we can live a better life. But God on the other hand, does not prove anything at all. God is just a belief that different religions depend on. Science is the explanation of the world and will always be. Science can guarantee us of how we should live and what we should not do. Why should God be an explanation of the world anyways? God is created by different religions around the globe. Each religion has it's own God and the story behind God. It just stories told be different religions out of scratch and people believe in them, and therefore trust God as the explanation of our lives and the source of the universe and human beings?
ATHEISM over THEISM

First of all, thanks for reminding me for stating definitions to my arguments. It was my first time starting a serious debate. Indeed, Atheists see God as a nonsense, and the same for how Theists see science as. But to me, science is possible the explanation of how and what we came from. Science is a concept of understanding the place we live in, based on the LAWS AND THE EVIDENCE GIVEN BY NATURE AROUND US. But theists do see that God is the perfect substitution for science because they think that science is nonsense as science has no clear potential to explain the world.
Resolved: In a society that values freedom, the police should be abolished

Topic: "Resolved: In a society that values freedom, the police should be abolished"Notes/Definitions:-The society that we will be discussing is not based on any society in the past, present, or future-Police shall be defined as: ""A group of individuals that enforce domestic laws made by the government"-Abolished shall be defined as: "Gotten rid of" -Freedom shall not be defined in the opening round, as that will be an integral part of the debateLayout:R1: AcceptanceR2: Main Arguments (No Rebuttals)R3: Main Arguments/ RebuttalsR4: Rebuttals/ConclusionGood luck!
The Argument from Motion proves that God exists.

As much as my reconstruction of your argument may not be accurate, your original argument can not be valid in it's current format either, which is why I have been trying to alter it. I would give the benefit of the doubt to you that there is some form of logic behind it, but in it's current manifestation, it's riddled with issues. Let's examine some of these first. "P2. If something is moved to being F, then it is potentially but not actually F." This is patently false as it is written now, and unnecessarily vague in it's use of language on top of this. I will draw from an example explaining this first mover argument from another source, to begin with here: "And the only way for something that is potentially hot to become hot is for it to be affected by something that is actually hot." (1) Please note that I am using this quote only as a possible example we could use in place of the placeholder that F is currently holding. So, F has to potentially describe something that could exist in the real world, or else it is a meaningless variable. I am going to assume that temperature is a worthwhile stand in for one of the many things that F could represent. We will use the arbitrary temperature 600 degrees C. Your premise would then become: "P2. If something is moved to being 600 degrees C, then it is potentially but not actually 600 degrees C." I believe that using this concrete example is the best way to demonstrate why the language used for these arguments do not illustrate any sort of logical thinking, even if they may hint at a logical intention. If something is moved to being anything at all; it is, by definition, the thing that it has been moved to being. If you do not intend to express that meaning with your argument, then you need to change the wording of your argument, because it is currently false. Continuing in this vein; "P3. If something moves a thing to be F, then it (the mover) is in a state of actuality relevant to F." "In a state of actuality relevant to F" is a non-statement. In what way would this mover be in a state that is relevant to F? Relevant how? Does the state of the mover have some deeper significance to the thing in F? You may laugh this off as a brutish argument against your string of logic, but those words are not being used by any definitions that we, as a larger community, commonly hold. You are abusing the language used in your arguments by selecting definitions for words that are contrary to what you would find in any dictionary, and using deliberately vague phrases, and I can only infer from this that the definitions put forward are meant to obscure any means for logical interpretations, and to grant yourself flexible language to work with in your premises. In short, I reject the validity of your premises on the basis that they are not only needlessly incoherent, but currently patently false if we interpret them literally as they are presented. 1. https://www.princeton.edu...
The Argument from Motion proves that God exists.

