BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Look at me. I'm the real deal!

Composed under fire? You call that sophmoreric attempt at criticism fire? If that is your idea of an attack trust me ill be fine. I still do not understand the meaning or intentions behind this pointless debate. Your excuse for slander is based upon the fact that you have not had a winning team in years. That seems to be a strange excuse especially in another debate you predict the Browns going to the super bowl. Browns won't go to the superbowl let alone make the playoffs if they can't beat the Steelers. The Cavaliers made the NBA finals last year and the Indians made the playoffs last season so your excuse of bad teams making you cranky is frankly sad. My teams are the Oakland A's for baseball who missed the playoffs finishing in third in division, the Sacramento Kings who where amoung the worst in the league and I am a Chiefs fan and they could bearly beat a junior varsity high school squad on their best day yet I am not making personal attacks on strangers so if the bothers you that much I suggest either eliminating sports or finding a new habit before your hate consumes your health. I actual read your profile after answering your first attempt you call a round. You are not even a conservative, I would call you a republicrat at best your for abortion according to your profile and more importantly you are in favor of the sicker variety of abortion that is late term. It is not my place to judge your preferences because they are your ideas, but when you make blanketed statements about an individuals believes with no grounds I am entitled to point out your mistakes. I will give you one more round to make a point from this debate but a real republican or conservative will side with me because they knnow I am a conservative especially when compared to you and my liberal friends will pick me because honestly you have not made a coherent point yet. Sincerely, SPC Rautert Fred
Look at me. I'm the real deal!

First of all I will start by stating that you must be the most immature middle age person I have ever came into contact with. I would expect this type of name calling from someone in elementary school but not from someone that is old enough to be my grandparent. I am going to disagree with you on two main points and I unlike you with maintain my dignity and take the moral high ground because my grandparents and my parents have taught me to respect my elders. In reguards to your Browns statement I find that laughable from a team so historically bad that there fans became famous for wearing paper bags on their head, infact the closest your team has came to a superbowl is when the expasion Ravens won in 2000. In reguards to me being conservative or not I would like for you to let me know what I am doing wrong I am in the NRA I serve in the arm forces Army specialist about to be deployed to Afgahnistan and I support the only true conservative candidate Fred Thompson. You are supporting a Candidate that has let more convicts out of jail then the three previous Governors. He is a lame populist that is nearly as liberal as John McCain. I would feel bad that you have such ill will towards me but you are a petty human being and it is people like you that liberals blame conservatives for being por excuses for humans. Sincerely, SPC Rautert Fred US Army
Facebook Debate: The good, the bad and the ugly

Facebook has got elements of both good and bad. Based on preliminary research, we came up with a list. Take a look at this list of Facebook advantages and limitations and please comment to start a public discussion/debate: 6.1 Advantages - free - helps share ‘things' - centralized friends network - secure browsing - helps connect with old friends - many customizable privacy settings - chat service - thousands of apps 6.2 Limitations - too centralized - commercial - no option to be anonymous - too addictive and distractive, almost like heroin - automatic photo and location tagging - impose orders to reveal identity - promote privacy to conceal fact that there really is no privacy - safety against access by third parties not guaranteed - claim no responsibility for unforced third-party access - much too large organization by revenue figures alone - capital growth has gone suspiciously fast - restricted only to adding people you know, no connecting to random strangers - want to know everything about you, who you've ever known - you're profile is a mere tool to make FB sick amounts of money - once you're dead, you're profile is removed to save hard drive space and keep it sustainable - Follow your whereabout through your smartphone - too much linked to your actual identity - ‘like' button is old fashioned, simple and annoying - affects functioning in real life and true personal growth and development as opposed to virtual - affects student grades - makes one stupid Serious answers only please and no SPAM. Thank you.
The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence

Pro was on line before the time expired. I think he should have passed rather that forfeited so as to avoid the conduct penalty.In any case, five round debates are too long! I'll show readers some mercy by not piling on arguments. My present arguments are continued.Pro challenged me directly on this topic. It was not an open challenge.The resolution has been negated. The God Hypothesis is not scientific and it is does not provide a scientific explanation.
Abortion Should be Considered Murder by Law and by Society

