BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Preschool Is A Waste Of Time

I believe the intention of preschool is misunderstood and that the right school can be an excellent resource for a mother. A child needs to have a place to meet other children, learn to share both attention and their toys and have a place where they can be introduced to the idea of school and what it will be like including getting used to a schedule and being in an environment where an adult other than the parent is in charge. A positive experience at preschool can really help make a comfortable transition for a child by lessening the fears of the unknown.
Preschool Is A Waste Of Time

Parents should not send their children to preschool for several reasons. First and foremost, the year is better spent with a full-time parent. In addition, most children will learn very little at preschool. Contrary to claims made by preschool advocates, children are not better equipped because of preschool. They may develop social skills and hand painting skills sooner, however children that miss preschool will quickly catch up before they finish the first grade.
Preschool Is A Waste Of Time

Phil, I do agree with your closing argument. First and foremost being a parent is a serious decision that is often taken to lightly. It is your job, your entertainment and your life from the day that the little one is conceived. A cherished gift that should never be pawned off on anyone. Second, I agree that the government should not be paying for preschool. I also believe that most preschools are set up primarily as a day care and that parents often use them as means to get a break from their children. This is NOT what preschool should be. I do know first hand that preschool can be a positive experience for a child. I had the privilege of going to a christian preschool where we were read Bible stories, went on nature walks and sang songs like Jesus loves me. The fact that I still have fond memories to this day about the time spent there says a lot, but I do agree that it may not be for every child. It is a decision that should not be assumed but one that should be discussed and decided with the individual child in mind.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Jesus

1) My opponent provides no source for the "fact" that there was pasta at the last supper. I don't see any pasta in Da Vinci's painting... do you? He also maintains that the Church has hidden this pasta... Where is your source for this? The premiere sources we have for the last supper are the Bible and the painting. Neither mention pasta. 2) My opponent states, "[Jesus] would not be able to consume as much alcohol as he desired." Exactly. Any son of the FSM would be able to do so. 3) Jesus would be able to give himself an erection without lustful thoughts? That sounds bizarre... I highly doubt that whatever thoughts he would use to do so would be pure... 4) And as stated numerous times, there is absolutely no evidence that he did so. You are putting forth the claim that he did - the burden is on you to provide some sort of proof. 5/6) There is no such thing as "marriage" in the Gospel of the FSM; thus, no child can be born out of wedlock and all children are legitimate. 7) Again, How the writers of the Bible would have "forgotten" to include the noodly attributes of Jesus' appendage when they remember exactly what he said when he put mud in a blind man's eye is beyond me. Such an important part of the character of the son of the FSM as his NOODLY APPENDAGE would have NEVER been left out of the bible. NEGATED. Ramen.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Jesus

1) I will indeed be insolent enough to claim that the brush of Da Vinci was not directed by God. The Bible was written by men and not taken very well care of during the ages to the fact that there was pasta at the Last Supper was lost through the ages or his kept secret by the Catholic Church. 2) But the disciple did not keep it together as they stared in awe and wonder and asked them selves "who is this man?" As Jesus had a human mother he is still half human with divine attributes. So he would not be able to consume as much alcohol as he desired. 3) However Jesus would be able to do it with out being lustful as he was the Son of God. Being the Son of God he can do almost whatever the heck he wants to. 4) As I stated in my first point Jesus most like served pasta yet evidence of this was lost to the ages. 5/6) No the child would not be legitimate as any child born out of wedlock is a bastard and thus by definition an illegitimate child. 7) The writers of the Bible may have included it but like the Dead Sea Scrolls these may have been lost to time. RAmen
The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Jesus

1) Contrary to what my opponent would have you believe, we know exactly what was eaten at the last supper. Simply look at Da Vinci's painting (http://upload.wikimedia.org...(1452-1519)_-_The_Last_Supper_(1495-1498).jpg) The table is laden with bread, wine, what appear to be potatoes, and some kind of vegetable. NO PASTA. Unless my opponent wishes to defame Da Vinci and claim that his brush was not directed by God, we must accept the picture of the last supper as being our best representation of what was served. Furthermore, breadsticks and wine are a terrible combination. Bread must be combined with oil to serve with wine. And if Jesus was the son of the FSM, the Bible surely would have mentioned pasta being served at the last supper, because pasta is the holiest of all foods. 2) If Peter could climb out of the boat and walk to Jesus, the situation must not have been THAT grim. Thus, it stands to reason that they would have been able to keep a level head seeing Jesus fly, especially if they kept it together seeing Peter walking on water AND drowning. >> "Being the son of God then he would be able to consume enough alcohol to kill two men before feeling the effects of intoxication." It is of no importance - any true son of the FSM would be able to consume as much as he wanted. Drunkenness is not an attribute of God. 3) Well now we have some quibbling about the noodlyness of Jesus' appendage. Even if it was his "divinity" that kept his appendage noodly, he still would not have been able to harden it, for according to God, such lustful thoughts are sins, and Jesus was sinless. 4) I have refuted the silly notion that there was pasta served at the last supper. Furthermore, as I have already stated, for Jesus to go against God's will would be a sin, and Jesus was sinless. And no son of the FSM would EVER refuse to serve pasta. 5/6) Marriage is an institution created by God. The FSM has no need for marriage. Thus, his child born out of wedlock would be legitimate, as there is no proscription against such action in the most Holy Book of the FSM. 7) How the writers of the Bible would have "forgotten" to include the noodly attributes of Jesus' appendage when they remember exactly what he said when he put mud in a blind man's eye is beyond me. Such an important part of the character of the son of the FSM as his NOODLY APPENDAGE would have NEVER been left out of the bible. NEGATED. Ramen.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Jesus

