BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fire is NOT a living thing

Why only you decide what life is? Who this "science" person? Why no Science come and say to Ug's face? Friend tell Ug cell is like tiny bug. He say we all made of tiny bug. Ug not so sure, but he show me magic telescope and say many words Ug not understand, like, Di-Ribo Nucleic Acid. But he also say there are little bugs called "virus" that make people sick, do not have "DNA", only "RNA". Some say only thing with DNA alive. Are virus alive? Power rest with he who decide what life is and is not. He decide what talk and what no talk back. Ug hear river flow. Ug hear birds sing. Ug hear wind blow. All these things alive to Ug. All things alive. Only thing that matter is if thing like us, or if thing not like us. Wolf like us. Hunt in packs. Work together. Care for young. In wolfs eyes, Ug see own reflection. When wolf whines, Ug feel sad. When wolf growls, Ug feel scared. When wolf howls, Ug howl too. Fire talks, but Ug no talk back. Fire strange, it not like us. That no mean fire not alive.
Fire is NOT a living thing

The tendency to illustrate your vague points in barbaric sentences is both amusing and absurd. If we can emancipate ourselves from typing with the fingers of a caveman that would be excellent. As I stated in the outline for this debate, we will be judging if fire is alive through a scientific outlook, this is not a metaphysical debate. The characteristics something needs to posses in order to be considered living is: that it adapts to its environment, it reproduces, it grows, it responds to its environment, it is composed of cells, has different levels of cell organization, and it uses energy (http://infohost.nmt.edu...). Fire is not alive because-although it does posses some of the characteristics of a living thing- it does posses two of the most indispensable characteristics; which are: cells and cell organization. For something to be considered alive while peering through our scientific outlook, it must contain all the characteristics of a living thing, therefore, fire does not contain all the characteristics, nor the two most essential characteristics, which proves fire is not alive.
It is better to die for what you believe in than lie to save your life.

I agree with this statement fully. Everyone is born for a reason and everyone deserves a say. "I WAS NOT BORN TO BE A SHEEP" What I mean by the quote above is the fact of I wasn't born to stay quiet and be in the back of the crowd. I deserve to have a say in things and I will fight for what I believe in. Lying is, in my opinion, the cowardly way out of things. Everything has a consequence, why lie about it to [in the end] make things worse?
High School and Middle School in the US should be reformed

As long as college goes over the stuff learned in high school, A student could coast through high school without learning anything and still be able to succeed in college(as long as they have the work ethic). If a student that squandered through high school could turn it around in college. If 95% of what you learn in high school is not going to be used if you're not going to college. Then technically high school right now is 100% useless. A good student in high school might believe that high school is needed and is college is just an extension of high school. But a crap student in high school that ended up turning it around in college might believe that high school really means jack squat.
High School and Middle School in the US should be reformed

The instigator forgot that I clearly mentioned the idea of work ethic. The idea of high school is that it's meant to be unnecessarily uncomfortable. Maybe college makes more sense but college isn't the way the world works. Often one has to do an exuberant amount of the same work for an extended period of time to furnish any kind of results. The world is imperfect in every sense of it and high-school portrays that. The basics and core concepts of a subject are often repeated in the university simply for the sake of recall and recognition. As for those who take astronomy, It's unusual for anyone to take those classes without a set ambition to do so. It's easy for the passionate and orderly to chase a goal. But for those who haven't discovered their way yet, The college provides an extended time window by reiterating the same lessons as taught in high-school so one may have a clear window of deciding if they really want the subject or not.
High School and Middle School in the US should be reformed

AP classes are often about equivalent to a college level class, And I see a lot of kids do well in it without ever taking the high school version of the class. Whatever you missed in high school would be easy to make up in college, This is especially the case because colleges often expect students to learn by themselves at first without the teacher. When students learn by themselves they often have the freedom to educate themselves on whatever they didn't learn in high school. I know college textbook would cover the things you didn't learn in high school. If they don't really do that you can always google things up on the internet. I know people who barely made it out of high school who turn it around to do well in college. I know people who failed chem or didn't take it, But ended up taking it in college and doing fine. Basically, A college class would go in more depth then a high school class. Plus alot of colleges offer astronomy, And alot of high schools don't have astronomy.
High School and Middle School in the US should be reformed

