BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
China is deliberately buying America

China is a large nation based on both agriculture and industry. Many people think that with their tens of millions in poverty, there's no way that they can have monopolies within the USA if their own economy is fragile and vulnerable to recession like we were. They've already started buying American companies and assets, such as banks and oil reserves. With that said, let's play a hypothetical simulation where China buys all oil reserves. With all the oil you buy, most of that money will be going to Chinese state-run companies. What happens then? You give them the ability to buy even more and more, and they may even start to buy land deposits (which they are). Chinese takeover of US companies doesn't mean they're "buying America", I know that, but if they get enough money from that to buy land deposits then they will literally be "buying America". They're actually doing the same thing in Africa and Southeast Asia. http://online.wsj.com... http://www.infowars.com... http://www.zerohedge.com...
The paradox of the stone successfully disproves the Christian God.

Full resolution: Because of the scenario introduced by the paradox of the stone, the God discussed in the Christian Bible (Yahweh) absolutely cannot exist in reality. The paradox of the stone is outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org... In the first round, my opponent will just accept this debate and establish the paradox of the stone, and explain in her own words how the omnipotence paradox disproves the Christian God. In Rounds 2-4, we will debate over the legitimacy of the paradox of the stone. theLwerd, good luck. This debate could not be sent to theLwerd right now, so it goes here until she accepts the first one.
Extracurricular activities are necessary in schools

Since my opponent is the instigator of this debate, and is the one who made a positive statement, the burden of proof is on my opponent. He/she must show why extra curricular activities are NECESSARY. Notice, the resolution my opponent chose does not say they are BENEFICIAL. It says they are necessary. He/she must be able to show why schools could not exist without extra curricular activities. My opponent has one round to do this.
morality=survival truth

You said that an action that we do to someone could make someone want to kill themselves, which by your definition would make it immoral. But someone could have the same thing happen to them and it makes them live to help others who are going through that same thing which would save the lives of others, which would make that thing a morally good thing. That would make morality change from person to person which is not an absolute morality at all. Literally the only immoral act that is always absolute in your worldview is murder. As for rape being natural, if you are saying that it is no different than our need for food, I would have to disagree. I believe that rape is absolutely immoral on any circumstance. I personally believe that the Bible is God's word and that gives us our absolute morality. I would like to challenge you to read through the Book of John and look at the claims of Jesus and ask God to reveal himself to you!
morality=survival truth

it could make some one kill themselves.. it also relates to pain, so there is a more precise definition, like necessety or necessary action, but it is rooted in survival.. and survival truth is the best description i have come to so far, if you can find the precise definition that would be my defeat rape is naturally moral, like eating food is not immoral, its necessary, we need food survival argues for being social rather then asocial, as a social species
morality=survival truth

If you are saying that morality is based exclusively on whether or not something helps us survive, you are saying that rape is not a morally bad thing because it doesn't make someone live longer or shorter. you are saying that it is not morally bad to be racist as long as you don't kill someone. You are saying that it is morally indifferent to hit someone in the leg with a baseball bat for no reason since it will not kill them.
Porn does more harm than good.

Bizarre PornThere is absolutely nothing good about child abuse, in any form, be it physical, mental or sexual abuse. But, horrible as all of it is, not all of the sexual abuse forced onto children is done making pornography. And yes, there are other forms of bizarre pornography that no good comes from. But these types of porn are only a small fraction of pornography as a whole, and the people who make, or enjoy, such pornography, were clearly disturbed beforehand. Even when viewed out of curiosity, any mentally sound person would recoil in disgust from such things. Those people who are so mentally disturbed that they do enjoy such things are the ones doing harm. The pornography they chose to make, no matter how despicable it is, cannot be blamed for their actions, or their disturbed minds. Pornography in RelationshipsPro seems to have misunderstood me. I agreed with him that relationships based on sex will generally be less meaningful. But regardless of the base of the relationship, sex is still generally important. It is the most intimate way of connecting with your partner, on both physical and emotional levels. Pornography doesn't make anybody do anything. If someone is no longer attracted to, or excited by, their significant other, then that is a problem. Many relationships cannot survive that. If couples turn to pornography together to help stimulate their sex life, it can help to fix their relationship. However, if someone shuts their partner out, and turns to pornography just to satisfy their own needs, that is a choice they freely make. The cause is a lack/loss of attraction, not pornography. Pornography is nothing more than a tool. It can be used in regards to fixing a relationship, or in pushing someone away. But the tool is not to blame for what the wielder does with it. For instance, say I'm using an axe to chop some wood. But I miss the wood, and instead put the axe head through my foot. Do I blame the axe for this? No, I blame my own carelessness. Closing StatementPornography is a tool, and both good and bad can be achieved by using it, but the tool itself cannot and should not be blamed for what its wielder does with it.
Porn does more harm than good.

