BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Universe is Finite

I believe in the absence of an Absolute in our reality; which would make our universe finite. Though we consider the vast darkness that borders our planet to be somewhat of an enigma, one things is for sure given the technology currently available, the universe (as we know it) is finite. Since its birth, it is theorized that the universe has been in permanent expansion, with galaxies traveling hundreds of thousands of miles per second away from the center of what once was a singularity. Are we to assume that the universe existed before the expansion? Infinitely? Nothing that expands is truly infinite; an example, a cube of ice on the sidewalk on a hot summer day. Before it was put on the sidewalk, the cube was solid ice (singularity), when heat was introduced, the ice started to melt. Is the water surrounding the ice as it melts, infinite? Obviously not, it is slowly expanding until the cube completely melts. Eventually, after being spread out under the sun for so long, the water itself will vaporize , and follow the cycle of water we know and love ever since it was introduced to us in middle school. I think the same will happen to the universe. We still live in a young universe, but, somewhere down the line, energy will cease to exist, and the cycle will begin all over again. The process itself might be infinite, it might be a loop, but, the universe we live in, is finite.
Race, genes, IQ

Last year my brother called me a "racist" for pointing out that genes could mediate some of the US racial achievement gap, so, being a neurotic, I spend a number of months digging through the data and outlining the idea. (http://abc102.wordpress.com...) "Race, genes, and disparity." I found the idea to be plausible, but the evidence, while trending to support a partial genetic hypothesis, equivocal -- anyways, I'm looking for someone to debate the issue. The stipulation is that they read through some of my post, as I qualified and operantly defined a number of the terms of debate. For example: Race: socially identified ethnoracial groups which have different population structures General intelligence: the socially important property that both IQ and Reaction time tasks measure Differences: mean average differences that people refer to when they speak of various "gaps" Heritability: genetically conditioned endogenous factors that, given equal conditions, result in stubborn individual or group differences
Race, genes, IQ

I apologize for not being present for the third round, I did not keep track of time very well. To begin, I would like to talk about the subjectiveness of the debate. There is no clear cut resolution, and I am the only one that offered one, therefore, mine should stand. To repeat said resolution, "Genes are the deciding factor of the race gap in America." I negated the resolution with the following three contentions: 1. Racism is passed down from generations 2. All human beings have misconceptions 3. Programs like affirmative action and others give motivation to racist groups. 1. Racism has been a part of our country for generations, and even though we have taken great strides in civil rights since our founding, we still have a long way to go. That is very evident in today's world. 2. Whenever we see people, we judge them, that is simply how we are as human beings, always has been. always will be. 3. Affirmative action and other race oriented programs have fanned the fires of racism, by leading groups to believe that there is no longer equal treatment because we are essentially "paying back" for the atrocities committed to minority groups. With those contentions, and the fact that Con is the only one who has brought a true resolution to today's debate, I urge a Con vote.
Race, genes, IQ

My opponent has brought up a resolution that basically states that there is a genetic mediation between theacvheivement gap, however I believe that that is not true. 1. I believe that environment and determination is an essential factor in achievement 2. Evidence states that as the nation is leading the way for social equity, we see the gap narrowing and even vanishing. First, many sociologists believe that the social environment is the leading cause of personality development in early teens. Simply put, the environment affects your growth. The majority of bio sociologists agree that genetics is not the cause of personality development, but rather the way you are raised. Also, you have to look at the determination of the individuals themselves. Naturally, you see motivated students and unmotivated students. Genetics does not factor into that. Second, recent graphs reported by JAEKYUNG LEE, Assistant Professor at the University of Maine's College of Education show that in the last 30 years, the achievement gap has reduced the gap to essentially nothing. Recent strides in racial equity have put everyone on equal ground, so we see that genetics is not the cause of differentiations in the gap. Interesting theories by my opponent, but genes are not the deciding factor in acheivement.
Race, genes, IQ

