BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Biohistory, or digging up the body of dead people for science

Hello, this is a paper I did for science on biohistory. If you don't know what biohistory is, it is a new form a science. Scientist are (want to) dig(ing) up the bodies of famous people to check for dieses DNA etc. I think this is wrong and is against "rest in peace." I believe that biohistory, or the digging up of dead people, should not be allowed without consent. It is a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Biohistory is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I think that this practice is will go under "unreasonable searches," because what are we gaining from it? There will not be a dramatic effect on what we find, if we find anything. Also, how do we know that the particular person we are examining wants this done to them? This search is unreasonable, because what are we gaining by this? For the Fifth Amendment it is about the rights to property. It is, "No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal ase to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The key part is the last sentence, about property. They are taking the body, and examining it in a public company, where anyone could work there. Also, they would make the information they found available to the public. Now, with the consent. You will be able to examine on the person's body, if 2/3 of their direct decedents say it's okay. If there is no relatives of direct descend, then the body shall not be examined. We don't know if this is what the person wanted. This should be something that people should be asked if they want, like a donor. There is one exception though, if it evolves a crime. When there's a case if the prosecution or defense has sure evidence that the forensics will have a play in it, than no consent is needed. This is very important, because if the body holds information that one side wants, but the body belongs to the other side, they will not allow it to be examined on.
Kirito is stronger than Yuuki in ALO (in the anime)

I'm pro Kirito being stronger, you are to argue that Yuuki is stronger. Kirito's last battle against Yuuki indicates he's stronger, with just one sword, without Excalibur. Yuuki's Original Sword Skill (OSS) Mother Rosario takes off around 60-90% damage when it hits full on, as it did with Asuna. In the fight with Asuna, Yuuki's OSS must of taken away most of Asuna's health bar as Asuna only was hit three times before that and those were all glancing blows, that only did around 10-40% damage. Kirito was winning the fight, before he gave Yuuki an opening to use her OSS by using his OSS, a little after Yuuki used Mother Rosario the time ended. Yuuki had a good deal less than 50% health just before the time ended, while Kirito must of had more than 60% health, before Mother Rosario hit. Had Kirito so chose to not let her win, he could have decided not to use a OSS, thus leaving himself with an opening. There's also the last strike Kirito used, which would of likely hit due to post-motion delay of Yuuki's 11 hit OSS, if the time didn't run out. Not to mention Yuuki was very surprised at Kirito's attack. Then there is Kirito's duel wielding, while incapable of using starburst stream and stronger dual wielding sword skills, he can use single sword skills. More importantly he can use his normal skill with two blades to potentially overwhelm Yuuki. Duel wielding gives Kirito another weapon to block with and another to attack with. It's entirely possible to block with one, while attacking with the other or attack with both leaving little room for offense.
Kirito is stronger than Yuuki in ALO (in the anime)

I don't see why you care so much about not backing down from a dare. One of these days your going to be dared to do something really stupid, like eating poop and then your going to have to do it because you don't back down from dares. My advice is not to care so much about dares. Instead of replying right away you should of done some research by watching on youtube Yuuki's fights, there only a couple minutes long. As for stuff to argue for Yuuki with there's enough to make an argument.
Kirito is stronger than Yuuki in ALO (in the anime)

OF course Kirito is stronger than just about anyone. He's the main character in an anime and the struggle and they either posses 'hidden power' or are just super strong. staying true to melodramatic anime cliche, he even overpowered a grown man irl. making the main characters OP and melodramatic is a staple of anime. so yes you are correct in you're statement "kirito is stronger than yuuki"
English essay contest.

