BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
i can describe rainbows in the dark

Good morning/afternoon everyone, Side Proposition has stated that truth is equal to memory. I would like to start off as defining "equal" as exactly the same, without any differences, and "truth" as the reality, and what actually happened, for side Proposition has not defined the terms. I have three points, for you all today, to prove that truth is NOT equal to memory. The first two points will be stated in this argument, and the last one will be stated in my second argument. The first point is that people forget, and the second point is that memories can be altered. My last point will be about how two people can remember different things about the same situation. Yes, people forget. Even if a person has the best memory on earth, it is impossible for them to know every single detail of their life from the moment they were born. I would like to ask side Proposition a question. If somebody told a person, who we'll name Joe, that he slept when he was 6 months old, but Joe doesn't remember, does that make that somebody a liar? If one does not remember something, does that mean it was never there? One does not have to remember for it to be the truth. Even if a person remembers, they can still remember incorrectly. According to a few Iowa State University researchers, one can manipulate an existing memory simply by suggesting new or different information. Once this "existing memory" is "manipulated", does the original memory become false? Two of one's existing memories COULD merge into one, therefore becoming a memory of something that didn't happen. If a picture was showing one a childhood performance, for example, but they remember it differently, does that make the picture a lie? Because there's such word as 'forget', and because there could be incorrect memories, truth does NOT equal memories.
Hillary Clinton is not a bad canidate

Well, I've stated my case strongly, and there's not much more I can say. First of all, though, I'm sorry that my opponent missed the arguments. I don't blame him, really, because (A) I missed one too, and (B) I know how schedules can get. Still, I would like to have trounced him fairly. It seems a little petty, but I notice that my opponent isn't arguing that Hillary Clinton is not a bad candidate, but that she is a bad "canidate." I'm not sure exactly what this word means, but I will endeavor to disprove BOTH arguments. ;) In the last few days, Clinton's last-ditch attempts to stop the Obama storm have gotten nastier and nastier. First off, she lambasted Obama for mailers against her that regarded health care-her forte, and then she "leaked" photos of Obama with a turban on. Although she denies this. We all know what the Clintons are capable of. Who knows what else they have on Obama? Hillary plays dirty. She is NOT, I repeat NOT a good candidate for president. Obama's stand on the issues is better than hers for Democrats, and she is despicable personally. She polls behind McCain, which seems incredible in this election, and unless she pulls up a little bit, her campaign is doomed. For all these things and more, Hillary Clinton is a "bad" candidate.
Hillary Clinton is not a bad canidate

My opponent has failed to make the third argument, but that's okay because I failed to make the first. I can't really blame Idontcare for missing the argument; believe me, I know how schedules can get. Well, Obama's clear superiority to Clinton is now highlighted more than ever by his wins in Wisconsin, my home state, and Hawaii. All the Democrats I know voted for Obama. In fact, it's unclear WHERE Mrs. Clinton's support was coming from. Now let's turn to hard evidence: According to AP, many of the superdelegates who formerly supported Clinton even after she fell behind have been migrating towards Obama. (http://www.breitbart.com...) According to RCP polls, Clinton has a fairly substantial lead in Ohio, but Obama is gaining momentum. In Texas, she's ahead by as little as one percentage point, but if Obama can draw even with her by the primary date, all bets are off. While I admit that she could still win both of these states, I still doubt it. Here is the RCP polling data for a head-to-head matchup between Mrs. Clinton and John McCain. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com...) According to this, McCain leads her in most polls by about 5%. As a Republican, it hurts to admit, but if a Democrat can't beat a Republican THIS election year, they will never be able to again. And especially John McCain. Honestly, he's less appealing than Hillary Clinton, and neither of them has ANYTHING on the charm and charisma of Obama. Let's face it, Obama is a rock star. In a presidential race, it's up to the voters, and so far, they want Obama. I may have to eat my words later, but I still think Clinton is more of a liability to the Democrats than it appears. Voters want the 90s and its scandals dead and gone already! As a veritable mascot for the graft and corruption that composed the Clinton administration (selling pardons, stealing White House furniture, Whitewatergate, Travelgate, Cattle futures, Monica, etc., etc., etc.) Hillary is a phantom from the past. Thanks, Sola Gratia.
Hillary Clinton is not a bad canidate

