BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no stigma surrounding mental health issues in Australia.

Without many people realising, The Australian media is constantly stigmatising those suffering mental health issues. Whether it be their portrayal in news stories or fabricated characters in movies/TV shows. Ways in which the media stigmatises people is through inaccurate stereotypes, Sensationalising situations by referencing mental health, Using hostile language and creating distinct patterns such as linking mental health to violence. According to the Australian Government"s Department of Health, The Australian media are seen to be less inclined to present positive images of mental illness, Presumably because the material is less "saleable". A common reason for stigma towards the mentally ill is because of their believed tendency to be violent. Media outlets use dramatic headlines and the mental illness as the interest point although they most likely won"t mention the reason why they were aggressive for eg. They may not have received effective treatment with repeat coverage giving the public the impression that these events are common. Sane Australia issued a survey to the general public concerning the stigma surrounding mental health and the media. 40% of people reported the media as a source of their belief linking serious mental illness with violence and 1 in 6 people with a mental illness say newspaper portrayals of mental illness generally discourage them from seeking help. The NSW Health Commission found that the desire for social distance was highest for chronic schizophrenia and lowest for social phobia and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This could be linked to the media"s role in associating PTSD with war veterans schizophrenia with murderers.
Militarily, the United States is currently stronger than China

I agree to debate/troll this argument under full knowledge that my opponet has made this considerbaly one-sided =P But I'm a china loving, commie whore, so I'll accept it, good luck to other size. May I add to the argued subjects? Spread of forces. This is argubaly extremely important. An army that is spread out through many areas is considerbally weakened. Even large forces, would often not fight 2 smaller forces at the same time. One fighting a smaller force, is in a disadvantage, if a large neighboring force provides a threat. I will not just talk about militray, but strategy wise as well.
Militarily, the United States is currently stronger than China

I have prove that my opponet has not only violated the rules of a proper debate, but that he has violated the user agreement. Violating a given set of rules not agreed , does not violate the given User Agreement.Therefore I win by default. Also in answer to your question on why I accepted, I am (I quote) "I agree to debate/troll this argument under full knowledge that my opponet has made this considerbaly one-sided =PBut I'm a china loving, commie whore, so I'll accept it, good luck to other size."Last I checked trolling is not forbidden by User Agreement.Lastly I have proved that in rifles, the QBZ is essentially easier produced, thus giving a point in productivity/numbers.There is no doubt that in terms of numbers that the Chinese outnumbers the US in manpower. Saying the Gap is small is thrown away in this argument, where everything goes 100 % to either side.I also get points for quality of the Chinese Tanks, and Artillery.
Militarily, the United States is currently stronger than China

"Arguing backwards: Economy decides Military Funding. Debt decides Economy. Ect ect. How is this not relevant." Because this is a military argument, not an economic one. If this were about economics this would be titled, "Economically, the United States is stronger than China" "If we were going to argue about the present, you might as well give yourself all the points, as its quite obvious to anyone that US has generally a higher quantity, and quality of equaipments. " I do not think "equaipments" is a word, please give me the grammar and spelling point. If it were quite obvious to you, you would have never accepted the debate. "Last I checked its part of the military." Are we debating that part of the military. Last time I checked my rules were: The size and quality of their military (current forces + reserves). Number and quality of their air force. Land-based weapons Naval forces Military budget Never have I said we would talk about cyber warfare. "My Opponet brings up the Battle of Kursk, while it is true the Soveits won due to their number of tanks. If the Battle of Kursk truly showed us anything, is that you don't wait for you enemy to construct a massive minefield, and defensive line, than direct your tank forces at that line. " There will always be anti-tank weapons in war and I talked about that in one of the rounds. Its not like there will never be defensive lines in war, there always is. Anti-tank weapons should be included because anti-tank weapons are used in war. Besides that, my opponent did not counter anything else in my arguments. "The only way to make this "fair" as you claimed this debate to be in the comments, would to make hypothetical situations. Comparing two armies in a hypothetical clash, would be the best way to determine their military might. " Never in the rules did I say we would compare them in a hypothetical clash. "Also, I present to you bad conduct as he has blatantly insulted the opponet." My opponent has again misspelled, please count this against him. Also, who violated the code of conduct more times by violating the rules? "My Opponet, in the section on Assult Rifles, have claimed I violated the code of conduct, by comparing prices. However, my opponet clearly in his last post, talked about the amount of weapons. The price of a weapon decides if it is produced more than another weapon." He has once again misspelled, count this against him. We are not talking about buying weapons in the future, we are comparing the amount as of now that have already been bought. I stand by my record that I have always been a fair and balanced debater. In school, I in fact lost one of two debates similar to this one in my debate club. Then we have a rematch later this year and I won. The fact is, this was debatable and my opponent simply was not a good debater. Conclusion I have proven that the United States is currently stronger as of now than China.
Militarily, the United States is currently stronger than China