1) While the Bible does not state specifically that Jesus drank wine we should assume he did as everyone else was and it insinuates that he drank wine. Also we it is possible that Jesus served pasta and Italian wine with bread sticks at the Last Supper, because while the Bible does not state what they had we know that they had which they broke together and wine. Everyone knows that breadsticks go best with wine as opposed to regular bread and pasta would compliment the two of these splendidly. 2) My opponent says that if Jesus could have flown he would have rather than walking on water however his apostles were freaking out enough to when he walked on water so if they saw him flying some may have fainted during a dangerous while other would have abandoned ship in fear. This would have been disastrous for Jesus' cause and chaos would have ensued afterwords. Of course I believe I said that it would take more alcohol to cause Jesus to be intoxicated than a normal human could handle. Being the son of God then he would be able to consume enough alcohol to kill two men before feeling the effects of intoxication. 3) I didn't mean his holiness but rather his divinity would allow him to keep his a 'appendage' as noodly or not if he so chose. 4) One must remember that sons often rebel against their fathers during different stages of their life. Jesus may have refused to serve pasta early on but as stated in my previous points he served it at the Last Supper. 5/6) By illegitimate son I mean son spawned outside the bonds of marriage. As the FSM is his Holy Noodlyness he could do this and his son would not be illegitimate. However for arguments that is what we will refer it as. 7) Jesus may have revealed his Noodlyness openly but one should remember the Bible was written by men. The writers may have forgotten to include this or it may have been lost over the ages. May the Sauce be with you. RAmen.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Jesus

1) My opponent provides an excellent theory for why the wine tasted so good - of course Italian wine would have tasted extraordinary to these plebeian Jews. However, in the Middle East, they do not eat pasta, and no true son of the FSM would dare profane the holy combination of Italian wine and pasta. While the Bible does say many times that Jesus was in a place where they were drinking wine, it makes no mention of Jesus himself drinking, and any true son of the FSM would imbibe as much and as often as possible. Furthermore, the fact that the Jews had never been exposed to pasta indicates that Jesus was not the son of the FSM, as any true son of the FSM would have conjured pasta for his followers so that they may eat of His Body and Drink of his Wine. 2) Jesus was not flying as he ascended into heaven - after he died, he had no more use for his body, and what we saw was merely his spirit. And since spirits are of course lighter than air, he rose by natural processes. Furthermore, if Jesus really could fly, he would never have walked on water, as it would have been much faster and far more impressive to fly out to the boat. My opponent concedes the point that Jesus would have had a human body and be bound by the the effects of alcohol upon it. I contend that since the FSM was such a Most Holy Drunkard, his sperm would have been used to a high BAC and produced a son capable of drinking far more than a mere man. 3) My opponent holds that Jesus' holiness would have been enough to maintain a noodly characteristic in his appendage. However this holiness would prevent him from hardening his appendage if the need "arose." Any true son of the FSM would be capable of hardening his appendage at will... and thus, we can truly say that only one of these two characters could have risen. 4) The fact that Jesus was unwilling to serve pasta simply speaks to the fact that he was NOT the son of the FSM. 5/6) My opponent holds that the FSM would father an illegitimate son. This is blasphemy of the highest regard, as the Most Holy Alfredo Sauce of His Noodlyness would never create anything illegitimate. 7) Any true son of the FSM would never reveal his Noodlyness in anything so ambiguous as a parable... to do so would be a less-than-honest representation of a fundamental characteristic of His Divinity. NEGATED. Ramen.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Jesus

