BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Red Skins have nothing to do with Aboriginals, but everything between the Brits and the Other...

No, I don't gain from taxes. I do understand your feelings, as an individual, taxes are high and if unemployed, hard to pay for taxes, but as I said in Round 1, taxes are inexpensive and are still able to pay off. As an example, in Round 2, I said that 16% of all tax dollars go to Public Medicare. For example, if Person A doesn't pay taxes in his/her country and just received accidental work injury, Public Medicare won't be supplied, as a result person A wouldn't be able to claim his/her accidental injury payment, unless subjected to a Private Medicare, which is more expensive. Overall, taxes are expensive and help contribute to the community with Social Security, Medicare and Income Security.
Should we be more worried about the economy than the environment

Well oil is a very expensive resource however no matter what. Things like solar and wind could easily power the world. You could set up wind mills off shore to power the coast line and than solar to power areas more inland. Of course some oil may be needed now with our current technology for vehicles. Now cutting back on out oil supply would take away some jobs but there could easily make new job creations. Such as maintenance on wind mills and solar panels and also you could have better recycling facilities at garbage dumps to sort out as much garbage as possible. Possibly also making gardens working cities in parks or converting abandoned buildings into greenhouses which would leave less farmland in the country for more natural habitat and make food easier to get and in some cases much fresher and possibly give us more food as a whole. We really cant have a good economy without a healthy environment. If all our resources are drained and the environment is in too bad of shape to repair itself quick enough the economy crumbles. If all the forests were chopped down and oil had been drilled we would be screwed because we wouldn't have the resources The world is on the verge of a 6 mass extinction. This would be bad for humans because for one thing disease would spread much quicker without larger animals to hunt smaller ones that carry diseases they spread much quicker along with if bees go extinct it is very likely we will follow. Einstein predicted that humans would go extinct 4 years after bees. Mass extinction Site: http://www.independent.co.uk.... Bees site: http://www.bbc.com...
Should we be more worried about the economy than the environment

I accept this challenge of why we should worry about the economy more then the environment. 1. Problems in Syria -Due to recent problems(ISIS) it has been harder for Syria to export goods like oil. Which means it has caused OIL prices in the world to rise extremely high. Which makes people worry if things in Syria will ever calm down and we will be able to lower oil prices and ect. "2. Delayed effects from higher rates. Rates started spiking well before the Summers boomlet, dating to when the Fed first began its talk of tapering bond purchases. But changes in the cost of borrowing affect the overall economy only gradually, over many months. For example, a spike in mortgage rates may eventually mean fewer homebuyers, less upward pressure on prices and then less homebuilding activity, but that series of events takes many months to pan out. And rates have been rising rapidly since the start of May. The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is up from 3.4 percent to 4.46 percent since the start of May, according to Bankrate. We don't know exactly how much damage higher rates might do to housing, auto sales and other credit-dependent markets. We don't know when it will hit. But it's hard to imagine that large a swing in rates having no effect." -Neil Irwin: http://www.washingtonpost.com... Again this is not plagiarism by the US government I quoted and cited! Also think about it what helps fund these things to stop environmental problems? MONEY! If there is no money there is no funding and if no funding then things die. So you need to worry about the money before you can worry about fixing the environment. Information Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
State of Massachusetts is the Nitro Circus theme song, not Shipping Up to Boston

Now, the State of Massachusetts is a song, by the Dropkick Murpheys. Look up the song on www. youtube. com, or any music website. If you cannot find it, I would advise (even if you haven't found it) finding an episode of Nitro Circus and then find the song. I made no references to the real state. And me being the pro has nothing to do with this debate. I just know I'm right. Thank you.
State of Massachusetts is the Nitro Circus theme song, not Shipping Up to Boston

Ladies and gentlemen what you see before you is a debater who has taken the role of pro in an attempt to score an easy win, and thus in this debate semantics are not only helpful to my position but necessary. Now, in the previous round my opponent posted no definitions but only a vague statement which read "Does anyone think different. You just can't prove me wrong", what we can gather from this is that my opponent understands he has the burden of proof within this debate, and all I as con have to do is disprove him. Definitions: Nitro Circus - an American television series that features Travis Pastrana and his friends traveling around the world riding dirtbikes, base jumping, and performing reckless stunts. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) State of Massachusetts - a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States. It is bordered by Rhode Island and Connecticut to the south, New York to the west, and Vermont and New Hampshire to the north. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) (. http://i.zdnet.com...) Conclusion: Seeing as the state of Massachusetts is a geographic location it cannot possible be the theme song to Nitro Circus.
The bible and church claims humans gaining knowledge is a sin