My contention is that there are genetically mediated differences in general intelligence between European and African Americans and that these differences are partially the cause of the various racial achievement gaps. kweef has commented that: 1. Racism is passed down from generations 2.All human beings have preconceptions of others 3. Programs like affirmative action have only spurred on revived racism, and encourages former racists I agree with him on all of these points but maintain that they do not challenge my conclusion. The first point could be construed as saying that there are other, non genetic, explanations for the gap. I don't disagree that there could be other explanations, hypothetically, but I maintain that the evidence supports a partial genetic explanation. The gap in general intelligence (both between individuals and groups) correlates with neurological differences (cortical volume, glucose metabolism, etc). For racism to cause these differences it has to act in some physically affecting manner. This could happen; anti-black racism could, for example, lead to impoverishment which in turn could lead to developmental differences, but this is unlikely to be the case as the gap persists across socioeconomic status. The second and third points could be construed as saying that the gap is due to test bias, that is, that it is not real. The mountains of literature on 'closing the (scholastic and IQ) gap' testifies against this as does the mountains of literature on adverse impact. One explicit purpose of No Child Left behind was to close the racial scholastic achievement gap; likewise, one explicit purpose of Race to the top is to close the racial scholastic achievement gap; it's unlikely that the government and academia would be dedicated to fix a non-existent difference. While kweef has brought up some interesting points, I maintain that they do not challenge my position.
Race, genes, IQ

Looking through the Pros opening argument's I still am not sure what the object of the debate is, so I will bring a true resolution to the table: "Genes are the deciding factor of the race gap in America" I am willing to debate the wording of the resolution later, but I will move on to my case against this. I am going Con on this debate for a few contentions: 1. Racism is passed down from generations 2.All human beings have preconceptions of others 3. Programs like affirmative action have only spurred on revived racism, and encourages former racists I will now move back to my first contention, which stated that Racism is passed down from generations. Racism has been prevalent around the world for hundreds of years, ever since the first slaves from Africa arrived in the United States and other world powers. For decades, African slaves were used to do much of the work in a newly independent America. It was not until the Civil War, in which racial barriers regarding the legalization of slavery coerced several states into seceding from the country, in which slaves finally won freedom. Then, later in the 20th century, the civil rights movement really brought the struggle of African Americans into the National spotlight. Racism was very prevalent then, as anyone educated about the civil rights movement will know. Even recent times have been plagued with racism, as anti-Obama signs have been paraded showing our President dressed in African wear, in response to the birth certificate debacle after his election. It is clear that racism has been prevalent throughout the country's' history. 2. All human beings have misconceptions of others To clarify, this does not mean genes are the cause of this, it merely means that as humans, we judge others based on societal conceptions. For example, the stereotype Arab at an airport could be deemed a "Terrorist". That is a judgement based on fear and increased public awareness on the middle east. While short, this point illustrates that as humans, we judge. That is how it is, and always shall be. 3. Programs like affirmative action and other things have motivation to racist groups Affirmative action is essentially providing benefits to minorities, and it has been viewed as somewhat of a "payback" to the families of former slaves. Many groups view that as unfair towards whites and others. Also, many people question why there is a "Black History Month" in existence but not for other groups. Simply put, various situations have spurred racism throughout our countries history. So in conclusion, we can see with the three points illustrated above that genes are not the cause of the racial divide.
Amnesty granted to illegal immigrants will impose harm on the American economy

Positive Economic Benefits Of Immigration: S.744- Bill offering a detailed strategy to legalize approximately eleven million undocumented laborers.According to the CBO(Congressional Budget Office) Enacting the bill will reduce the federal defecit.(The provisions of the bill are considered in its entirety, which is an important distinction.)Like amnesty, the bill also provides an incentive for immigrants to enter legally. Amnesty provides a reason for illegal immigrants to turn themselves in and enter legally. Thus S.744 and amnesty both promote legal immigration. So the question is does immigration hurt the economy, because the amnesty law promotes legal immigration.Point Of Consensus: It is agreed upon by all studies, on both sides of the debate, that increases in legal immigration will have a positive economic impact and raise tax revenue. Given this fact alone I should win the debate.P1) Increased legal immigration positively effects the economy.P2) A provision or law that enables and promotes legal immigration, positvely effects the economy. P3)The amnesty law enables and promotes legal immigration. C1) The amnesty law positively effects the economy.P2 neccesarily follows from P1.If P1->`33;P2 P2->`33;P3{P1,P2,P3} ->`33; C1Only p1 needs defending.On P1: It is said that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes, this is untrue but I guess it is fair to say they don't pay equal tax. I'm not sure what a "Fair share" is, I would argue the top 1% don't pay enough, but that's a different point. Obviously legalized immigrants will pay more taxes if legalized.The taxes from immigrants being legalized will result in a GDP growth of 0.3%-0.8%(80-150 billion dollars). Each legalized immigrant would contribute $10,000-$17,000. Contribution= (X-Y)X=Addition to economyY=Expenses (Parameters obtained from three studies).CAP-$10,000CBO-$12,000IPC-$17,000Wages: Wages would increases for newly legalized and natives.IPC:X=NativesY=Newly legalizedWage: X$74-$162^Y:$4000-$6000^CAP: X: NA(but given Y, it's safe to assume some kind of increase)Y:15%^CBO:{X,Y}: 10 years: 0.1% decrease: 20 years: 0.5%^Job Creation: IPC: 83,500 jobs created.CAP: 121,000 jobs createdCBO: (2014-2023): 600,000 jobs created per year!Specific Demographic Analysis: IPC: Positive wage increase overall(especially in lower demographic)CAP: Increase in aggregate wage bill.CBO: At the highest percent of wages there will be a 0.3% drop and in the middle sector there will be a 0.5% increase.I think, due to these statistics, we have a rational basis for thinking the amnesty law will positively affect the economy(ultimately).Sources:http://www.usamnesty.org...http://www.nber.org...http://www.jstor.org...http://www.cbo.gov...
God exists and we are without excuse for denying him

