BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is one, not three

All points still stand, Pro hasn't even responded to anything I have said.The Bible teaches that the Father is God. (Mark 14:36 and John 6:27)The Bible teaches that the Son is God. (John 1:1)The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is God. (Acts 5:3-4 and Hebrews 9:14)The Bible also teaches that there is only One God. (Mark 12:29)The Bible teaches that all 3 of the Divine persons make up the One God. (Matthew 28:19)So do the math...The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is only One God, which means that all 3 persons make up the One being who is God. A plurality within oneness. Sure sounds like the Bible teaches the Trinity.The only ones who are forced to deny the Biblical evidence for the Trinity do so because their theology doesn't allow it, or just can't stand the fact that the Bible teaches a doctrine believed by Christians.
RAP BATTLE no cry babies allowed!

i already wonlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
RAP BATTLE no cry babies allowed!

WALK THE PLANK MY LOVER!SHANK, THEN GANK SPANK THIS LAND LUBBER!SOON WE'LL TURN HIS ARSE HOLE INTO RUBBER!OHHH!CUTLASS IN WANK HAND WITH A CONDOM IN THE OTHER,SAID HE LOVED MY BIG TITS, I MADE SURE TO SMOTHER!SLAP YOUR BELL-END RIGHT AND PUT IT IN ME ARSE HOLEMAKE SURE IT'S TIGHT LIGHT A SNUG LITTLE PARCELMY CAT TOOK A SH-T ON MY LANDING,SMELT LIKE CAT FOOD IT WAS OUTSTANDING!FOR IT'S A PIRATES LIFE FOR ME!AYE!KILLED AN UGLY MAN-SOUL, NAME HIS DEAD BODY MIKE, LOVED HIS LITTLE ARSE HOLE EVEN THOUGH IMA DIKEFOR IT'S A PIRATES LIFE FOR ME!
Technology is the key to our destruction

"But history has proved that any time humans get involved the potential for disaster escalates."And this is an argument for your side of the resolution? Yes I agree, when humans get involved the chance of a disaster increases. We are not built for the modern world, we evolved to survive on the African savannah and because of it we have tendencies that and dangerous when placed in a context where the push of a button could turn the surface of the planet into irradiated dust.You list several benefits of technology and yes I agree there are many benefits without which the carrying capacity of the planet would most likely be less than ten percent of our current population. And I already accepted that without technology we probably wouldn't have made it past the ecological upheaval at the end of the last ice age, however just because some examples of technology has allowed us to survive as a species (e.g. vaccines, fire, the wheel ext) doesn't mean that other examples of technology (e.g. nuclear weapons, biological weapons, ect) will not lead to our destruction as a species.You then go on about how the only reason nuclear weapons are dangerous is that humans are divided and yes in some utopian reality where all of humanity shared the same goals nuclear weapons would not be a problem (the chances are they wouldn't even have been invented) but in that society the chances are we would not be nearly as technologically advanced as we are in our current society. Think about it, almost every invention we have today owes some of the credit for its invention to warfare for instance modern computing was invented to crack German codes in WW2 [1] and the ammonia fertilizer used to feed billions of people owes its invention to a chemist working for the Germans who was designing gases to be used on allied troops in WW1 [2]. With that in mind it is important to realize that we live on a world that is deeply divided and seems to be getting ever more so with no reconciliation in sight this utopian dream you have is just that, a dream.Your last point was that technology can also be our salvation. My response is simply technology can save the world an infinite amount of times but it only has to destroy the world once. I will finish up my argument with this, humanity has never invented a weapon and then not used it. The worlds superpowers are stockpiling ever more advanced weapons capable of ending the world in hundreds of equally devastating ways, a similar situation happened before. In 1914 the worlds superpowers had been stockpiling weapons for a quarter of a century the idea was mutually assured destruction the leading thinkers and politicians of the time were adamant that no nation would be stupid enough to risk annihilation but then a spark happened and plunged the world into two world wars. We are now at a point where the worlds superpowers are stockpiling again but now the weapons they are stockpiling have truly world destroying power, as we have seen from history mutually assured destruction hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Technology is the key to our destruction