I will set out to do two things in this in my first argument. 1. I will try to prove that God was trying to protect us from the knowledge of sin not from the knowledge of good and useful things. 2. I will try to prove that God desires us to learn and grow in knowledge. Genesis 2 16-17And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die. " says that the tree in the garden is not to be eaten of because you will surely die. This tree is not just a tree that gives "knowledge but rather a tree that gives knowledge of sin and the difference between good and evil which God did not desires us to know so that we may be protected of sin. You can see throughout Genesis 1 and 2 that God's desire was for man to be as full of joy as posssible. Secondly the Bible talks about knowledge over well over 100 times; many of these times it is talking about knowledge as something that is something to be desired and something that is given from God as a gift. An example is Psalm 119: 65-67 65 Do good to your servant according to your word, O LORD. 66 Teach me knowledge and good judgment, for I believe in your commands. 67 Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I obey your word. More examples are Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. Proverbs 10:14Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin. I also want to say that Jesus desires us to have knowledge and that it is given from him to us You can see this in Luke chapter 11: 52 "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering. " You can see here that it is people who are preventing people from growing in knowledge not God. I will end with one last passage: Colossians 2:2-4 My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. Thank you
The bible and church claims humans gaining knowledge is a sin

To adopt the con side you must: 1. Believe in the bible, including genesis. 2. In a Christian church's teachings. My claim is this, The bible says humans learning knowledge is a sin. I have proof of this. Firstly, in Genesis it says that God forbid Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of knowledge. This means that God's will is for humans to not gain knowledge. It is not put in that exact wording, put here is a link to the passage : . http://www.biblegateway.com... Secondly, the church has adopted a stance against the challenging of what the bible preaches. proof of this is Galileo's inquisition. However, my opponent may claim that the protestant chruch does not teach this. But they performed the burning of heretics in Geneva. As well as this, the Church challenges global warming and the theory that the Universe will die out, not by claims it has made, but by mass, I quote from a prayer 'an everlasting world for ever and ever amen'. Although people argue that the universe won't die out and that global warming doesn't exist, that's part of the bigger picture, and there is far more proof that global warming and the universe will eventually die out.
The bible and church claims humans gaining knowledge is a sin

To summarize my points: 1. God intends for Humans to know knowledge to what he feels necessarry, and all else is a sin. 2. The church wants to limit what it's followers know, and their burning of heretics proves that. I urge you to vote pro as my opponent has not yet rebutted point 2, and has only given bible passages to disprove point 1 which, as the church admits, is interpretable to a certain degree. I hope revolution will respond with rebuttal to my round 2.
The bible and church claims humans gaining knowledge is a sin

He claims these promote that God wishes that humans want their knowledge to grow. However, the Bible is often open for interpretation. Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. Interpretation: This says that the Lord gives wisdom and tells his followers knowledge and understanding. However, this only addresses his followers, not Humans in general. Proverbs 10:14Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin. Interpretation: This doesn't make reference to God. But I would interpret it as Religious men know alot, and heretics say stupid things as they oppose the Church. My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. Interpretation: This says that the knowledge they will gain is not knowledge we have today that advanced civilizations, but knowledge of God, which has never been discovered. My opponent has given proverbs that say God wants Human to gain knowledge, but he wants his followers, who he sees as a more elite group to gain knowledge. One of the debate requirements was to believe in the teaching of a Christian church. If you chose Catholicism, you believe that the Pope is a direct descendant from St. peter and is God's line to the earth. Therefore, the actions of every pope were justifiable by God's command. Ergo, forcing Galileo to take back all of his ground breaking achievements, banning contraception which led to the outbreak of AIDS in Africa and burning heretics in 'Acts of Faith' were all justifiable. If you chose Protestantism, Calvin's burning of heretics in Geneva and the Anglicans destroying of catholic monasteries in Ireland, often the only centres of learning. As you can see, my opponent has not defended the church's teaching and has given us quotes from the bible, which can be interpreted until they actually turn against his argument. Unless he can fathom why the chruch he believes in promotes gaining knowledge that can advance civilization, then he only has half an argument.
The Argument from Biblical Defects is Sound