My opponent professed that the high school system of US should be reformed, But I refuse this motion by saying that he has the wrong incentives to do so. Anything springing from the wrong incentive can't be virtuous or good, Even if its effects in the short term appear as good. The point put forward is that most of what is taught in high-school is repeated in college and hence every subject except mathematics, Personal finances, And drivers ed should be optional. However, There are two loopholes visible to the sceptical eye. The first one is that the instigator finds everything repetitive in college because it has been taught in high school. The argument can easily be manipulated to say that subjects taught in high school shouldn't be taught equally well in college. College simply brushes up the knowledge acquired in high school. It provides clarity and gives an extended time frame to the students to clear up their doubts about their subjects. Not everyone grasps in one go. Secondly, The main aim of high school is to instil amongst students a good work ethic. One is loaded with work simply to be pushed beyond their boundaries. High school gives you a preview of what is to come next so that you may have an easy route trying to traverse through college.
High School and Middle School in the US should be reformed

I believe that high school and middle school should be reformed. I feel that high school and middle school as of now is useless. If you're not going to college, 96% of the things you learn in high school and middle school are not going to be used in your life. Although doing well in high school would help you get into a better college, High school is really not needed for college. This is because freshman year classes in college are going to teach you as if you know nothing at all about the subject, And later college classes may build on to what you learned Freshman year of high school. You don't really need middle school for high school either. In my opinion, The only courses you have to take in high school for graduation math, Personal finance, And drivers ed. Everything else should be optional. High school should have more electives so kids would have a better idea of what they would want to do out of high school. Electives that should be included in high school but are not include engineering, Composing, Health science OTJ programs, Etc.
Jesus intended to return within the lifetimes of his peers

As per Pro’s request, I have waited until the last hour to post my response (actually I waited too long and so I’m a bit rushed), and I have to say I’m pretty impressed you wrote a response on your iPhone. That’s some dedication! “Christians are called to walk by faith…” This entire section doesn’t actually present any proof. Just saying ‘we are called to do x or y” is not adequate proof. I operate under the assumption of Jesus’s word and the Bible, not on church doctrine, or what believers have been saying for the past two thousand years. Indeed continuing to post verses like Luke 12:35-48, which says things like, “Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.” in no way helps your case. I argue that it in fact helps my case. Jesus is telling people he knows and loves that they should be ready – the hour comes near – not the ‘century’ comes near. None of these verses are helpful to you: "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." (Matthew 24:36) "for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night." (1 Thessalonians 5:2) "But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into."( Luke 12:39) Why would Jesus mislead all these people he so loved into thinking they should be ready for his return? On a side note, at no point did Jesus mention starting a Church or a hierarchy for his teachings, unlike, say Muhammad. Even you say it, “In this first section, it is clear that Jesus is telling his disciples to watch for his return, he also says that he will come when he is not expected, but could come at any time and therefore we as believers must always be prepared.” Indeed, but why? Why not say what he really means? Why would he direct his words in such a way as to almost purposely mislead his followers? You seem to think that because Jesus said he didn’t know, he had no intentions, and that’s just false. He consistently hints at an immediate return, within the lifetime
Jesus intended to return within the lifetimes of his peers

Thanks Con, I apologize for missing a round - as Douglas Adams said, “I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by.” I’ll suspend my anti-theist attitudes as best I can, I’d invite Con to debate god more in-depth sometime, for now, on to rebuttals. 1 Thessalonians is a kind of guidebook for living a Christian life as written by Paul. As far as I can tell at no point in Chapter 4 does Paul seem to be talking about the already dead, aside from verse 13, in which he seems to me to be encouraging the living that although a few might have died, Jesus is going to return soon, in verse 17, he says, “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” That verse is very hard to interpret your way out of. It’s clear that Paul is assuring the living that they will be reunited soon – let us not forget that this is a letter to a young Church in need of guidance. It is specifically written to them. It’s not ‘official’, third-person styled narrative like say, the Book of Matthew. To argue that Paul was referring to future Christians is going to take some more impressive logic/evidence. Mark 9:1 is similarly difficult to wiggle out of. Jesus chooses careful words here, “there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.” If you want to stretch the event of the transfiguration into somehow seeing the “kingdom of God come with power”, that is a matter of purposeful interpretation. Take verses 33-34, “So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” The context is hardly a factor. The context is obvious – it’s the bookend to a series of events that never happened because Jesus was not divine and did not have the ability to see into the future. He clearly promises that the current generation will be around for the all the events, he says it; “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” He picks his words carefully here: this generation, not some generation. Even you concede that ‘it wasn’t ruled out either’. I realize that all the prophecies can be interpreted as after the return of Christ, or they might not be. That’s fine. I don’t need them to prove this point.Thanks.
Battlefield will become the #1 FPS