The reconstruction of my argument is not valid as its use of technical terminology is misplaced. For example, you say, in your reconstruction of P2 that: P2: If something is in the process of changing to state F, it is potentially state F, but not actually state F. However, something that is in the process of change is said to be in act and not potency or potentiality. P3 is also vague. I would prefer you use my original premises rather than your reconstruction as I think that is where the main problem lies. I will provide the relevant section in this round. P1. Some things are moved. P2. If something is moved to being F, then it is potentially but not actually F. P3. If something moves a thing to be F, then it (the mover) is in a state of actuality relevant to F. C1. If something were to move itself to be F (e.g., be both moved and its own mover), then it would be both potentially but not actually F and also in a state of actuality relevant to F (conjunction, modus ponens, P1-3). You then say: Your second and third premise indicate certain pathways along a process; if something is in the process of -being- "state F" it is, by definition, not already in that state, yet if it is changed -to be- in state F, then it is in state F. In these two points, you are making a clear distinction between the terms "being", and "be", and this distinction is important, and the only reason we are willing to accept those premises. In other words, they are not interchangeable phrases. In your first conclusion, you ignore this distinction, and claim that these two premises support the conclusion, when the reality is that only one premise supports half of the conclusion. This is patently false. C1 is sound because it is stating that a mover cannot be in both act and potency in respect to itself, or, in other words, it cannot be its own cause of motion as x as the cause would have to precede itself. By modus ponens (if p then q, p, therefore q), if something moves itself then x moves and is in a state of potency and act(p then q), x is moved (p), therefore x is in a state of movement where it is in potency and act at the same time. This is clearly impossible and is directly denied by P4 and C2.
The Argument from Motion proves that God exists.

To begin, we start with an a posteriori argument, or an argument from experience. Arguments from experiences of the world to the existence of God are called cosmological arguments. This particular argument is the argument from motion. Argument from Motion: P1. Some things are moved. P2. If something is moved to being F, then it is potentially but not actually F. P3. If something moves a thing to be F, then it (the mover) is in a state of actuality relevant to F. C1. If something were to move itself to be F (e.g., be both moved and its own mover), then it would be both potentially but not actually F and also in a state of actuality relevant to F (conjunction, modus ponens, P1-3). P4. But it is not possible for something to be both potentially but not actually F and also in a state of actuality relevant to F. C2. It is not possible for something to move itself to be F (modus tollens, C1, P4). P5. If it is not possible for something to move itself to be F, then if something is moved, it is moved by something else. C3. If somemthing is moved, it is moved by something else (modus ponens, C2, P5). P6. If B moves A and B is moved, then B must be moved by some other thing, C. And if C is moved, then C must be moved by still some other thing, D. And so on. P7. If the series of movers was to go on to infinity, then there would be no first mover. P8. If there were no first mover, then there would be no motion. C4. There is a first mover (modus tollens, P1, P7). C5. That first mover is the thing that everyone takes to be God (definition). The argument is plainly valid and seemingly sound. I will leave it to con to find any objections to this argument; however, I will respond to one preemptive problem that may seemingly arise. The issue comes from a seeming contradiction between Newton's law of inertial motion, or Newton's first law of motion, and the Aristotelian definition of motion on which the argument above rests. The problem may be resolved in two ways. Firstly, to assert that there is a contradiction is to equivocate between two different definitions of the word motion. Newton's account of motion is only concerned with local motion (motion or change in terms of place or location), while the Aristotelian is concerned with change of every sort (quality, quantity, substance, accident, etc.). Secondly, there is no formal contradiction. As the Thomist philosopher Edward Feser says: "Suppose that "motion" is being used in the two principles in the same sense. Even given this assumption, there is no formal contradiction between them. Newton"s law tells us that a body will in fact continue its uniform rectilinear motion if it is moving at all, as long as external forces do not prevent this. It does not tell us why it will do so. In particular, it does not tell us one way or the other whether there is a "mover" of some sort which ensures that an object obeys the First Law, and which is in that sense responsible for its motion." It seems that we have established a valid and sound argument for the existence of what we can, for all intents and purposes, call God.
The Argument from Motion proves that God exists.