I believe that Hillary Clinton is a "bad" candidate. But frankly, the term "bad" is completely subjective and so logically this debate is impossible to win or lose, since "bad" is different for everyone. But anyway: my personal definition of "bad" matches Hillary Clinton perfectly: she is deceptive and manipulative. She is a swindler. A con-woman. From cattle futures to HillaryCare to Bill, everything she's touched in this country has been ruined. So, here are specific reasons why Hillary would be a "bad" president." I. Her baggage. Hillary made much of the fact that her detractors have nothing "new" to throw at her, at least nothing as shady as Whitewatergate, Travelgate, etc. Well, she's wrong. What about that prominent Asian donor to the Clinton campaign who was arrested and convicted of election fraud last year? And anyway, she hasn't changed. If we elected her, we'd be electing Bill Clinton all over again, and that would be terrible. II. I can understand and sympathize with the anti-war view, but Hillary has cynically manipulated it for her own good. First she was pro-war, then she was maybe, now the president swindled her. Whatever. III. If she is not a "bad" candidate, she is a "good" candidate. A good candidate must have a good chance of winning. Well, according to the polls, both Barack Obama and John McCain have a larger chance of getting elected President. That should definitely be taken into account. Thanks, and sorry again for missing the first argument. Sola Gratia
Hillary Clinton is not a bad canidate

Now to start it off, I feel That Hillary Clinton Would make a good President for two main reasons, her experience, and her views. First off, Her Experience, besides her years of being the first lady Hillary has also served as the U. S. Senator to New York. I feel that experience is possibly the most important thing to look for in a candidate. Also experience is good in any line of work including politics, even though in most cases it makes a politician seem worse since eventually they have to cast a bad vote (I'm not referring to anything in particular) Experience is what helps them make less bad choices, not to say that it would make them perfect, but it helps. I could go on for about three pages about her views, but I'll just highlight two of them to get thing started. 1. Healthcare, Although this may be the most over explained point on the democratic side, it may be the single most important item in this election, to most people Americas healthcare system has failed, it is almost impossible for low income families and people with pre-existing conditions to get healthcare, let alone affordable, And Obama's plan does nothing to help those who find it that hardest to get. Not to mention that the republicans, who don't offer any solution to this problem, and want to keep the tax cuts, but that's a different issue. 2. With rising oceans, and an ever shrinking amount of oil, the situation is starting to look very desperate, we need to do three things, lower the amount of electricity/ fossil fuels we use, increase funding in alternative cleaner fuel sources, and update our current electricity generation sources with renewable alternative ones, Hillary offers all of those things, for the most part, and more aggressively than Obama. The republicans are yet again siding with big business and offering solutions that don't really solve anything, free market energy, what is that exactly? Another way for big business to get their way over little ones? They don't even fund the research, who do they think will?
Are video games good for you.

We see that typically in people that don't play action games, their reaction time [on tests of multitasking] lengthened by 200 milliseconds, which is something like 30 percent," Bavelier says. "But in gamers, it lengthened only by 10 percent" (Trudeau). What the stat is saying is that people how don"t play action games/any games have a slow reaction time when multitasking and that gamers have a faster reaction time to multitasking. What this means is if you play video games you do stuff faster then non gamers. What the next paragraphs are going to talk about is how gaming can help you be focused, remember things, and multitasking. Playing video games helps you be focused, remember things, and it helps you be able to multitask. Being focused can help you with school. Ways video games help with being focused is you know what the teacher is talking about. When you start playing a game that you are addicted to, you start focusing and you don"t know but you start focusing more as though you are playing that game in real life, because you brain is so used to be focused playing that game that your brain starts to focus more when you are not playing it. When you start focusing more you can get better grades and get into a good school and get a good job. This is the way staying focused in school so if you think playing video games is bad maybe you should research before you say they are bad and they don"t help you stay focused in school" (anonymous). (I got all this information from a essay I did I will not disclose my name).
Are video games good for you.