What a wonderful thing failure is. Buried deep within failure, hidden by grave misapprehensions, childish fears, and stupid clichés, there lies the possibility of a great harvest of future wisdom, of untapped progress, and of euphoric ambition. Thankfully, few have the necessary courage, to reap such benefits, thus, thankfully few succeed. Courage is necessary to be intellectually honest, in examining ones failure so that progress may happen. Failure is the revelation that there is room for improvement, and Scapegoats are useless in the quest for success. Courage is necessary to face failure, rather than shielding oneself with meaningless, stupid clichés pushing failure into some obscure corner of the mind. Failure is an option, and one you may find yourself in again if you do not let it in, so that you can make room for the next.Courage is necessary to ask oneself the dangerous questions brought on by failure. Failure asks, why don’t you just quit? Aren’t you good enough already? How badly do you want to succeed? Thankfully, failure is the greatest teacher of courage. Once failure drags you down to rock bottom you know which way is up. Once failure strikes you so does the revelation that failure is inevitable, inescapable, and imminent. Once suffered failures sweet blow, the realization that there is nothing to fear, becomes strikingly self-evident. What a wonderful thing this is. Thankfully, for most if these revelations even occur, it is in their later years, far too late in life to be seized, not having failed earlier in life and more frequently, was their failure. They, ignorant, and full of idiotic bliss, claim to be content with what they have. Well, considering the risk of striving for something perhaps out of reach have was never taken in fear of failure. Of course they are content with what they have. Because they never dared to ask for anything more. Because they live in a cowardly world of mediocre content, where failure is unsurprisingly nonexistent. Because to the ones that fail the least, progress is slow and scarce, since no risks are allowed, and happiness is a fabricated veil, hiding quiet desperation. They, are the real failure. The ones who never fail. So live. Fear nothing.
English essay contest.

I'll happily accept this. Also, good luck on your ELA assignment! The question I pose for the pro side is this: Is it worse to fail at something (con) or never attempt it in the first place (pro)? I believe that it is better to fail at something. Why, you may ask? Because at least you tried doing that thing, and you will not get eaten up by the anxiety of thinking about what could have happened if you didn't do that thing. To expand, I would like to point at crushes. I had a crush, and a very serious one, on a girl a grade above me from when I was in 9th Grade to 10th Grade. Many days, I worried myself sick over what could happen if I told her I liked her, and eventually, as that year went by and I matured, loved her. Then, one day, I did. Surprisingly enough, she reciprocated, and she had held the same feelings for me for over a year. Sadly, our relationship faltered because she began developing feelings for another while we were not together, thinking we would never be. To this day, I still love her (it's been a year) and I still wonder what could have happened if I had confessed earlier. Even so, I do not regret being with her at all. I imagine I would still be wracked with anxiety over what could have happened if I had done nothing on that late April day in 2014. I'm glad I did it and got to see the end result rather than ponder endlessly if I had done nothing.
Affirmative Action

I will Prove that Affirmative Action is more harmful than helpful. Affirmative Action is in itself causing more division between races instead of bringing them together. Originally Affirmative Action was created to help minorities level the playing field with white Americans. For instance lets imagine that i am a white man. Which is true. Lets imagine I apply to CAL Tech. Now to get in to CAL Tech you have to get A's from the 3rd grade. Lets say that i had done this also i had gotten perfect scores on my ACT's And SAT's. Now if CAL tech has not yet met its quota of minorities and there is a African American got all A's but non perfect scores on the SAT's he would be accepted because they need the numbers even though that i would be more Qualified.
The teaching of creationism in public schools in the US is justifiable

I affirm the resolution that teaching creationism in schools is justifiable. I do NOT support indoctrination of beliefs, however. If con tries to accuse me, please keep it in mind when voting on conduct. Worth noting, I'm a fairly strong atheist. Thesis: Since public schools already teach the Big Bang and evolution, it is only fair to present the idea of creationism as well. C1. Creationism is a theory like any other theory and there is no reason to avoid teaching it. Nothing can be completely proven outside of the premise, "I think, therefore I am." Anything that goes beyond that must be accepted and it is up to the individual to decide what is acceptable past that. C2. When staying clear of indoctrination, biased interpretations, falsities, extreme irrelevance and extremely inappropriate subject matter, it is justifiable to teach just about any theory. There is no real harm in teaching anything unless the instructor is asking their students to accept it as fact or teaching it as fact. Teachers should cover microevolution and macroevolution, the Big Bang, creationism, etc. That is all I will say for now. I believe the burden of proof mostly lies with con, showing us why it is not justifiable to teach creationism when considering most Americans believe in it [1]. I do not mean to commit an ad populum but being that it is a common belief already, there should be no reason why it isn't justifiable to teach it in schools. Sources 1. http://www.gallup.com...
The teaching of creationism in public schools in the US is justifiable