I have already stated that I recognize the potential for humanities self destructive habits and I completely agree. But history has proved that any time humans get involved the potential for disaster escalates. Technologies ability to cause destruction is also matched by its ability for good. Aka. Modern medicine. Running water. Shelter. Solar panels. Engineered crops to feed populations. The only reason nuclear weapons and everything else pose such a big threat is because humanity as a whole is divided. And if that doesn't change then it won't matter what we do or have we will wind up destroying each other if something natural doesn't do it for us. It isn't the technology itself that is the problem it is how it's applied. To say that technology is what will destroy us is like saying guns kill people. Guns themselves do not kill people it is the people using the guns that kill people same thing with technology. We can use it for good or bad. And history has show that when people ban together we can overcome any natural occurrence. Especially when good use of technology is employed but it is the fact that we are divided that creates such a massive potential for disaster. Which that leads in to globalization but for the sake of keeping on topic I won't go there. It may seem like a fantasy ideal but it doesn't take away the fact that it exists and is possible. To say that technology is only the key to our destruction I feel is just accepting defeat and we should just give up now. Everything my opponent said about the potential for disaster is absolutely true. But everything in life has a potential for disaster and nothing is set in stone. We now have the capabilities yes to destroy ourselves but also to overcome obstacles that our ancestors could only dream of accomplishing. I argue that if technology can be the key to our destruction then it can also be the key to our salvation as it has been for thousands of years. It is all how you apply it. With all due respect to my opponent I beg people to see the statement technology is the key to our destruction as jumping to a conclusion. It could be the key to our destruction. But it doesn't have to be. And for that reason I argue you should vote against the motion.
Technology is the key to our destruction

Eighty years ago no one had heard of the nuclear bomb, no one knew the destructive power of splitting the atom, now eighty years later we are terrified of a single person dropping off a backpack and reducing most of a city to dust. In the last eighty years we as a species have multiplied our destructive power an untold number of times just in the last eighty years we have invented or hugely refined: Nuclear weapons (capable of ending the human race) Biological warfare (capable of ending the human race) Chemical warfare (capable of killing billions if the worlds stockpiles were released in urban areas which would lead to the end of civilisation and probably the end of the human race after a few generations) We are now at a point where we as a species possess the power to annihilate our selves, all ready we have had one near miss with the cold war, potentially two if you count the chance that Germany could have got the bomb in WW2 [1], next time we might not be so lucky and even if our luck prevails what about the time after that and the time after that and the time after that, our luck will not last forever. We are also at a point where we are increasingly urbanised, our new technology allows use to live in closer proximity to more people than ever before which allows disease to spread quicker than ever and our massive population which is sustained by technology means that there is more chance for a super virus to develop which could destroy the human race. Technology is also destroying our atmosphere, the fruits of our technological achievement, the cars and planes and power plants and space ships are filling the atmosphere with carbon 14, methane and other harmful substances which could lead to a future where we could no longer live. And yes you are correct in stating that the very reason we still live is because of our ability to create useful technologies I myself would not be around today if it wasn't for modern technology and I'm sure that is the same for many if not most people and yes you are correct when you say that it has allowed us to last longer as a species than we probably would have without it (I doubt we could have survived the fluctuating climate from 15,000 to 8,000 BC without technology) but the thing that makes us strong will also kill us. (I am aware this isn't a perfect analogy) Lets say there is a soldier who is exceptionally talented, he is able to survive in battles because he has a talent for war, for a time that sustains him and allows him to live but eventually his reputation spreads and his enemies become determined to kill him; the thing that allowed him to live also killed him. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Technology is the key to our destruction

So I would like to start my opening statement by saying I understand the destructive capacity of technology. Such as the effect of nuclear weapons, deforistation and pollution. All of those are great examples of what happens when technology is used unchecked. Even though those are true my argument is about technology in itself. One has to remember that technology is more than just your smartphone or car; technology is anything that improves the quality of life or enhances abilities from a simple shovel to a towering space rocket. Humans as animals are actually very weak when stacked against the animal kingdom. The only thing that keeps us from being hunted is our ability to invent and use tools. As I stated before there is technology that exists that is more harmful than not; but technology as a whole helps ensure humanities long term survival as a species. I look forward to hearing my opponents argument.
The abuse of illegal drugs should be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

Extend my rebuttal. --Points Breakdown-- Conduct: Con - Pro forfeited two rounds. S/G: Tied - I personally disliked Pro's structure and writing style, but I can't say it deserves a point penalty. You decide. Arguments: Con - for obvious reasons. Sources: Tied - I had none, and Pro's were canned (as they were pre-integrated into his case).
It is possible to hear light.

I will disprove his 'problems' with my 'method'. 1. My opponent makes the observation that light of such a small frequency as to be with in our audible range would not be energetic enough to make contact with the eardrum. This is incorrect. I would like to remid voters that light gives off it's energy into everything it comes into contact with that absorbs light. Thus any thing that is not perfectly reflective or translucent absorbs a certain amount of light and therefore its energy. Thus any wavelength and frequency of light can put energy into the ear. The only problem is if it is within our sound range. Which I have proven plausible. My opponent hasn't proved otherwise. My opponent also brings up the fact that if light in this range were to strike the ear and cause a vibration it would go unheard. If so we could jack up the wave's amplitude, thus amplifying the sound to an audible point with out changing the frequency. This is how amps (as in musical) work. Without changing any other properties of the wave we can make it audible. Oh and to answer the comment posted by Tatarize. I am not shooting for practicality but instead plausibility. Thus I end my input for this debate Thank You all. Good Debate. ()__() (='.'=) (")_(")
It is possible to hear light.