First you were supposed to type something other then I accept challenge I think that's what you are saying and second "Even though you are able to stay focused you still need to remember things. Remembering things is a essential thing to be able to find things that you lost or know who your friends and family are. The another way video games help you is that you will remember things like what homework or test or anything is coming up. When you remember things you can get better things but just because you remember more things doesn't mean you can just slack off and not study. When you remember more things you can get your work done because you know what you were learning that day. So if you want to be able to remember things playing video games for 30 minutes to an hour a day would be good but not so long that you forget to do anything" (Anonymous).
Coal Seam Gas Mining Positively Affects Australia

My apologies for the tardiness Con! Time has been a limiting factor. Anyway, let's get the ball rolling!EnergyThe World’s Energy Needs are RisingGlobally, the International Energy Agency predicts that world primary energy demands will increase by 40 per cent by 2030. Thus, pursuing all viable energy generation methods is of the utmost importance. One such method of energy generation is coal seam gas mining (CSGM):1.a. Ecologically:CSGM Is a Cleaner Alternative to Coal:When converted into liquified natural gas (LNG) and used in generating electricity, natural gas can produce substantially less greenhouse emissions than coal generated electricity. Independent analysis by WorleyParsons concluded that...“For every tonne of CO2 emissions associated with the CSG-LNG production and use, up to 4.3 tonnes of emissions are avoided when the gas is used instead of imported coal by Chinese power generators;A CSG-LNG project exporting 10 million tonnes of LNG per annum to China could avoid more than 32 million tonnes of global CO2 emissions each year;Over a 30-year project life, such a project could avoid 968 million tonnes of CO2, which is almost double Australia’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions.”[1]Furthermore, the infrastructural surface footprint of CSG developments is generally is generally less intensive than other industries such as mining.[3] Thus, due to the cleaner energy production potential and smaller footprint, the CSGM is a partial solution to our energy crisis.1.b. Economically:The numbers speak for themselves. Despite being a fledgling industry, CSGM currently employs 12,113 people[1]. That number only increases after the initial infrastructure is in place and the permanent CSG-LNG project is fully under operation. Economic studies of the impact in Queensland alone show that even a medium-sized 28 million-tonnes-per-annum (Mtpa) will generate over 18, 000 jobs, increase gross state product by over $3 billion, generate private sector investments of over $45 billion and provide royalty returns of over $850 million.[2] 1.c. Socially Coal seam gas mining industries affect the social dynamics on both a local and larger level. Locally, mining operations are shown to decrease the rate of unemployment. On top of this, CSGM has directly contributed over $53 million dollars to the communities[1]. On a larger scale, this industry provides the energy needed to both maintain the high standard of living the developed world enjoys; as well as bridge the gap between this standard and the developing world. The Coal Seam Gas Mining Industry contributes and will continue to contribute to the overall holistic wellbeing of Australia.[1]: http://www.appea.com.au...[2]: http://www.industry.qld.gov.au...[3]: http://www.appea.com.au...
Coal Seam Gas Mining Positively Affects Australia

I submit that on balance, the Coal Seam Gas (CSG) Mining Industry has a positive impact on Australia and its people. Balance: Shared, Con has to prove that CSG has a negative impact whereas Pro has to prove it has a positive impact. Format: This debate consists of four rounds. R1 is acceptance, definitions and groundwork. R2/R3 are arguments/counter arguments. No new arguments will be introduced in R4. Definitions: The meaning of the topic is fairly self explanatory, simply substitute the obvious contextual definitions. Parameters: This is not simply a debate on the economic benefits of CSG in Australia, but a comprehensive discussion encompassing a wider range of environmental and social issues. Geographically, this debate will be limited to Australia's Coal Seam Gas Industry. Coal Seam Gas Mining: Coal Seam Gas, also known in the US as Coalbed Methane is a form of natural gas extracted from coal beds. Controversy surrounds numerous procedures in the extraction, storage and transportation processes.
Statutory Rape Laws Should Be Changed

I think statutory rape laws should be changed for people who are 18 or so and now have to be registered as a sex offender for having sex with someone who's under 18. Statutory rape- The term "statutory rape" is used in some legal jurisdictions to refer to sexual activities in which one person is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior, it can also be charged with sexual behaviors with two under aged minors. First round is acceptence. Thank you (:
All I know, is that I know nothing.