To all the Pastafarians out there, May you be touched by his noodly appendage. RAmen. Not onto debate. 1) In his speech my opponent stated that because Jesus was a middle eastern he would be only familiar with middle eastern wine and that the wine he created at the banquet would have to be middle eastern wine. However as the Son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster he would be able to create wine from any area of the world. This includes Italy. As to his claims that the wine created at the banquet would have to be middle eastern, this is of course false as they would expect the wine to be far superior as it been the result of a miracle. So he could have created Italian wine and no one would have suspected as the wine was supposed to be superior as Italian wine is. Also it states that in the Bible that the people at the banquet said that the wine made by Jesus was the best ever. So it clearly must have been Italian. As to his argument that Jesus can't be the Son of the FSM as he did not serve wine often this is foolish as many times in the Bible it states that when Jesus was eating with different people there was wine. As to the lack of wine and pasta parable the reason for this was because they Jews had yet to be exposed to the wonderfulness of pasta. 2) Jesus did in fact display the ability to fly when he ascended into heaven after rising from the dead. Jesus was actually not man. He was the Son of God in man form. This would have allowed to him to drink heavily with almost no detriment. However as it was still a human body I supposed that after a while he would in fact become to intoxicated to use his powers effectively. This is merely because he was in a human body. 3) Jesus may have well been able to maintain "noodly" character in his "appendage" whilst among strippers and prostitutes as he was the son of God. Also he was the Son of God in a human body so he may have used his holiness to maintain a "noodly" figure in his "appendage". Now I will address his additional arguments. 4) Jesus may have been unwilling to serve pasta at this time as it had yet to be introduced to the Jews. Also he may not been able to speed up Pasta cook time as his mother was a human. 5 & 6) Jesus may not have been mentioned as he is the 'illegitimate' son of the FSM. One must take into account the fact that the FSM is a heavy drinker. He created the universe while drunk. So during a later time he may have spawned a son when equally drunk. 7) As Jesus often spoke in parable he may have in one revealed his noodly appendage to the people who in their ignorance missed it. So thats that. My the sauce be with you. RAmen
The No Difference Theory is Correct

Thank you, 16kadams, for agreeing to debate this topic with me. In this debate, we are going to discuss the no difference theory; namely, the theory that there is no difference between children raised by same-sex couples as opposed to traditional parenting. ClarificationsThe scope of this debate is only whether or not their is noteably difference between LGTB parenting and traidtional parenting. I have the entire burden of proof in this debate. DefinitionsNo semantics. These are the definitions used for this debate.No difference theory: The no difference theory states ON BALANCE children of gay parents—married or not—have little differences then those raised by married heterosexual couples. "The widely circulated claim that parents engaged in same-sex relationships do just as well as other parents at raising children—a claim widely known today as the "no differences" thesis." (Samuel, 2012) On balance: On average or usuallySo CON argues homosexuals are usually not parents that leave no difference, and they actually have many differences to those raised by heterosexual couples. Pro argues homosexuals raise children that have "no difference" to those raised by heterosexuals.____________________________Reference1. Ana Samuel, The Kids Aren’t All Right: New Family Structures and the “No Differences” Claim. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...;
Hydroxyl Acid Should Be Banned

But you see, it is very dangerous. If we didn't have DHMO (also known as dihydrogen monoxide or hydroxyl acid) floating about, air-breathing humans wouldn't drown! Neither would we get frozen when DHMO drops way below 0"C! Not to mention it can burn your skin off when heated to high temperatures! It's a hidden and very subtle toxin that can kill... In addition liquid DHMO is a near-perfect solution that can be used as a solvent for a range of other dangerous chemicals and substances enhancing their effects. This is especially true for purified or distilled liquid DHMO, which when ingested can raise body acidity and leads to a greater risk of getting a range of degenerative diseases.[1] It's a dangerous, dangerous chemical. Therefore it should be banned. [1]https://docs.google.com...
I will not contradict myself

Revised question #2: Are the statements made in round 1 true? (If necessary, you may exclude 'I completely stole this from Nails,' to save face) As several of the statements in my round 1 are imperatives that either CON or PRO loses or wins, and the winner and loser of this debate are ultimately determined by the voters, I cannot confirm nor deny this until the voting period is over. Revised question #4: Can you deem a statement 'true' at one point in this debate, then 'false' at a later point in the debate? I have the ability to do so, but it would negate the resolution and would lead to the victory of CON as defined by rule 4, but not necessarily a victory for CON as the voters ultimately decide the victor of this debate. (Note: I hope that you did not waste all of your round 2 questions to clarify your questions, and if you did, you can post 10 questions in the comments that I will answer in my next round or you can post 10 extra questions in the next round. If you decide to post 10 extra questions in the next round it brings your total up to 22 questions if I am not mistaken.)
I will not contradict myself