There are several problems with this method. First, as the wavelength of a beam of light decreases, it's energy decreases as well. Take for example, radio - one of the least energetic waveforms. Radio begins roughly at 90,000 hertz. The human ear cannot hear anything beyond around 20,000 hertz... we'll call it 25,000 just to be sure. So we're talking about something The only way to vibrate the eardrum is for a photon to actually collide with it. Considering that a photon is a near-massless particle, it cannot vibrate the molecules in the ear. The only waves capable of vibrating the ear at an audible frequency are those that would have so little mass that they would bounce off the relatively massive ear molecules like marbles hitting the Sears Tower. Even if by chance a photon with a wavelength between 20 and 25,000 hertz DID happen to collide with a molecule in the ear, the lack of energy in such a low wavelength would not be enough to cause a vibration strong enough to produce an audible noise - it would be far too quiet to hear.
It is possible to hear light.

First of all I agree with my opponent on his first two points. I am not approaching this topic from the angle of Synesthesia or Solar Cell Conversions, but on the grounds that you must only change the wave length of the beam. This brings me to my point. As my friend, s0m31john, from the comments page put it: frequency = Speed of light / wavelength since an ear can hear any wave within it's set frequency range all you must do to bring light down to an audible frequency. By looking at the given equation you can do so by doing one of two things: 1. Increase the wavelength drastically by changing the source so that the frequency decreases into the audible range. 2. Decelerate the light drastically by running it through a very dense medium. This will also reduce the frequency to an audible level. This answers my opponents issue of the too high of a frequency. Instead of directly applying the sound to the human ear, why not record it with a devise that is not affected by radiation. Then we could play it back with out the radiation threat to the listeners health. Either way it is theoretically plausible to produce an audible sound using a beam of light. Thus the resolution is affirmed. ()__() (='.'=) (")_(")
It is possible to hear light.

Light cannot be heard. There are 3 different ways Pro may make his case: 1. Synesthesia 2. A Solar Cell Conversion 3. High Intensity Beams All three of these ways of making the case are either incorrect or simply impossible. ************************************** 1. Synesthesia (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Many people speak of hearing colors or tasting sounds. Synesthesia is basically a cross-wiring inside the brain. When a synesthetic sees light and hears a tone, they are still obtaining sensory input from their eyes, NOT their ears. The brain simply converts the light into a different sort of perception. This is quite similar to how we really see everything upside down, but the brain makes the conversion subconsciously. Synesthesia is not a change in sensory input - it is a change in processing AFTER the input is registered in the brain. Thus, the resolution is negated. 2. A Solar Cell Conversion (http://www.instructables.com...). Again, this is simply a way of changing the type of input before it arrives. You are hearing a manifestation of the light in a sound wave created by the machine, NOT the light itself. This is similar to how a blind person can "read" a book when it is in Braille. They are not reading the words, but rather feeling. Converting one form of input to another is NOT perceiving the original form. The sensory input in from this device is sound, not light. You are hearing sound. Thus, the resolution is negated. 3. High Intensity Beams Theoretically, it is possible that if the eardrum was bombarded with beams of photons with enough intensity to move the molecules on the eardrum itself that it could be possible for one to hear sound. However, the problem with this theory is that if you get a collection of photons with enough energy to do so, they are at such a high wavelength that they pass through the tissue of the eardrum without interacting with the molecules there. Furthermore, if they DID happen to hit one of these molecules, the frequency at which they would cause the molecule to vibrate is many, MANY times higher than the maximum frequency at which humans can hear. Oh, and the subject would quickly die of radiation poisoning. It is impossible to produce audible vibrations in the human ear with a beam of light. Thus, the resolution is negated. ******************************************* I have presented three cases FOR the resolution and negated all three of them. The burden is now on my opponent. NEGATED.
Capitalism