I want to learn something everyday. Good luck :) Ladies and gents, my topic for this debate would be porn does more harm than good. That's right. But the question is, why is porn dangerous? People, today's society is already bombarded with sexual influence and even at a young age. Although it is natural to know about sex, some youngsters might be too exposed to these influences a bit too farfetched. I'll explain now, people, normally, teenagers would learn about sex when they start puberty as they experiment with themselves and wonder about their own body. This is perfectly normal, however, with porn being easily accessed, kids as young as 10 could already be exposed to these stuffs. Imagine your 10 year old kid already knowing all these stuffs. They are way too young to be exposed to all these adult content. The corollary of this would be exposed to bad influence. eg: Imagine this situation. They watched porn > tells to friend > other friend watches porn > talk about porn at school > spreads porn to whole class > class spreads porn to whole school. When these children talks about these kind of stuffs, they'll be exposed to BAD INFLUENCE and starts doing bad stuff as they grow up, Ladies and gentleman, understand that I'm not saying all of them. But a majority of them will start doing negative things. Eg : starts smoking,starts taking drugs,prostitution etc etc. Moving on to my 2nd point which would further elaborate. There's porn. But there's also disturbing , most darkest and easily accessible porn. eg : having sex with a dog, sex with a corpse, rape, etc etc. although this might sound ridiculous, but it is the truth nowadays ladies and gentleman. and as I said before, this will lead to negative behaviors in some individuals. They will have a mindset that men or mainly women, are sexual toys for their pleasure. The use of prostitutes now will take over, drugs, smoking, etc as I said before will influence them as they grow up. I rest my case. I hope I have put up a great argument and have convinced you that porn does more harm than good. for the comments : Its still the first round. I can't elaborate much yet :( there's no criteria set. Its free for everyone.
As an American, One should Only purchase American cars to preserve and encourage American Business

1. No, I am not. Buying within ones own country no matter what the race of those who live there supports further trade within their own country. this increases the probability of the money you spending on that car being used to support your business. Also, not everyone, or even a majority of Americans is invested in these items, putting them at great financial risk due to the purchase of these foreign vehicles. Also when we trade with a foreign country we are essentially dealing in the gold of our national treasury, reducing the stocks in there decreases the value of every unit of currency printed by the United States Government. 2. You may not care about a waning dollar, but a majority of United States citizens will. 3. Nevertheless, a great deal of money leaves our country with nothing that comes in return but a car which will eventually end up in a land fill bearing no value, ultimately bad. They will use it to support their own business within their own country using goods that more often than not will have anything to do with our country. 4. They have gone bankrupt, and yet, they are still here. I'm reffering to the engineers who actually design all of these vehicles for you and me (well maybe not you). "Once the bonds come to fruition, foreign companies or governments can either re-invest the money or use it to purchase American goods." Maybe, or they could invest it in their own or other countries leaving American business in the dust due to their lack of funds which leads to a lack of ability to modernize and eventually even compete at all. 5. Or it could hapen at a degree in between where American companies are stimulated into succuss and the foreign companies have honest competition again.
As an American, One should Only purchase American cars to preserve and encourage American Business