Thanks for the extremely quick replyArguing backwards:Economy decides Military Funding. Debt decides Economy. Ect ect. How is this not relevant. Huehue, trolling is fun:If we were going to argue about the present, you might as well give yourself all the points, as its quite obvious to anyone that US has generally a higher quantity, and quality of equaipments. Cyber WarfareLast I checked its part of the military.Rebuttals:My Opponet brings up the Battle of Kursk, while it is true the Soveits won due to their number of tanks. If the Battle of Kursk truly showed us anything, is that you don't wait for you enemy to construct a massive minefield, and defensive line, than direct your tank forces at that line. Also the German tank casulaties were quite low, they were forced back not due to Soviet tank superiroity alone, but because of the amount of infantry availabe to the Soviet Union.At the end of the battle Germany has around 2,600 of its orignial 2,900 tanks, while soviet union had 3000 of its original 5000 tanks. They were able to bring a 1100 tank gap to a mere 400 tank gap. Many of their casualties, as I have said before was due to the minefields and considerable amount of Guns and artillery pieces the Soviets had.No Hypothesizing?The only way to make this "fair" as you claimed this debate to be in the comments, would to make hypothetical situations. Comparing two armies in a hypothetical clash, would be the best way to determine their military might. I simply conclude here by saying, that by creating a topic in which my opponet clearly knew the outcome, with no chance of making the debate "fair", this debate has ceased to be a proper and fair debate. Also, I present to you bad conduct as he has blatantly insulted the opponet.What my Opponet has claimed to be a fair and even argument, he has clearly violated by cutting down all hypothetical situations, and external sources, and even in his arguments presented his answers in the form of "Clearly Winning".My Opponet, in the section on Assult Rifles, have claimed I violated the code of conduct, by comparing prices. However, my opponet clearly in his last post, talked about the amount of weapons. The price of a weapon decides if it is produced more than another weapon.
Spiders are vicious

Rules: Site all sources Use proper grammer Have a proper understanding of the topic There is a ongoing misconception about spiders frequently attacking humans. People are constantly claimining to be bitten by spiders overnight, in a barn, or out in the woods. These claims are usually made because of red swollen welts that have appeared on someones skin.Spiders are rarley the cause of these bumps, and would much rather feed on invertabrates.Insects like wasps, ants, bedbugs, blackflies ect. that are known to sting, bite, and feed on mammals, are usually the cause.Spiders are horrified of humans. Excusing jumping spiders, most spiders have extremley poor eyesight, and use other stimuli like; vibration and light/dark. Humans frequently make noise, and cause a spider's environment to shake.Spiders prefer, damp, dark places. When lifting a log/lid of a shoebox or sweeping underneath your refridgerator, you may disturb a spider, but they will inevitably crawl back into the dark within minutes.Source: https://arthropodecology.com...
Spiders are vicious

Yes, I have actually seen and held many spiders, but as far as we know spiders can not communicate with humans vocaly. Your responces are so childish, I'm begenning to question your age. If you don't have any hard scientific facts supporting your claim I suggest you should forfit.Responding again to your so called black widow incounter, 1)black widow and brown recluse spiders are often misidentified, and reported in regions where they are extremely unlikely to actually live. For example, In South Carolina, 940 physicians responding to a survey reported a total of 478 brown recluse bites in the state — but only one brown recluse bite has ever been definitively confirmed in the state. Recluses are mainly found in the central and southern United States.Here's some more extra evidence to prove my claim. As I have already stated countless times, the vast majority of "spider bites" are caused by something else (fleas, bedbugs, kissing bugs, lice, or assorted flies, mites or ticks, or skin reactions to chemicals/infections) research shows. 3)One study found that of 182 Southern California patients seeking treatment for spider bites, only 3.8 percent had actual spider bites, while 85.7 percent had infections.I urge you to use scientific facts and reliable sources for your last response, thank you.Sources: 1) http://www.livescience.com...2) http://www.livescience.com...https://arthropodecology.com...http://www.burkemuseum.org...3) http://www.livescience.com...
Spiders are vicious