I am resending this challenge due to a glitch in the other round. Resolved: The Argument from Biblical Defects is a Sound Argument Against the Christian God. The Argument from Biblical Defects was first proposed by Dr. Theodore M. Drange and it is an argument against the Christian God via Biblial Defects. I have re-formulated the argument and worked it out myself to make it easy to follow and understand on my blog at http://reasonalliance.blogspot.com... like to debate the soundness of the argument.The argument in a nutshell states the following: (A) If the God of evangelical Christianity were to exist, then the Bible would be God's only written revelation. (B) Thus, if that deity were to exist, then he would probably see to it that the Bible is perfectly clear and authoritative, and lack the appearance of merely human authorship. (C) Some facts about the Bible are the following: It contradicts itself or is very unclear in many places. It contains factual errors, including unfulfilled prophecies. It contains ethical defects (such as God committing or ordering atrocities). It contains interpolations (later insertions to the text). Different copies of the same biblical manuscripts say conflicting things. The biblical canon involves disputes and is apparently arbitrary. There is no objective procedure for settling any of the various disputes, especially since the original manuscripts of the Bible have been lost and there has been no declaration from God that would help resolve any of the disputes. (D) Therefore [from C], the Bible is not perfectly clear and authoritative, and has the appearance of merely human authorship. (E) Hence [from B & D], probably the God of evangelical Christianity does not exist. http://www.infidels.org......Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.(5) Forfeiting any round will result in a 7 point loss. Rounds: (1) Acceptance(2) Opening Statement(3) Rebuttal(4) RebuttalOther notes:(1) 72 hours to argue;(2) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. (3) If one side explicitly concedes or violates any terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other;(4) By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
The U.S Government should cease from pursuing the war on terror

You're starting argument failed already since u made no connection from war on terror with Iraq. With you saying that Iraq is a threat to the US, you mean War in Iraq, not the war on terror. And because of that, the resolution also changes to "The U.S. Government should cease rom pursuing the War in Iraq" Arguments why they should cease: 1. Wheres the WMD? US has been claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destructions, but it was never found. Note that the terrorrism was in Afghan. All programs on WMD are cancelled, so thats another reason. There were also no proof that WMD were given to terrorists for uses. (or we would be having such weapon hiting us) 2. Saddam Hussein Hes already unthroned, so why do we have to keep attacking Iraq? We are supposed to bring peace, not destruction. I await my opponent's response Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
The King's speech deserved to win all the major awards at the 2011 Oscars

While I have argued you on both director (simply that Tom Hopper wasn't the best director) and best picture (Toy Story 3 and Inception were better; imdb rated these movies significantly higher), the focus on of my argument was and is on screenplay. You have uncontested my last mention of it, but I will review in order to state the point more clearly: - Tom Hopper had to direct a film based off an event that already happened, therefore, any problem associated with the plot or appropriate characters or attire could simply be solved by referring back to what happened in the past. - While screenplay/script does consist of more than just the plot (i.e. stage direction), the majority of it consists of what the story is about. In order for a story to be told, it must be told. - Inception followed what would be a confusing, hard to follow screenplay if read. It was much more difficult to bring to life than an event that already happened. Toy Story 3 is the third Toy Story. While this may seem redundant, it shows that the screenplay has changed 3 different times and all of those times the same cast was involved. There would be no The King's Speech 2 because the movie was about THE trial the character had to face. Now that he overcame it, there is nothing more. Perhaps he lead an interesting life as King, but the climax of the movie was the climax of his life: he had to overcome his speech impediment to instill courage in the British people. The screenplay is based off of what happened. You could read a history book and know the ending of the movie before you watched it.
The King's speech deserved to win all the major awards at the 2011 Oscars