Thank you for taking this debate. This is something I feel strongly about and have discussed it with my peers numerous times. It's better however to do it here, in an intellectual environment with more opportunity for each side to gather facts. However I do not believe that this is a bad economic decision. In answer to our points: 1. The reason you should support American businesses is because you live here. By purchasing America goods you keep money in the United States rather than sending it to foreign companies, further devaluing the dollar. 2. As mentioned in the point above the dollar is becoming less and less valuable. Although you may have the short term gain of a less expensive car, in the long run this will cause you to have to spend more ad more money on these cars each time while if you had stayed with a domestic company this would happen at a much slower rate (because purchase of foreign cars is not the only reason for the devaluation of the dollar). 3. No matter where the car is actually made, the real money goes to the company headquarters, and the leaders of these companies. Foreign companies are based in foreign countries with foreign leaders who will most likely not use that money to buy American goods. 4. To start off with these American companies will not quit, and we will not be able to change that. Currently our country is being faced by a lack of jobs and they create a lot. Most of the people working in this field are already too far specialized in their fields to just drop it and pursue another career. So no, "The capital currently allocated toward the automotive industry could be put toward other, more efficient uses", they couldn't be. Also, we have nothing to sell to these foreign companies, most Americans are in services rather than production. When we trade with outside companies we almost always end up importing much more than we export creating a trade deficit. So in your example this would be Mises Land producing 100 tons of potatoes and 100 tons of wheat and Marx Land producing the same, but the people in Marx Land have been convinced that Mises products are better and deciding to buy those in stead of those domestically produced. 5. I am not suggesting we place a tariff on foreign goods, I am suggesting that we, as Americans, stop and consider the economic damage we are doing before we immediately go out and buy a foreign car rather than an American one.
As an American, One should Only purchase American cars to preserve and encourage American Business

I take the position of Pro/For this due to prolonged thought and an eventual conclusion that the continued purchasing of foreign cars dramatically increases the trade deficit in America today. This sends money to foreign countries decreasing the worth of American currency internationally and also disadvantages domestic car companies by limiting their income, decreasing staff, decreasing budget for research and sales promotion, and ultimately driving them out of business. This is a major factor of the bankruptcy of all domestic auto brands (besides Ford) and will continue to be a problem until they are either ultimately driven out of business for good, or begin to sell better than foreign brands. Americans should recognize this and consider it when purchasing a new vehicle rather than the government placing tariffs for that would discourage international business for these domestic companies.
Mini-Debate: God Exists

There is not first time after t=0, because there is no smallest positive number. Indeed, if s is the smallest positive number, then s/2 is positive and even smaller and we have a contradiction.You that the cause of the universe, if it exists, has to a personal God or "existence". This seems like a false dichotomy to me. Now I'll attack your first premise. The law of cause and effect is part of the universe itself, and cannot be used to show that the universe has a cause outside of the universe.
Mini-Debate: God Exists

"Time may have existed for all t>0 but not at t=0." That doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't a birth of time. There was also no time for all t<0 so the first point after t=0 marks the beginning of time. So a beginning of time existed. The cause has to be personal, for if it's choice didn't cause, then it's existance caused! So just by existing, it caused the universe, but this would make the universe's birth the same as the cause's birth, which is illogical. So the cause has to be personal.
Mini-Debate: God Exists

Your source does not have a PhD in Physics, and is not more qualified that I am. Whether there was actually a singularity is still being speculated in Physics. For example, Here is a Cambridge Physicist who disagrees:http://www.wired.com...Even if the singularity did exist. Time may have existed for all t>0 but not at t=0. So then there still would not be a beginning of time.
Mini-Debate: God Exists

I do not see any problem with infinite, unbounded time. The life expectancy of humans is finite, so we cannot reach every point in time. It would not be so hard to imagine though, that there is no upper or lower bound for time.As I argued before, the universe may not have begun to exist. But if it did begin to exist, and this existence did have a cause,then this cause may not be a creation, a deliberate design of the universe.
Mini-Debate: God Exists

I don't assume God exists. The universe cannot have lasted forever; this would imply infinite time, any point in which would be impossible to reach, since it would take infinity to get there from any position. Our travel from point to point, however, demonstrates that time is not infinite. God must be personal, for free choice is required to create the universe. Else, the cause would cause the universe by merely existing, which means the universe is as old as the cause, which makes no sense.
Mini-Debate: God Exists

God?I first take issue with your definition of God. If you define God as a being, then God is and thus he exists.To have any interesting debate, we should start by not assuming that God exists.The logical argument I agree that 3 is a logical conclusion of 1 and 2. But I diagree with 2. The universe may have existed forever.Even the big bang theory does not say that the universe had a beginning. Also, even if we accept 3, we cannot conclude that a personal God is responsible for the universe.
Mini-Debate: God Exists