You stated that "i" cannot know anything, for sure, without god. This would imply that we do know things, for sure, with god. So, state the things that I listed, or some other things that are sure and start with god. Based on your ideas, this should be an easy task for you and then, you would convert non-believers and win. "Since you are an unbeliever you would judge those things using your own subjectivity which would be viciously circular." The Earth is round. This statement is not subjective. It is objective. "Evolution cannot account for gravity because it presupposes uniformity which doesn't make sense in evolution. " Evolution and gravity have nothing to do with each other. Life-forms may be evolving, right now, in zero-gravity. "You would have no basis for logic or reason to trust in laws of logic." Who made the laws of logic, why and how, please? "The other things i don't really understand what you mean." You stated that everything starts with god. Start with god and explain those things, please. " If you don't have an absolute standard of truth then you would not be able to know anything absolutely for sure. " If you have an absolute standard for truth, these things should be quite easy for you to do.
God exists and we are without excuse for denying him

I'm not going through that list. I don't even fully understand what you're asking of me. I'll make it short and to the point. To know anything for certain you would have to judge it by and absolute standard of truth. If you didn't then everything would be an opinion and nothing would be true including that and you would be in an infinite regression. You presuppose that your senses, memory, and reasoning are valid and i would ask you how you know that. Since you are an unbeliever you would judge those things using your own subjectivity which would be viciously circular. Evolution cannot account for gravity because it presupposes uniformity which doesn't make sense in evolution. The best you could say is that everyday to date gravity has remained, therefore it will remain tomorrow. But you would have no basis for knowing that for sure. It would be inductive reasoning and it would assume the future will be like the past which is only an assumption. Logic doesn't make sense in evolution since logic would only be a convention instead of an absolute standard. You would have no basis for logic or reason to trust in laws of logic. The other things i don't really understand what you mean. If you don't have an absolute standard of truth then you would not be able to know anything absolutely for sure. Pretty much you either appeal to God as your standard of truth or you appeal to yourself and the latter is impossible to prove.
God exists and we are without excuse for denying him

Do you know the use and meaning of quotation marks? Explain, please, 1. gravity, starting with god 2. virus adaptation and why we cannot sure the "common cold", starting with god 3. logic, starting with god 4. plumbing, starting with god 5. dandelion-procreation, starting with god 6. animal-mutilation, starting with god It should be very simple for you to turn non-believers into believers with a list of this size.
God exists and we are without excuse for denying him

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools. I don't think it would be very effective to list ten right now but what I can tell you is this. Just by you accepting my debate and expecting to think logically, debate rationally, and convey meaning through words you would have to assume God's existence since you cannot account for logic, meaning, uniformity, and rationality without him. Instead of me listing ten false religions it would be a shorter list for you to try and account for those things outside of God. It is impossible to prove autonomy. Even your thoughts are dependant on God. To try and account for those things without God you would have to implore your reasoning but you wouldn't be able to prove that your reasoning is valid because the only thing you would be able to use is your reasoning and that would be viciously circular and wouldn't make sense. I'm not here to disprove every other religion, I'm here to say that unless you start with God you cannot make even one knowledgeable claim. You can't know anything for sure without God.
Child porn should be legal