"your original argument can not be valid in it's current format either, which is why I have been trying to alter it." Here you are conflating validity and soundness. validity refers to the syllogistic structure of an argument while soundness refers to the truth value of the premises. You are attacking, in your rebuttal, the soundness of my premises, not the structure of the argument. "Please note that I am using this quote only as a possible example we could use in place of the placeholder that F is currently holding. So, F has to potentially describe something that could exist in the real world, or else it is a meaningless variable. I am going to assume that temperature is a worthwhile stand in for one of the many things that F could represent. We will use the arbitrary temperature 600 degrees C. Your premise would then become: "P2. If something is moved to being 600 degrees C, then it is potentially but not actually 600 degrees C." I believe that using this concrete example is the best way to demonstrate why the language used for these arguments do not illustrate any sort of logical thinking, even if they may hint at a logical intention. If something is moved to being anything at all; it is, by definition, the thing that it has been moved to being. If you do not intend to express that meaning with your argument, then you need to change the wording of your argument, because it is currently false." This is a misunderstanding of the distinction between act and potency (or potentiality) as it is used in the argument. If something is moved to being F, then it existed in a state of potency related to F. It's becoming F means that it is in act, or is actually F. What you express as P2 in your paragraph is a tautology, as anything moved to being F is of course F; however, P2 is not like that. P2 expresses the proposition that anything that is being moved or changed contains within it the potentiality for change or motion. This is not a tautology. It is a synthetic a priori analysis of what it means to be in motion. " In what way would this mover be in a state that is relevant to F? Relevant how? Does the state of the mover have some deeper significance to the thing in F?" Relevant here simply means relatedness of the sort that pertains to the matter at hand. So when I say: P3. If something moves a thing to be F, then it (the mover) is in a state of actuality relevant to F. What I mean to say is that if something moves a thing to be F, the the mover is in a state of actuality in a sense that is related to a thing's becoming F.
Early abortion should be legal

Definitions/Explanations Early abortion should be legal = By this I mean abortion should be legal for a woman to choose in the embryonic period of pregnancy. Abortion - is the end (termination) of a pregnancy. A low-risk surgical procedure called suction aspiration or suction curette is generally used for first trimester abortions. Medical (non-surgical) abortions using medications such as mifepristone (RU486) are available in some clinics. The embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age). If you have any problems with the debate, use the comments section so we can agree to terms before we start the debate.
people with low intelligence can't...

You're working with an incomplete understanding of how works in this respect. I suspect you may have watched videos or seen text book images where the reflection of light is depicted in straight lines and took that to mean that the light is being reflected like a lazor in straight lines... Earlier you where talking about a leaf emitting it's own light ( ergo emitting it's own photonic energy) but now you are on something totally different and a bit unhinged. The reason you see ripples in the pond but not in vissible light is because you are watchign surface disruption on the water, you wouldn't see the ripples in the water if you where submerged ( except by looking at the surface from below)... besides that the ripples in the pond are moving far,far,far,far,far,far,far,far,FAR,Slower than light. The time it takes for light to hit your rettana is quicker than the neurons in your brain can fire, also the low end of the frequency is not a dead stop.. Now that I think about it aI am not sure you quite grasp how the frequency of waves work.
people with low intelligence can't...

No guy, They call it green because that's what we've collectively agreed on. This is basic social science, we we have collective shared experiences and we communicate them with a common language. Green does not mean it would emit it's own photon energy, Green means simply that it reflects that wave length... This isn't a conspiracy to placate ignorant masses, it is the basic facts of living in world where we experience shared phenomena; in this case, the color green. It is the job of the sciences to define the world we live in so that the experiences maybe bettered and batter shared, it is sociology not physiology that defines green and it is not a lack of intelligence at any level. it's the same for virtually everything and every object you deal with... You wouldn't say that: ' A car isn't really a car.. it's in fact 4 wheels with a motor in a metal box ( wake up sheeple!) ' Instead, we call it a car, well call green,green and brown,brown. We define the world to communicate our shared experiences because they are not all wrapped up in our heads, anymore than is the alphabet. The object car and the attribute green are real, definable things for us to do this with.
people with low intelligence can't...

You are mistaken. Light has no color. It only has wavelength and intensity and I can prove this. When sunlight strikes a leaf it reflects light of the wavelength 495-570 nm, correct. If this light was green, we would see green light radiating from the leaf in all directions. "Red" objects would have red light radiating from them in all directions. This is not the case. Therefore something else causes us to see the leaf as being green. What actually happens is that our brain interprets that particular wavelength of light as green. The particular wavelength triggers an electrical impulse when it strikes a particular cone on your retina. This electrical impulse travels along your optic nerve to the brains imaging centre which interprets the signal and converts it into an image. This is where color is created. The green that you see exists only in your mind. Scientists call light of the wavelength 495-570 nm green because they know not everyone is intelligent enough to grasp the physiology of sight and they have better things to do than try to explain it to someone who can't understand.