I will allow my opponent to start, but first I want to go over a few definitions. Creationism [1]- A doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis. Public school [1]- A free tax-supported school controlled by a local governmental authority. My opponent may begin the debate! [1]m-w.com
NSA spying

i should have been more clear in that statement. i meant that the constitution is not wrong on anything right now. no sane person actually believes that the constitution has never had one flaw. nothing is perfect. look it up we did send guns to the drug cartels. not sure if your denying it but whatever. i would like to again say that this country was founded on freedom and the NSA spying violates the 4th amendment. the NSA does store our calls and emails in a database. the NSA is turning this country into a surveillance state. i got this from infowars.com According to the Guardian: "The NSA has previously claimed that 54 terrorist plots had been disrupted "over the lifetime" of the bulk phone records collection and the separate program collecting the internet habits and communications of people believed to be non-Americans. On Wednesday, Inglis said that at most one plot might have been disrupted by the bulk phone records collection alone."
NSA spying

"we sent guns to the drug cartels in the fast and furious program." This is a serious debate not a troll debate, so this point is dropped. So first the constitution has been wrong before. That's why we have amendments, which are changes to the constitution! So by saying that you believe the constitution has never been wrong you are saying that slavery should be legal, and the African-Americans are only 3/5 of a person. That is what the constitution says, and if you believe that the constitution has never been wrong, then you are saying that these two racist things are not wrong. And the constitution has been wrong before, that is what amendments are for! So how do we know that the constitution is not wrong about this, and how it infringes upon our freedom? My opponent admits that the NSA IS STOPPING TERRORISM! So if it is benefitting America, because it is stopping terrorism then how do we know that the constitution is not wrong and we need to change it. I also ask my opponent to show where in the constitution, or in any American law where it says that the NSA can't do this, or it infringes upon our freedom, because it doesn't! It does not hack into our facebooks, and emails, and private messages, it uses meta data, and data mining in which they look for key words that could possibly be said by terrorists organizing a plot. Not just the average everyday person, so it is not infringing upon our rights, and freedom. My opponent also fails to refute my 3rd contention on the prevention of child porn, and my 4th contention of weapon trafficking so those points are extended.
NSA spying

we sent guns to the drug cartels in the fast and furious program. no the constitution has not been wrong on anything in my eyes. while im not going to argue that the NSA does not stop terrorist attacks i believe it infringes on the freedom of the american people. this country was founded on freedom and this government is tracking all your calls, texts, and emails. thomas jefferson once said "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
NSA spying

i am arguing that the NSA should not be spying on anybody and you are arguing that spying on us citizens and the allies of the us is a good thing. hope that clarifies it a little bit. i dont think the NSA should be storing our phone calls, emails, texts, and everything else we do on the internet because it infringes on our freedom. the founding fathers never would have wanted this. benjamin franklin once said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." i agree with him completely. the government tells us that if your not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about but i dont trust this government. this is the same government that sent guns to the mexican drug cartels so why would they store all this information in a massive data base if they have no intention of using it? thomas jefferson wrote in the declaration of independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." but today its more like life, security, and the pursuit of happiness. when obama was running for president he was against the patriot act but now he expands the patriot act. with the NSA we spy on our allies. we have been doing it since the bush years. we stored the german chancellor angela markals or whatever here name and position is phone calls and emails and everything she does on the internet as well. is that really good for our relationship with germany? shes not the only one we spy on either so its not really good for any of our foreign relations.
The Probability of the Existence of God

An existential claim cannot be logically negated in matters of proof. However, I intend to argue for the nonexistence of God via probability. Whether my opponent intends to appeal to probability or to proof is of no consequence to my willingness to debate. The first round shall be acceptance. The 2nd round is to consist of our arguments as they stand alone (i.e. without reference to each other's arguments). In rounds 3 and 4, we can engage in a hack-and-slash free-for-all involving rebuttals and other supporting arguments. Round 5 will be dedicated to final rebuttals and conclusive statements. It is also demanded that we treat each other with RESPECT. The point of debate, in my mind, is to sharpen ones own intellectual edge by testing oneself. We are in this to learn from each other; not to convince the rest of the world how to think. May the best debater win.
The Probability of the Existence of God