Time is not considered discrete, even though if it is impossible to measure changes over time periods smaller than 1 Planck time unit. Near the singularity, quantum mechanics as well as gravity plays an important role. Quantum mechanics is inherently nondeterministic. This undercuts your first premise, that "everything has a cause".conclusionWhether time has a beginning has not been settled yet in physics. The kind of God my opponents wants to prove is a metaphysical artifact not a personal God.
Mini-Debate: God Exists

“s/2 is positive and even smaller and we have a contradiction” A unit of Planck Time is the smallest unit of Time.(1) Regarding choice, it's not a false dichotomy. I'd like to see an alternative. Cause & Effect isn't just part of the universe, it's part of logic, too. Logic also says nothing can cause itself. (1)http://astronomy.swin.edu.au...
the tar-21 is a superior weapon to the AR-15

to reply, i do claim you are not giving the rifle enough credit. the first prototypes of the IWI tavor 21 started in 1991 and became standard rifle for the IDF in 2001, and it has spread throughout a fair part of the world since then(I. E India, Brazil, Thailand, Vietnam) replacing the m-16 in a large number of cases. And as for the critique on the bull-pup design. the accuracy of the tar is just on par with the AR-15 at the various ranges, with the bolt located in the stock making the recoil can absorbed more easily and more directly into the shoulder. and i find the claim of it being non ambidextrous completely unfounded as it most definitely can be shot ambidextrously on the move as it was designed to be completely ambidextrous(i. e. charging handle, bolt/mag release) a feature the AR-15 lacks. along with this "Milking the trigger" claim as the trigger is meant to be squeezed as opposed to "pulled" as the misnomer is. the TAVOR-21 is the superior weapon and can fulfill just as many roles as the AR-15. sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org...
the tar-21 is a superior weapon to the AR-15

I will start my response by defining a couple of terms, AR-15: A weapon system designed by Eugene Stoner including all variants including the M16A1,M16A2, M16A3, M16A4 and M4A1. Superior: Of higher rank, quality, or importance. Weapon: Something (such as a gun, knife, club, or bomb) that is used for fighting or attacking someone or for defending yourself when someone is attacking you. Tar-21: IMI Tavor TAR-21 assault rifle and all its variants. The AR-15 and it's variants, the M16 and M4 have served in world class militaries for over 40 years. The AR-15 weapon system has served in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Vietnam to name a few giving the weapon system combat experience that the Tar-21 has not yet had the time to see. In order for anything to be considered of higher rank it must have experience in its field, the field of a weapon is known as war. Due to such a lack of experience in war the Tar-21 can not be considered a superior weapon. The AR-15 is the primary weapon system in more countries than the Tar-21 due to the fact the the Tar is more the half the age of the AR-15 making it by definition a far less important weapon. In addition to all of this the weapon is a bull-pup design making the bolt farther away from the trigger causing a less reactive trigger and more prone to what shooters call "milking" the trigger. Milking the trigger is when the torque required to pull the trigger causes the rifle to jerk away from the target. Another major problem with the bull-pup design in the Tar-21 is it cannot be changed from left handed shooting to right handed shooting in a quick manner that would be ideal for taking corners that alternate and in situations where a soldier must pick a weapon that may not be their own. The Tar-21 has a barrel length maximum of 18.1 inches and a minimum of 13.0 inches in special variants giving the weapon system a large variety. The AR-15 has a maximum barrel length of 24.0 inches in special variants and a minimum of 14.5 inches giving it a larger variation but on the longer side of the barrel length spectrum. These barrel length differences give the Tar-21 a heavy advantage in urban environments but only 3% of the earth is covered in urban areas according to livescience.com. While the shorter average barrel of the Tar-21 gives it an advantage in close quarter combat the AR-15's longer barrel length gives is a superior edge in accuracy and recoil control that is needed in environments such as jungles, deserts, and mountains. All of those terrains have been widely fought in in the modern era of war. The Tar-21 can not be considered a superior weapon to the AR-15 due to its lack of service time, inability to be fired ambidextrously at a combats notice, and a lack of a longer barrel variant demonstrates how you can not even compare two weapon systems that play a largely different role. Sources: https://www.princeton.edu... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.colt.com... http://www.globalsecurity.org... http://world.guns.ru... http://sadefensejournal.com...