As I stated before, there is a ongoing misconception that spiders frequently attack humans. Your claims also seem very unreasonable, and souns as if they are coming from the mind of a small child. You also have no scientific evidence supporting your claim, and you are souly bassing your statement on opinion. Also it would be extremley unsual for a black widow to attack and kill a sleeping dog, due to the fact that, 1) like many other spider, black widows prey on insects like: cockroaches, beetles and other arthropods. The black widow spider is shy and nocturnal in habit, and although not aggressive, she may rush out and bite when her web is disturbed.2) It would be very strange for a spider to crawl into your bed, because your possible movement and snoring would shake a spider's environment, and cause it's vision to become very distorted. 3) If you roll over onto a spider, most likely the spider will have no chance to bite. Being crushed against a bedsheet by a human body just doesn't work well as a biting scenario (despite what everyone thinks) because spider fangs are underneath the spider. When pressed on from above, the spider may reflexively bite what it is standing on: the sheet, not your body. True spider bites (which are rare events) occur when a spider is trapped inside clothing or when someone foolishly puts a hand or other body part in a spider habitat without looking, or even more foolishly slaps at a spider that is crawling on them. 4) As for the "painful red welts" that have been accuring on your body, this is probably the result of bedbugs, or some other kind of bloodsucking insect like fleas, bedbugs, kissing bugs, lice, or assorted flies; less commonly by mites or ticks, or skin reactions to chemicals/infections. Genuine spider bites in this situation are possible, but very rare.Sources:1) http://www.desertusa.com...2) https://arthropodecology.com...3) http://www.burkemuseum.org...4) https://arthropodecology.com...http://www.livescience.com...http://www.burkemuseum.org...
Spiders are vicious

Having been bitten by spiders, I have a different opinion. I was waking up regularly with painful red welts that were bites of some kind. They would grow until they exploded an off white pus. After accumulating more than a few of these bites I decided to thoroughly clean my apartment. While vacuuming I pulled my bed out and a large brown spider fell. It had a huge web on the side same side of my bed I was getting bit on. Another time I was trying to get in my front door past 2 jumping spiders and as I passed they both jumped at me and one bit me. One more, I was cleaning my basement and I a black widow came out. My dog was sleeping and the black widow ran under him, bit him and my dog died. I've had plenty of experiences with feisty and often mean spiders.
Impossible for an all-powerful all-knowing all-good God to allow free will.

1. You are correct but that doesn't matter. I'm sorry to "bleat" again but since G-d can do absolutely anything he can give free will. 2. Unestablished point. You said G-d has to stop evil but he does not have to do so right away. 3. I'm going to "bleat" again. G-d is so complex because he is all powerful and sometimes goes beyond logic and understanding. 4. Just refer to my bleat. "In conclusion, it is impossible for an all-powerful all-knowing all-good God to allow free will. " What my opponent means is "it is impossible for a G-d for whom anything is possible, to allow free will. " Source: my opponent's round 1 definitions. Conclusion, the BOP was on me to prove that G-d can give free will and I have through my opponent's definition so really this debate was over before it started.
Impossible for an all-powerful all-knowing all-good God to allow free will.

I shall conclude by taking you step by step to the conclusion of pro. If you refute this make sure not to raise any new points in last round as this is extremely bad conduct.Read this step-by-step to understand my premise fully...1) God is all-knowing, so any potential act of evil would be known to him before it even happened because he 'knows' it would happen.2) God is all-good so whenever he would know of potential evil he would use whatever power he had available to stop it at that instant or as soon as he could.3) God is all-powerful and thus has no limit or restriction on the extent to which he can prevent evil meaning that ultimately evil will never occur and no one, within God's realm, shall ever be permitted to do it.4) Free will entails the ability to act independent of god's control in a manner that could be evil. Since God is all-knowing, he's know any act of evil you'd plan from the moment he created you, Since God is all-good he's use whatever power he had to prevent you from ever doing evil and since God is all-powerful he's always be able to do so.In conclusion, it is impossible for an all-powerful all-knowing all-good God to allow free will.If my opponent fails to refute my point sin round 5, he has essentially forfeited this entire debate since he seems to think he can ignore my debate and keep bleating that God is all-powerful (read step three of this round).
Impossible for an all-powerful all-knowing all-good God to allow free will.

Your point regarding religions is irrelevant as we are discussing the God that I defined.The God that I defined can bypass logic because god made logic but since it is bound to always prevent evil and since free will entails the ability to be evil, nothing within its vicinity of creation can ever be allowed free will. It isn't that god can't do it it's that it is impossible for him to allow it according to the fact he is all-good and all-knowing.The "True" referred to the fact that god is all-powerful and I explain why this does nothing to negate my premise and resolution.
Impossible for an all-powerful all-knowing all-good God to allow free will.