My opponent is either a troll, or a horrible debater. But don't take my word for it: here's the proof! S = RationalMadman's arguments are meant to be taken seriously. T = RationalMadman is a troll. H = RationalMadman is a horrible debater. 1. ~S -> T Premise 2. S -> H Premise 3. S v ~S Law of the Excluded Middle 4. T v H Conclusion, 1,2,3 Complex Dilemma Time to step up or fess up. What's it going to be?
The Probability of the Existence of God

A good start. But let's start getting grrrrrrrittty!Rebuttals:Pro's Question 1:Pro seems to make the assertion that the odds that the universe was created by, "some GOD of some KIND" are roughly in the 99% region. Within this portion of Pro's argument, I see no basis for this claim, though it may be that the basis was intended to come later.Pro's Question 2:This is a fair attempt at a definition for God, but thus far has not supported the probability of the existence of God.Pro's Question 3:Pro claims that question 4 is, "sexier." But Pro confuses the term, "sexy," with, "kinky," on account of the fact that most people are not aroused by interspecies erotica, but all can agree that it is indeed, "kinky."Pro's Question 4:As kinky as this was, I didn't exactly get a coherent message from the whole thing...Now on to Pro's contentions:Pro's Contention #1:I didn't quite get the part regarding, "atheist logic." For one, not all atheists believe that the universe has an infinite history. But even if we were to take that standpoint, I still fail to see the argument regarding the possibility of God. Could you elaborate?Pro's Contention #2:To come into existence is not necessarily to be, "created." The term, "created," is often times abused in order to twist an argument in the favor of intelligent guidance, and Pro's argument is no exception to this. For example, when a hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms come in contact with one another by natural causes, it is not instinctive for us to say that H2O was, "created." Rather, H2O was produced in a causal fashion. With that said, the same principle can -and does- apply to much of the rest of the universe: by simple matters of cause and effect, we get an end-all product, but to say that something was, "created," or produced by an entity that is capable of being, "creative," is tantamount to false equivocation.Pro's Contention #3: The idea that a creation necessarily has a creator. Pro had no need to explain, and in light of my response to Contention #2, I don't feel that I have any need to explain either.Pro's Contention #4:NOW we get down to the crux of the biscuit. Pro claims that the "creator," (which, as I mentioned earlier, is falsely confused with the concept of a mere cause) is a consciousness. The only instances in which we have observed consciousness are in beings with a complex cognitive apparatus, which are incredibly rare and hard to come by in the vast universe. No, "imagination," of existence was necessary because no, "mind," was necessary to produce the universe: any notion that suggests otherwise is a plaything of man's vanity.B-B-B-B-B-B-B-BRRRRRRRRUMMEL & BROWN, BABY!On to Pro.
The Bible was not divinely inspired. It was inspired and written by men.

Proof that the Bible was inspired and written by men can be found in the Bible itself. The content of the O.T clearly demonstrates that the people of the time (especially men) had more to gain from the laws, customs and rituals described in the O.T than an omnipotent god. The O.T was written in time and place where the people were of low moral standard. The laws, customs and rituals described in the O.T were morally fit for the primitive people of that time. Now, if those moral standards were indeed "inspired" by an omnipotent, timeless and changeless god, wouldn't these same standards still be applicable in this day and age? As humans evolved in a society our morals improved.In these modern times:Is it lawful to kill our neighbor if we see him working on the Sabbath?-*Exodus 31:15 Is it lawful to own slaves?-*Exodus 21:2-6 NLTWhen a woman is raped does our legal system encourage the woman to marry her rapist?-*Deuteronomy 22:28-29~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Further indications that the Bible was written/inspired specifically by men.From the first book of the Bible-- Genesis, women are blamed for the fall of man:"And to the woman [God] said, ‘I will make most severe your pains in childbearing; in pain shall you bear children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."-*Genesis 3:16The curse of Eve and on all women to suffer in childbirth and be subservient to men has been interpreted in various ways, and at times has been used to justify sexism, including discrimination against and abuse of women.Women not allowed to speak in church:'women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.'-*1 Corinthians 14:34Is it logical to believe that an infinitely powerful god (creator of the universe and billions of galaxies) would be concerned with women speaking in churches?No.