Sometimes I can be a bit confusing XDWoman's choice! Again, Why should the woman's (mainly self-centered) choice be elevated above the baby's life and future life? Is it because she doesn't want to pay for the consequences? Also, Why does the baby have to be killed? Adoption, Here, Again, Would be a much preferable solution, So no lives have to be killed, For the sake (and in my opinion idol) of convenience (and for the rape and medical cases, They have all been explained above). Final Argument:-The definition of murder:[Merriam-Webster]: The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. I will break this definition down and explain during and after why I think society and law should include abortion in this definition (not if it is considered murder at the moment, But why it should, Please understand). A. The crime of unlawfully. . . - This part does not apply much to my explanations, As it deals with legality. If I show that the other part of the definition of murder can fit with abortion, It would just be a matter of establishing it as law. I hope you see what I mean. . . B. . . . Killing a person. . . - I have shown in the rounds above that performing an abortion ends/terminates/kills a life and a human being. Therefore, It kills a person. An argument may rise where it is stated that a person is not the same as a fetus. This would only (not really) hold if the personage of a human being depended on there being a brain. This argument would fail, However, In the fact that the brain continually grows and develops all throughout pregnancy until about age 25. It is also not scientifically based one and/or has not been given sufficient enough evidence to substantiate its claims. It is just too ambiguous a claim. There is no clear line when brain activity starts. C. . . . Especially with malice aforethought. - I am not conceding that all abortions or that even half of all abortions are done with malice aforethought (some are). This end of the definition is started with especially for a reason. All abortions have to have preceding thoughts and realizations of what will happen, I'm sure everyone knows that. It may not be malice, But 99% of the time it is for selfish and convenient reasons, Which is certainly not ethical. Final Statements:- Abortion is not the only option- There is not a substantial ethical reason that a woman's choice should be elevated above a baby's life and future life. - Abortion can fit into the definition of murder (apart from the legality part, But saying so would be circular). - Abortion is killing a life, Human being, And person; there is not scientific or substantial evidence against so. -Abortion is unethical, Therefore immoral, And should be legally unlawful. I hope we have both learned from this, And are more knowledgeable of each other's positions. -Juke
Abortion Should be Considered Murder by Law and by Society

You're welcome, They come in handyWhy should the baby have to pay for the consequences of such a decision with its life? Woman's choice! Did you understand what I was asking? Your answer would mean that because we value a fetus enough at conception, We shouldn't be able to kill it; this, In turn, Would make the whole action of abortion at any time wrong because we can't kill the fetus at any time (since the fetus is a life at conception). - You're right about that I suppose. Plus I got a bit confused :DSentience is considered by most pro-choicers as part of what makes a person a person. If this is true, Then killing a fetus, In your definition, Would be killing a person, Which would contradict the law. Why would the fetus being sentient be an acceptable reason to kill it? - Hmmmmmm. . .
Abortion Should be Considered Murder by Law and by Society

Much thanks for your help with rich text! The baby won't know or feel anything before or after the fact. . . Suffer-suffering. . . This was a mistake on my part, Using the word suffering (you would be right about the fetus not feeling pain) was the wrong word, I should have put Why should the baby have to pay for the consequences of such a decision with its life? (same with other question). When do we value the fetus enough to where we shouldn't be able to kill it? - Answer given: Moment of Conception- Did you understand what I was asking? Your answer would mean that because we value a fetus enough at conception, We shouldn't be able to kill it; this, In turn, Would make the whole action of abortion at any time wrong because we can't kill the fetus at any time (since the fetus is a life at conception). . . . But I just feel it could be acceptable while its a fetus since it's sentientDefinition of Sentient: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions [Mirriam-Webster]Sentience is considered by most pro-choicers as part of what makes a person a person. If this is true, Then killing a fetus, In your definition, Would be killing a person, Which would contradict the law. Why would the fetus being sentient be an acceptable reason to kill it? . . . But I don't support it in the later stages. . . I agree with your reasoning that led to this conclusion, I don't think aborting a fetus in the early first trimester is nearly as bad as close to 10 months. I look forward to your response-Juke
Abortion Should be Considered Murder by Law and by Society

When your post your argument, You'll notice "Rich Text" to the left corner. It allows you to bold, underline, italicize, cross through words, Even change your font or the size and other options. Do you think a woman should be forced to have a baby if she gets raped or her health is at risk? I agree with your answers and adoption is a great solution. I believe abortion would be okay in the very early stages in the fetus, But I don"t support it in the later stages. I think it's okay since its at the earliest stage possible instead of it becoming a full developed baby, For example 8-9 months. To some, It may be the same and both equally bad by aborting a fetus no matter the stage but I just feel it's could be acceptable while it's a fetus since it's sentient. With about 98% of abortions happening due to the fetus not being convenient, Why should the mother"s convenience be elevated above the baby"s opportunity in life and to a full life? Got a point there, I am not sure. It can be so many reasons. If we are realistic here, Pretty much all abortions are made due to unexpected pregnancies, Careless promiscuity, And convenience. Since life starts at conception, About 125, 000 lives per day are being killed for selfish reasons. The other reasons for abortion are explained above. I agree. I understand your ethical point. -When do we value the fetus enough to where we shouldn't be able to kill it? Moment of conception-In the case that there is an unexpected pregnancy, Why should the baby have to suffer the consequences? The baby won't know or feel anything before or after the fact. Suffer - Suffering, Or pain in a broad sense, May be an experience of unpleasantness and aversion associated with the perception of harm or threat of harm in an individual. -In the case that there is pregnancy due to careless promiscuity, Why should the baby have to suffer the consequences? Same answer
Abortion Should be Considered Murder by Law and by Society