Actually, Battlefield 2 only sold around 2,5 million copies. You were probably referring to Battlefield 3's predecessor, Battlefield Bad Company 2, but that game sold around 12 million copies, which is only 2,5 million copies less. While you may be tempted to say that 'this means Battlefield always sold alot', it also means that the 'rise to power' is not going as fast as you thought, and that Battlefield 3 was not as big a revolution as you seem to believe it was (I'm not going to deny that it was quite revolutionary in terms of graphic, but we're talking sales here). Furthermore, as I have shown in the last round, the rise was short lived. 'it's most Likly console switching that caused it' I obviously agree with that, but what I was trying to show you is that the transition from 7th gen to 8th gen consoles hurt Battlefield's sales more than CoD's sales. This shows that the Battlefield fanbase is perhaps more 'fragile' than CoD's, making it unlikely that it will become the #1 FPS. "Eventually CoD will choke" is an empty assertion. The CoD franchise seems pretty healthy to me, and the argument that people will get tired of this game is not very convincing since there are always new gamers who never bought a single CoD game who will be more attracted by Call of Duty's arcade style than by Battlefield's realism(-ish). I feel like most people prefer fast-paced action than slow and realistic action (but that's just a feeling, not a fact). Again, you are misinformed; you say that EA takes two years to make their games and that Activision takes less (I'm assuming you're referring to the fact that a new CoD comes out each year). The thing is, Activision does not actually make the games, Treyarch and Infinity Ward do, and they don't work on the same game. That means that each CoD game is being worked on for at least two years. And I find it odd that you would say that EA takes the time to make a masterpiece, when Battlefield 4 was heavily criticized for having numerous technical issues.
Battlefield will become the #1 FPS

Some good points, I guess the websites I was on were a little off in date. What I ment "shook the FPS world" is that in 2009 most people probably never heard of Battlefield, including me. But seeing that 15 million people, 4 million more than what Battlefield 2 sold, shows that some people are recognizing and seeing this as a promising game. I am a bit disappointed to see how poorly Battlefield 4 sold, but like you said for both games it's most Likly console switching that caused it. But it should also say that, like Call of Duty, Battlefield will have its ups and downs. Eventually CoD will choke, I heard Black Ops 3 is gonna come out. If you misinterpret what this ment I mean that all of CoD fans want more so fast that Activison can't take the nesesary time to craft and make Call of Duty a masterpiece. Which is what EA does. They take at least two years to make a game and they succeed ALMOST everytime.
Battlefield will become the #1 FPS

Actually the first Call of Duty came out in 2003 (October 29), but that doesn't really matter.I'm glad to hear that you were a CoD WaW fan. Personally I wasn't really blown away by this iteration (although zombie was quite sweet), I much preferred CoD4 and CoD6 (though I don't consider myself a 'fan'), but again that is besides the point.You claim that Battlefield 3 'shook the FPS world', yet Battlefield 3 sold 15 million copies and CoD MW3 (which came out 2 weeks after Battlefield 3) sold more than 25 million copies. Don't you find it odd that the FPS you claim shook the FPS world came out the year where Activision sold the most copies of Call of Duty (MW3 sold more than any other CoD game)? You bring an interesting point when you say that the Battlefield series is gaining rapid popularity, so let's see if that is actually the case: - Call of Duty Ghosts sold 14,5 million copies. A significant drop from its predecessor, mostly due to console transition.- Battlefield 4 reportedly sold 69% less copies than it's predecessors (so around 4,6 million copies). Console transition is obviously a factor in this case as well.Now let's compare the two events:- Battlefield 3 sold 40% less copies than CoD MW3.- Battlefield 4 sold approximately 68% less copies than CoD Ghosts.It would therefore seem that Battlefield is NOT going to become the #1 FPS.On a side note, I personnaly believe that Destiny is going to become the #1 FPS, but that's just a hunch.References:CoD sales: http://www.statisticbrain.com...Battlefield 3 sales: http://en.wikipedia.org...Battlefield 4 sales: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Battlefield will become the #1 FPS