I would like to point out that the debate is over Capitalism and not Communism. While I would enjoy holding a debate over Communism, this is not the time nor the place. I would like to mention that I included those definitions in case I ever needed to use them, but I don't think that will be the case.RebuttalCapitalism has indeed worked better than most other systems, but this doesn't make it the most appropriate system for the age. Feudalism lasted for a good 500+ years. Developing as early as the 700s CE (though it wasn't commonplace until around the 900s), and ending in the 1400s CE(1). However, looking at specific countries, feudalism lasted as far as the 19th century(2). In terms of length, Feudalism outdoes Capitalism.I suppose I will go ahead and rebut your statements on Communism for the purpose of a quantitative argument, but I don't wish for this to become a debate on Communism. Please keep this debate on-topic.Communism, while it has been tried in the past, has not worked. That I readily admit. However, it's from the mistakes made in those past attempts that Communism is revised. Of course, a lot of things were done right, and some failures can be attributed to espionage and isolation stemming from world powers. In regard to the nature of Communism, the principle of Communism is not that everyone is equal in every way, rather that everyone is equal in treatment, rights, and political power. There is an economy in Communism, it just does not utilize a currency like Capitalism. It is what it is called a "Gift Economy." This also does not mean that everything is free. A "Gift Economy" refers to trade being used in the stead of currency. For example, if I work at a local industry, instead of being paid, say, $8 an hour, I would be paid in essentials. I.E. food, clothing, etc. I would use whatever I don't need either to donate to those who are incapable, or to purchase luxuries.I would also like to point out that many alleged "Communist" nations were not Communist at all. For example, the U.S.S.R. was a totalitarian dictatorship. It was ultimately capitalist, in that it used a standard currency. The means of production were also in the hands of the state, not the working class.(1) http://www.historyworld.net...;(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Capitalism

Thanks for answering my debate challenge :). Well to being with in your list of definitions you mention communism so I guess that's the system you like. Well it's true that capitalism hasn't brought us a perfect system of economy, but however it's a pretty good system, I know there's companies that are pretty cruel and have abuse a lot of the people that's totally a fact and that capitalism hasn't get rid of the caste system in its totality. But if we look at communism it hasn't worked well at all in any of the countries that had it over the years such as Venezuela, Cuba (even tho they say they were socialist they reflected another thing..). Capitalism has worked way better than any other system in the History of mankind and as far as is reflected is way better than communism and socialism, in those 2 systems you can't really grow over someone and you'll always be equal to everyone which I don't think is right. This all I have for this round.
freedom of expression should be boundless.

The morality of those who use their right to freedom of expression to provoke or hurt others can undoubtedly be questioned but their right cannot be removed and many more people will agree with me because all of a sudden we each have our own shade of freedom which we feel is morally correct.Freedom of Expression helps the world to change. Without this expression, our problems would not reach to the government and we would be under a dictatorship... It is a powerful tool for development of social evolution.
freedom of expression should be boundless.

Case: - Here is my argument: 1. That which brings more benefit than harm, ought to be rather than not. 2. Preserving the lives & self-determination of the people is fundamentally beneficial. 3. The lives & self-determination of the people ought to be preserved. [ follows from 1. & 2. ] 4. The state is responsible for preserving the lives & self-determination of the people. 5. The state ought to be preserved. [ follows from 3. & 4. ] 6. The state ought not to be endangered. [ follows from 5. ] 7. Releasing the secrets of the state to other states endangers the state. 8. Releasing the secrets of the state to other states ought not to be. [ follows from 6. & 7. ] 9. Releasing the secrets of the state to other states is a form of expression. 10. A form of expression ought not to be. [ follows from 8. & 9. ] 11. Boundless freedom of expression ought to be if & only if all forms of expression ought to be. 12. Not all forms of expression ought to be. [ follows from 10. ] C. Boundless freedom of expression ought not to be. [ follows from 11. & 12. ] Conclusion: - As established above, freedom of expression should not be boundless. Thus, Pro’s case is refuted.
Debate.org is in a rut

I am sorry you feel so pessimistic about this site my fried. I actually find debate.org to be exhilarating and expansive to the mind. The updates would only cause more chaos and clog up the site rather than allow us to just willy-nilly debate. Debate.orge is more than just a site. It is a way of life. And hopefully one day, I can use this site like it were my perfect dating service. NOTICE: I am looking for an intelligent woman who likes to talk, debate, argue, and/or converse. She must be approximately 5'4.5" tall, have reddish/brownish hair, enjoy reading and writing, and can love deeply. Preferably a cheekyhobo such as myself, but if not, that is fine. I am a male with dark brown hair, a strong barreled chest, and overall, a nerd.
Debate.org is in a rut

Debate.org is in a rut. There is absolutely nothing to do. Debaters on this site are becoming less and less active and at my last count there were only 14 debates on the challenge board 10 of which are dominated by dairygirl4u2c a good debater but one that few seem to want to debate. My point is Debate.org is in a rut and unless they want to see their users leave they should hurry up and make those updates they promised because this site is getting booooooring. No offense to dairygirl4u2c.