At which stage should it be acceptable? I believe abortion would be okay in the very early stages in the fetus but I don't support it in the later stages. Ethical reasons. I'll let you explain the ethical aspect. Opening arguments:A fetus is sentient. About 20 weeks or before it doesn't feel pain. During that stage, It is not a being yet. In order for a murder to happen there must be a being (part of society) that has been unlawfully killed. Do you think a woman should be forced to have a baby if she gets raped or her health is at risk? My comment to you. I will elaborate on it. Let's say abortion isn't acceptable to society and that it's illegal throughout everywhere since it is considered murder. The problem with making abortion illegal is that abortion will still happen regardless. Women will begin to resort to unsafe potentially life threatening methods of abortion. One of the most common forms of unsafe abortion is attempting to break the amniotic sac inside the womb by using a sharp object. Often a clothes hanger or a needle. This could damage the uterine wall and result in death. Another method of unsafe abortions involves creating toxic mixtures with chili peppers, Alum, Lysol, Or pesticides and pumping them into the pregnant woman. This can cause the woman to go into toxic shock and die. Unsafe abortion is a major cause of maternal mortality and it mostly occurs in parts of the world where abortion is illegal or where trained medical practitioners are not as accessible. According to the World Health Organization, In 2003 almost 42 million pregnancies were voluntarily terminated and 20 million of those were unsafe. 68, 000 women die a year from unsafe abortions.
God exists

Only 500 characters! Okay, saying no one could create a supernatural being is a non-sequester. Why could no one create a supernatural being? Explanation of non-sequitur: http://grammar.about.com... We cannot see God, but we cannot see dark matter. We could only see the effect of dark matter on our universe. That does not mean dark matter does not exist. Source: http://astro.berkeley.edu... Human Free will explains imperfection. Out of space!
God exists

There are many reasons why there is no God but here are a few. The first reason is that if a supernatural cause created the universe then there would need to be supernatural evidence. The second reason is that God has no reason to create the universe. The third reason is that God did not create a perfect universe or a perfect world and yet he is supposed to be supernatural and perfect. The fourth reason is that no one could create a supernatural being. The last reason is that he cannot be seen.
Not All Infinite Regresses Are Illogical

IntroductionI apologize for forfeiting a round; I didn't make it in time. Either way, I think it is clear that I will have this debate in the bag after this round. What Is An Infinite Regress?"An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, ... , and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity" [http://en.wikipedia.org...]Clearly, all truth implies an infinite regress. This is because to be true, it has to be true that it is true. For it to be true that it is true, it must be true that it is true that it is true... ad infinitum. Therefore, it is not debatable; all truth entails an infinite regress. Some Truths Are Logically NecessaryMy opponent also concedes that some truths are logically necessary:"Some truths are logically necessary" - ConHe then says"…for the logical mind to accept them, Yes. However, the crazy man can accept any old ‘nonsense’ such as a perfectly spherical cube…. that’s the truth" - ConWell, his "truth" would be wrong then. Logically necessary truths are objective truths. The Law Of Non-ContradictionSomething cannot be illogical, and logical at the same time. Therefore, since there are logically necessary truths; certain truths cannot be illogical. However, all truths entail infinite regresses. It therefore follows that not all infinite regresses are illogical. ConclusionAll truth entails an infinite regress. Some truths are logically necessary. Thus, some truths cannot be illogical (they are logically necessary). Since all truths entail an infinite regress, and some truths are logically necessary; all infinite regresses cannot be illogical. The resolution has been established.
Not All Infinite Regresses Are Illogical