First of all I forgot to address some of your arguments because I rushed it so here is from last round: "True" Forfeited that I was right and that I have won. Onto this round: "The burden of proof is on you to prove that God can go above logic" I have done this twice already it is logical to conclude that since G-d can do absolutely anything, as my opponent has said, He is able to go above logic and could give free will. I have just proved that an all powerful G-d can go above logic and that he could give free will so I have done my job. This addresses your entire argument. And anyway, I don't think any religion describes G-d as never allowing evil.
Impossible for an all-powerful all-knowing all-good God to allow free will.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that God can go above logic since to debate con on the matter requires logic (impossible to debate without logic).As for my burden of proof I shall reinstate that if God is all-good he would never allow evil to occur. Since God is all-knowing God would always know if evil occurred, and since God is all-powerful God can always stop evil occurring no matter how powerful a force of evil arises.Free will entails the ability to act in an evil manner and thus it is impossible for an all-powerful all-knowing all-good God to allow free will.I am not saying that God, if not all-good, would be unable to allow free will I am saying that it is because God is all-knowing that no act of evil will go unnoticed and that because god is all powerful and all-good that he will never allow any act of evil to occur once he knows about it.
Impossible for an all-powerful all-knowing all-good God to allow free will.

Good luck!Okay I will make this quick. I would like to make clear that this has nothing to do with whether or not G-d exists. "Con has BOP to prove a possible way God can make free will possible." My opponents definitions does this. A G-d of all power can make free will possible because my opponent has said an all powerful G-d means can do absolutely anything. If He can do absolutely ANYTHING, he can free will possible. I win.
Loving is an art

Contention 1: The Justification of Love - Although people with Savant syndrome cannot be considered the norm, to some degree everyone has something that they are good at with less effort than it would take for someone else to develop that same ability. These cases are extreme, and meant as examples and exceptions to show hat love is not necessarily an art. Loving is an activity, it is something that is done. Contention 2: If they are semantics, I will drop them as semantics are against the rules. Contention 1: It is bound to the burden of the round, the definition of love is the one of mature love: "I need you because I love you". The mother needs her child because she loves her child.The inherent love is not an art. Contention 2: I wasn't arguing that it had to be reciprocal, I was arguing that, although the relationship could not be maintained through a difficulty, it was still love. It was love without meeting your definition of art.
Loving is an art

Pro- Contention 1: The Justification of love- -First those with Savant Syndrome are not the norm, and thus the standard cannot be based on these people. Second those with Savant Syndrome are skilled with an activity art (painting, sculpting, acting). Not something that envelopes a personality aspect. With live there must always be skill and practice in place, because even if to the smallest amount; all people both need and are given love in order to survive to grow to be old enough to love in the first place. - Maintaining love through a difficulty My opponent has not refuted my prior argument, but has simply extended their own argument through. Accordingly this argument is a drop. Contention 2: The Artisan continues the art- My opponent claims that egotistical self-love still counts as mature love, however as a direct quote from round 1, "If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to all others, his love is not love..." It is not love, and my opponent's arguments are nothing but semantic attacks. Con- Contention 1- - My opponent offers no warrant for this point. The mother may be raising her child simply to avoid the social implications of giving it up for adoption, or because she loves her husband. otherwise the love for the child is inherent, and again not bound to the burden of the round. Contention 2- - My opponent is missing the point of my argument, and has utterly dropped her own point here. - Love doesn't have to be reciprocal to fall into the boundary of mature love.
Loving is an art

Contention 1: Justification of Love - Skill doesn't necessarily take time and practice, as is evidenced by people with Savant Syndrome. They have exceptional skill in one particular area of their lives, although they are of relatively low intelligence in other areas. [1] Particularly relevant are savants with artistic abilities. For these people, art comes naturally, they don't need to develop skill over time. If skill and practice are not always necessary, then immature love will not always require skill and practice to become mature love. Maintaining Love Through a Difficulty - - In this case, it would be extremely difficult for them to met your definition of mature love. Although they may love one another, and unconditionally so, their relationship would not experience one of the stages my opponent says is important to developing mature love, and so would not be considered art. Contention 2: The quote says the love is directed at "only one other person", and I assumed this to mean it was someone else that the person loves. If it is referencing the love of ego, then it still could be love, only on a more limited scale. In the definitions of love Pro provided at the start of Round 2, no distinction on scale is made to differentiate immature and mature love. Contention 1: - The mother does begin the process of loving when the child is born, which was the point of this example. The love may change as the mother and child grow older, but at least some love must be present around the time of he child's birth, or there is no reason to raise the baby. If it is, then the love is present without first having skill and practice. Contention 2: - Not all couples do this, so it is also possible that they did get married out of love, which you have not disproven. - The point of this example was to illustrate the case of someone who is in love with someone who does not necessarily love them back in the same way. The other person i the relationship is still in love. Sources [1] http://www.psy.dmu.ac.uk... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...