(Note: I realize I cannot directly use any round 1 quotes against Pro. This is why I asked question #2. If Pro answers yes/no and I somehow prove otherwise, it would contradict his answer #2, not necessarily his R1 post) Revised question #2: Are the statements made in round 1 true? (If necessary, you may exclude 'I completely stole this from Nails,' to save face) Revised question #4: Can you deem a statement 'true' at one point in this debate, then 'false' at a later point in the debate?
I will not contradict myself

1. Is 0.99999...(continuing infinitely) inequal to 1? Yes. 2. Are statements made in Round 1 presumed to be correct by you? I think rule 5 protects me from these types of questions, and I cannot find any statements in your round 1. You may ask another question in the next round. 3. Does all of the information on your profile (as of Sunday, December 6, 2009) correctly represent you? No, I do not believe that so little information could correctly represent me, and some of it is untrue. 4. Is my Dog's name Rufus? I do not have enough information at this time to confirm nor deny. You get another question next round. 5. Are all facts that you testify to on this debate presumed to be correct by you? If you mean all statements that I reply to your 10 questions per round with, or statements I make in this debate outside of the first round not in direct response to any question posed by you, yes. 6. Is it possible that can I win this debate while following your rules? Yes, specifically, if I break rule 2 or if you can prove that I have contradicted myself (rule 4). 7. Do you enjoy breaking the law? No, I do not derive any pleasure from doing illegal activities outside of the pleasure I would derive from doing the same activities were they legal. In other words, I do not directly enjoy breaking the law. 8. Do you make more than $1,000 weekly? No. 9. Can 1/3 be expressed as an infinite amount 3's after a decimal point (0.3333...)? It can and has been expressed in that way, but I do not think 1/3 is actually equal to an infinite amount of 3's after a decimal point. 10. Has Stephen Colbert showered Glenn Beck with excessive praise? No, I do not consider Stephen Colbert's praise of Glenn Beck excessive.
I will not contradict myself

Question #1: Is 0.99999...(continuing infinitely) inequal to 1? Question #2: Are statements made in Round 1 presumed to be correct by you? Question #3: Does all of the information on your profile (as of Sunday, December 6, 2009) correctly represent you? Question #4: Is my Dog's name Rufus? Question #5: Are all facts that you testify to on this debate presumed to be correct by you? Question #6: Is it possible that can I win this debate while following your rules? Question #7: Do you enjoy breaking the law? Question #8: Do you make more than $1,000 weekly? Question #9: Can 1/3 be expressed as an infinite amount 3's after a decimal point (0.3333...)? Question #10: Has Stephen Colbert showered Glenn Beck with excessive praise?
I will not contradict myself

Resolved: I, Pote, will not contradict myself. Rules: 1. CON must post 10 questions, directed at PRO, that could be answered with a 'yes' or 'no' or else CON loses. This does not apply to the final round. 2. PRO must respond to all questions posed by CON in some manner or else PRO loses. 3. If PRO's response does not give any opinion (e.g. "I don't know" or "I'm not sure"), then CON is entitled to another question next round. This is the only reason CON may post more than 10 questions. 4. PRO wins if he is found never to have contradicted himself. Likewise, CON wins if he can prove that PRO has contradicted himself. 5. Only statements made by PRO in rounds 2, 3, and 4 of this debate are subject to be examined for contradiction. No outside sources (my profile, previous debates, etc.) are applicable. Statements made by PRO in this debate not in direct response to any question posed by CON are still applicable. I completely stole this from Nails, but it seemed like a fun debate. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, right?
Biblical debate on religious traditions in christianity including catholicism

I mean to speak of traditions such as crucifixes, exorsism, having all of these articles of clothing, or any thing human made. Exorcism of course wasn't human made. It says that Jesus gave the power of exorcism to 12 people that's all, maybe the 70 i thought but couldn't find anything online about them being exorcist. Having all these clothes why? Jesus sent 70 without possession to spread his word, so why them have someone ordained in all that stuff when finer examples are in less. Why is there a pope? None on earth is greater that John the Baptist jesus said, and he was nothing compared to the least in heaven. The ten comandments don't need to be hanged on much either. Jesus made following those much simpler and purer with love God and love thy neighbor as yourself. I understand the letters of the new testament and enjoy them. I regard them highly but would rather draw from God in heaven and god in flesh then any of his apostles(though they are chosen). When it comes clear that traditions mentioned in the bible led to more trouble and callousing of the heart than it did to achieve closer distance to the lord. Did Samuel or any of the prophets seem happy about what the Jewish did in the Lord's temple and in the high places while at the same time clinging onto the Lord's traditions and such? The Lord made it clear through them he was very angry. And now a days are we different? I think God would rather us just keep it simple. Read the bible (remain faithful he kept it from corruption) and fellowship with other christians (not to exceed past happy meeting and days of rest and being joyuss of the lord)