Please note that pro believes that The King's Speech deserved all major awards at the Oscars therefore, I only need to prove him wrong in one of these awards. In regard to directors, I was not arguing FOR anyone, simply against Tom Hopper. In regard to best actor, I will not choose to question Firth's outstanding performance. Ratings based on sites are irrelevant. Every site is different and there is no way of knowing which is the true belief of the public. For example, IMDB [1] rates Inception as the 8th best movie of all time whereas The King's Speech is 101st. If you wish to say that The King's Speech wasn't out as long to get as many votes, please note that both Black Swan (66) and Toy Story 3 (32) are ahead by a considerable margin. Screenplay is defined as [2[: "A screenplay or script is a written work that is made especially for a film or television program." Plot will play a major role in this simply because it takes up so much writing. Directions and such are important, but it is much easier to add these extras on to an existing story than to start from scratch. [1] http://www.imdb.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The King's speech deserved to win all the major awards at the 2011 Oscars

Con gave some good points about why Inception deserved to win best picture but Con did not argue about the critic and publics response to the film. Rotten tomatoes gives the kings speech a 95% positive rating: http://www.rottentomatoes.com... Rotten tomatoes gives Inception a 86% positive rating: http://www.rottentomatoes.com... So it is clear that the king's speech is the more loved film, that is why it derserved to win. As for toy story 3 it had it's own animation category to win, so it shouldn't have been in the top 10 picture nominees anyway. Now read the Oscar nominees list: http://www.oscars.org... As for best director I think Con is arguing that chris noland deserved to win best director more than tom hooper. Con has failed to do his homework because Chris noland was not nominated for best director at the Oscars. Therefor in this debate chris noland is irrelevant. As for best actor Con has not argued why exactly colin firth did not deserve to win out of the nominees. As for best screenplay, the kings speech screenplay vs inceptions screenplay… screenplay is not all about the plot of the film. It is stage directions, role plays and others. The kings speech had harder elements of those which were better than inception
The King's speech deserved to win all the major awards at the 2011 Oscars

Although I agree that Colin Firth was outstanding and the directing incredible, I beg you to ponder this: Even though it is hard to capture the terror of speaking in public as you said, I would beg to argue that this was all that the director had to focus on. Since this is a true story and fairly accurate more or less [1], the plot was already taken care of. Consider the movie Inception. If a random director was asked to direct a movie about a King's need to rise in England's time of need versus a movie where you can enter dreams and then enter another layer of dreams and then another, all while time slows down in each new layer of dream you enter, which would be more difficult? Which would he most likely choose? Not only do you have to be able to ensnare the viewer in this dream world, but you have to convince him of similar terrors and emotions as shown in The Kings Speech. More or less I am simply trying to state that whereas the plot was already laid out for The Kings Speech, Inception had to be made from scratch and provided more of a challenge for the director. Also, think of Toy Story 3. How many series are there that have continued to produce stunning movies? Usually a good movie will come out, and then more will follow simply because the first made money. They end up being poorly made and were forced into production to simply make more money. Imagine the trouble for a director having to not only deal with a new plot, but using the same characters for a third time. What would happen in The Kings Speech 3? Would it still be just as good? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Speech
The King's speech deserved to win all the major awards at the 2011 Oscars

I Define the major awards as best picture best director best actor and best screenplay. I think that the King's Speech deserved the Best Picture Oscar 110% it was an amazing movie and was incredible. Inception was good but in my opinion it was no where near the best picture, yes it was great and mind bending but the Kings Speech was so much better the actors and the quality were amazing and the movie drew you in. Tom hopper got best director. Make no mistake, Tom's directing of "The King's Speech" really was extraordinary, and not just for getting such great performances from the entire cast. Throughout its running time, he brilliantly put us in Colin Firth's shoes and made us feel his panic as he lost control and stuttered in front of hundreds of people. I can't remember the last time a filmmaker captured the terror people have of speaking in public. and Colin Firth's best actor win goes to him because the way he made us feel his panic as he lost control and stuttered in front of hundreds of people he deserved it best out of the other nominees. All of that adds to why it wins best original screenplay brilliant story
Altruism does not exist.

My Position aims to attack not Altruism(The idea), but how we as human beings look at it(How we describe certain ideas as altruistic when in reality they are not). I believe Altruism does not exist in our Moral Society. Definitions- Exist- To occur Altruism- The principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others After the following rules and definitions are accepted, the first round will be for acceptance. This will be a 1 Round Debate (not including the first round), where I as Pro will State my case, then the negative will proceed to refute the arguments. IF the negative successfully refutes the arguments, they win (not just stating a case for why it exists, instead look towards why i am wrong) If any points are left up by the affirmative, or are not successfully refuted by the negative, then the affirmative wins.