Thanks for excepting. I Battlefield came out first in 2003 while Call of Duty came out in 2004, but Call of Duty rose pretty quickly to power as the top FPS in a period of ten years. Now I've played COD WaW as a loyal fan and at one point said "This game is the best, no one will ever beat it!" Battlefield on the other hand took a little longer to rise to popularity, but when Battlefield 3 came out in 2011 it shook the FPS world with its Frostbite and Dice which made the engine for the graphics and movement look top notch. When I got tired of CoD (in none sales related matters such as quick scoping) I just played other games that I liked. A friend then told me" Play Battlefield 3, it's intense." It just so happen I had it, but I hadn't played multiplayer yet. So I got an EA origins account and got everything set up and started playing. I was blown away, I could just tanks and fly helis across the huge maps. Building crumbling and explosions trying to get me out of a foxhole I was prone in. There was nothing else like it, well maybe Arma, but that's a different story. This game I barely knew existed was rising to power quicker then most might've thought it would. It rose right up to second place right next to Call of Duty Black Ops and WM3. Know with Battlefield 4 and Ghost here they seem to be neck and neck. Only the next Battlefield and COD will determine the victor. What do you think?
Animal rights are meaningless from a secular viewpoint

I thank Con for a quick response, and I also sincerely apologize for the poor formatting in my first speech. (It happened as an accident as I was editing a typo in the text.) I wish both of us the best of luck.Con's question is valid, and I forgot to mention it in my opening round: yes, I will make my speech and Con will make his rebuttal, and the debate will continue as such.Opening Argument:The widely accepted and even more widely known Darwinian Theory of Evolution states that all species evolved through chance and random mutation through the process of natural selection. Natural selection is the process in which organisms with more beneficial genes outlast those that do not, thus increasing the amount of beneficiary genes in the gene pool.What is important to note is that the process of natural selection is void of what we know as morality. When a wolf is eating a deer for nourishment, it does not consider the deer's rights as a living, functioning individual - the wolf focuses on its own need for survival. When two lions fight for territory and ownership of a pride, and one is defeated and killed by the other, it does not complain about its inherent rights being violated, for that is how the natural world functions.While it may be beneficial for those of the same species to treat each other well, and thus improve the chance of collectively surviving, and there may even be instances where two species behave with mutual respect in a symbiotic relationship, there is no need to treat all species in this matter.Summary:-Throughout natural selection, the process through which species evolve, morality is absent.-We, humans, are a product of natural selection, as are all other animals. -Therefore, is is unnecessary to treat animals with rights.This is my defending argument for my statement in round 1: that animal rights are arbitrary, and it is not morally wrong to harm animals.I look forward to my opponent's response!---Side note: I forgot to mention in round 1 that the term "animals" should be used to describe specifically non-human animals. This clarification was made in order to avoid an argument on semantics. If Con prefers, he can request that we use the term "animals" to refer to both humans and non-human animals, but Pro does not believe this is necessary.
Animal rights are meaningless from a secular viewpoint

In this debate, we will be arguing from a purely secular viewpoint; Con cannot use a religious argument such as "Religion X states that animals should not be killed". Likewise, Pro cannot use the argument "Religion Y permits the killing of animals". I, Pro, will argue that the concept of animals being entitled to rights is arbitrary through the lens of a secular worldview - it is not morally wrong to violate any of the 'rights' you would assign to an animal, and that instead, behavior towards other species should be based on survival of the fittest and the stronger oppressing the weak. Con will argue that there is moralreason to avoid the oppression, harming, or killing of animals, outside of spiritual or religious views, and that we are obliged to treat them with certain rights. First round is acceptance and introductions only. Burden of proof, should there be any, will be shared. Definitions:secular - adj:denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis. right - n: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. (For this debate, we will be arguing primarily on animal rights, and we will be referring to moral, rather than legal, entitlement. )I look forward to a lively debate!