I don’t think this will be much of a debate, because I kind of agree with you. Anyway, my understanding of infinite regression is:1) “It’s turtles all the way down”. or2) Mother: The grass is green Child: Why Mother: Because chlorophyll makes it appear green Child: Why Mother: because it absorbs red and blue light, and reflects green Child: Why …..ad infinitum or3) A truth which relies on another truth to make it true which in turn, relies on some other truth, which itself relies…. etc “Some truth must not be illogical, but logically necessary”Ok that’s fair. Squares have four sides and there are 360 degrees in a circle. These are fabricated truths, ‘limited truths’ created by humans’ to make sense of an unknowable reality…. they fit human constructs of the universal. They allow us to neatly create order in chaos. They satisfy an unquenchable thirst for knowledge and understanding, but ultimately only leading to further questions (infinite regresses). Some truths are logically necessary, yes: - Necessary for the human mind to conceptualise reality; to stop humans from going crazy, to help to keep society ‘functioning properly’, and for technological advancement. “All truth entails an infinite regress." Ok, if you say so? Well, kind of, but only if you look deep enough, only if you ask one more question. Curiosity killed the Cat. I’ll end this sentence with a full stop. Forget infinity. "All truth entails an infinite regress. Therefore, not all infinite regresses are illogical” If all truth is an infinite regress then it’s illogical for a human mind to keep seeking truth because that would take forever (infinity) and we have a finite life span. We could keep looking for the answer, but our last moment of life would culminate in a question passed to the next generation. Live fully, feel don’t think. Curiosity killed the Cat, and Eve? Some truths are logically necessary… …for the logical mind to accept them, Yes. However, the crazy man can accept any old ‘nonsense’ such as a perfectly spherical cube…. that’s the truth, the truth, the truth because an object cannot have edges and no edges at the same time if we want that object to fit into a bracket created by the human. Why would we want to do that anyway? Since some truths are necessary? Are they? To who? Why are they necessary? To stop us going mad… You are mad. I do not accept all truths are infinite regresses. I do not accept the truth for a start. The truth has no words. There will be truth when there are no more humans to consider what we consider tobe the truth. blar, blar logic, blocko... "They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, Ishall break the rules and they will punish me.I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game"
Not All Infinite Regresses Are Illogical

My Argument My argument is simple. Some truth must not be illogical, but logically necessary. All truth entails an infinite regress. Therefore, not all infinite regresses are illogical. If they were, then all truth would have to be illogical by association; which is not the case because some truths are logically necessary (self-evidently, a truth that is logically necessary, cannot also be illogical). Defense Of My Argument Some truths are logically necessary. For instance, a perfectly spherical cube cannot appear in my hand right now. Why? Because to be perfectly round is to have no edges, but to be a cube is to have edges. Something cannot both: (i) Have edges (ii) Not have edges That violates the logical Law of Noncontradiction [http://plato.stanford.edu...]. Thus, according to logic, it is a logically necessary truth that the below is true: "An object cannot have edges, and no edges, at the same time" Now, why does all truth entail an infinite regress? Well, because if something is true, then it has to be true that it is true. If it is true that it is true, then it must be true that it is true that it is true. If it is true that that is true that it is true, then it must be true that it is true that it is true that it is true... ad infinitum. Since some truths are necessary, and all truth entails an infinite regress; some infinite regresses cannot be illogical. If all infinite regresses were illogical, then there couldn't be necessary logical truths. There are. Thus, the resolution is established.
violent video games do NOT breed violence

I accept your challenge. I agree that they breed violence, because of the evidence I read from this article https://www.huffingtonpost.com... In the embed video, it says that video games cause increased aggression, and decreased empathy. Violent video games also caused many people who played it to go on shooting or stabbing rampage. but that's another argument. Studies say that most people that play violent video games have grown more trigger happy with their fists, because they have been doing that in violent video games, so your argument is going against the flow of the river because 90 percent of people say the same thing as me,"They do cause violence."
violent video games do NOT breed violence

Sorry, the link for the BBC one is bbc. co. uk/2/hi/science/nature/1295920. stm. Just copy and paste it into the browser. If it doesn't work, add the https:// after. The second one, if it doesn't work is . http://listverse.com...; don't give me the 404 excuse, because it works fine with me. I know that the 8 year old one may have been removed, but the other ones are still active and working. (Sorry if I'm being a bit too harsh) As . http://www.center4research.org..., "Playing violent video games can increase aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior in real life, according to two new studies. Violent video games may be more harmful than violent television and movies because they are interactive and engrossing, and they sometimes even require that the person playing identify with the aggressor. " This is true, because most of my friends play GTA, and other games like that, and started swearing. Before, they had a clean vocabulary, but now, they have swear words incorporated into their vocabulary. According to Craig Anderson, (Also from center4research. com) increased exposure to violent video games is associated with higher levels of “aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect and physiological arousal” as well as a decrease in prosocial behavior or “caring about the welfare and rights of others, feeling concern and empathy for them and acting in ways that benefit others. "Video games are making kids anti-social couch potatoes, and I am also guilty of this myself. When I play on the I-Pad, I completely tune out everyone around me, violent game or not. I don't talk to other people, just focus on playing the game.