He might have not known everything about the world, but he knew enough to teach and educate Aristotle, Xenophon, Plato, and many tyrants. The students of Socrates worked both on exercising their perceptions of Socrates teachings in politics and also on developing many new philosophical schools of thought. Some of Athens' controversial and anti-democratic tyrants were contemporary or posthumous students of Socrates. They were Alcibiades and Critias. Critias' cousin, Plato would go on to found the Academy in 385 BC. Aristotle went on to tutor Alexander the Great. Aristotle found his own school in 335 BC- the Lyceum, whose name now means an educational institution like the Academy found by Plato. Socrates invented the Socratic Method (method of elenchus), a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving an oppositional discussion in which the defense of one point of view is pitted against the defense of another; one participant may lead another to contradict him in some way, strengthening the inquirer's own point. The Socratic Method was used in "All I know is that I know nothing" said by Socrates. The impreciseness of "All I know that I know nothing" stems from the fact that the author is not saying that he does not know anything but means instead that one cannot know anything with absolute certainty but can feel confident about certain things. Apology written by Plato explains Socrates' side of the story: When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know. (Apology, 21d) Socrates, who claims to know nothing, is wiser than this man who claims to know something. It is not that Socrates truly doesn't know anything, but because he used the Socratic Method he led the man to contradict with himself, which strengthened Socrates own point. The statement "All I know is that I know nothing" is a technique that was used to strengthen his point to prove that he is in fact wiser, but the statement itself is a false statement. For Socrates to truly not know that he knew nothing is a false statement. Rather, because he was wise, he said he knew nothing, which makes "all I know is that I know nothing" a false statement.
All I know, is that I know nothing.

Although the claim "all I know is that I know nothing" can be true, it is more likely that the claim is false. Socrates was the educated scholar of his time. When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know. (Apology, 21d) Socrates claimed to have learned rhetoric from Aspasia of Miletus, the lover of Pericles (Plato, Menexenus); and to have learned erotic from the priestess Diotima of Mantinea (Plato, Symposium), and music from teacher Connus. It is not certain who were Socrates's teachers in philosophy, but he seems to have been acquainted with the doctrines of Parmenides, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, and the atomists. He was widely known for his intellectual powers even before he was 40, when, according to Plato's report of Socrates's speech in the Apology, the oracle at Delphi pronounced him the wisest man in Greece. Therefore, for him to truly not know that he knew nothing is a false statement. Rather, because he was wise, he said he knew nothing, which makes "all I know is that I know nothing" a false statement.
All I know, is that I know nothing.

I look forward to this debate; My first point in this argument is this: We cannot rely on our own senses to 'know' anything. Seeing and touching is not believing - you may feel it as being real, that's entirely your opinion but the fact is you cannot prove that your senses are trustworthy because they simply are not. Let's take a dream for example, you cannot tell a dream when you are having it - you assume it is real because you can still feel, you can see and hear. To an extent you could possibly taste (only some people have experienced it). So you assume that your senses are right and that you are awake, don't you? As we can see the Senses have clearly not been trustworthy because you don't realise it was a dream until you have woken up. You then may contradict me and say 'Your senses can be trustworthy, because you know when you are NOT having a dream'. Unfortunately you'd be wrong. An old Chinese sage called 'Chuang-tzu' once said: "Once I dreamed I was a butterfly. Now I am unsure whether I am a human who dreamed I was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming I am a human. " This proves that no-one can establish between and reality, so we do not know whether we are currently living in 1 big dream or not. My next point. .. "True Knowledge". Do you think that we can possibly know anything 100% ? Let's take for example. . the laws of physics. I don't actually know a lot about them but I do know that according to the laws of physics, bees should be unable to fly. Bees defy the laws of physics, meaning we cannot have true knowledge of what 'the laws of physics' are. Another example would be Einstein's theory of relativity - it states that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, yet scientists have recently discovered after 3 years of tests that there are neutrinos that have broken the speed of light. .proving physics wrong again. You see, we cannot have true knowledge we can only have BELIEF. We can only believe that there is a God, We can only believe that animals cannot make rational decisions, We can only believe that plants can't experience pain and so on. Seeing is not KNOWING it is BELIEVING. My final point for this round: It is getting late now, so I will give the rest of my points in a different round. Here I will simply ask you a question. .. Give me an example of something which you have 100% true knowledge on. (E. g. I have 100% knowledge that . .. ). I look forward to the argument you post, and I can't wait to discuss more points later.
All I know, is that I know nothing.

This debate will question whether the quote "All I know, is that I know nothing", famously said by Socrates, can be considered true. It will consist of 3 rounds (Excluding this round because, this round is simply a brief overview) and voting will be open for 1 week once the debate has ended. You will have 24 hours to respond to each argument and you will only be allowed a maximum of 6,000 characters. In the first 'round' (this one) - Just place a simple comment or something else, the debate will start in the next round . Good luck to my opponent!