"Absolutely it is against child rights. By making child porn legal, Here is what you get. You are universally harming human rights. " So it's against the child's right because it's harming human rights? Circular logic again. "Every single child will have the right to make decisions about their own body" This has nothing to do with child's body. This is about child porn. Child porn is the image of a child's body, Not child's body itself. I guess you are against making ultrasounds too, Because it's the image of a baby and baby didn't agree to it? "We have laws for reasons. " Child porn shouldn't be legal because there is a reason it's illegal, And yet you fail to provide that reason? "If you believe child porn should be legal, Then you believe that children should not have rights. " If you don't believe that children should have the right to choose not to go to school, You are against child's choice and child's rights. Slippery slope fallacy. "No one child should ever be subjected to an arbitrary violation of property. " Except the topic is child porn. I don't know what kind of property are you talking about. Are you claiming that child porn is the property of the child actors depicted in it? By that logic, If a child wants to make child porn, We should let her, Otherwise it would be a violation of property!
Child porn should be legal

"you still failed to explain why child porn is against rights of a child" Absolutely it is against child rights. By making child porn legal, Here is what you get. You are universally harming human rights. Every single child will have the right to make decisions about their own body taken away from them by the government. We have laws for reasons. If you believe child porn should be legal, Then you believe that children should not have rights. As it stands right now, Children have rights. No one child should ever be subjected to an arbitrary violation of property.
Child porn should be legal

"Child porn is an infringement of property for the child. It is against the rights of the child" Circular reasoning. You are saying how child porn shouldn't be legal because it's illegal. That is, If you mean infringement and rights in a sense of law. If you don't mean it in a sense of law, Then you still failed to explain why child porn is against rights of a child and why is it "an infringement of property for the child". I can make the same non-arguments. Child porn supports the rights of a child and supports rights of children to act in porn. Simple. Any other non-arguments you want to make?
Child porn should be legal

Just today I was watching a guy fu*k a 2 year-old girl in the a*s. She cried, But he just kept pounding. So I thought to myself how is this different from school? Some children cry and don't want to go to school. But we send them anyway. What about ear piercings, Or circumcision? There are videos of circumcision on youtube. You can see baby's penis getting cut while the boy is screaming in pain. That's legal. Videos of murder, Torture and decapitation are all legal. You can find them on websites like liveleak. Child porn should be legal too. If I want to see a 4 year-old girl being fu*ked like the little slut she is, I should be able to see it just like any regular guy can see porn when he wants. It would give me pleasure, The overall happiness would increase, And to be honest, I would have more interesting things to do in my life, Like sharing child porn. I would be too busy with that to actually rape children. So if you want to help children, You should make child porn legal. Now, I understand that if you don't want to help children, Or want to see them suffer, You would be against child porn. But even if you hate children, You could legally watch their suffering on child porn, If it was legal. So even if you hate children, Or love children, You should be in favor of child porn. If you accept this debate, State your reason why you think child porn shouldn't be legal.
Resolved: The NSA should disclose zero day vunerabilities to relevant vendors

Sorry for being so late, I have been rather busy. Now let's get started These vulnerabilities compromise the cyber security of the US. Every second these potential breaches in our security go without action the risk of a cyber attack becomes more likely. As Bruce Schiener, a chief technology officer of resilient systems, put it "By fixing the vulnerability, it strengthens the security of the Internet against all attackers: other countries, criminals, hackers. By leaving the vulnerability open, it is better able to attack others on the Internet. But each use runs the risk of the target government learning of, and using for itself, the vulnerability"or of the vulnerability becoming public and criminals starting to use it." [1] Disclosing these vulnerabilities to the vendors of the at risk software allows them to patch it, overall strengthening the security of the software we use and trust today. Another source suggests that disclosing zero days and allowing them to be patched allows for a better, and more protected internet. "The simple fact is that if the NSA were helping to stop zero days that would better protect everyone against anyone else using those zero days. In fact, closing zero days is just like disarming both sides, because it takes the vulnerability out of service. It's not about us giving up our "weapons," it's about building a better defense for the world." [2] The reality of the situation is that we the NSA is currently putting ourselves and other at risk for cybercrime 1. http://www.theatlantic.com... 2. https://www.techdirt.com...]%20//khirn
Resolved: The NSA should disclose zero day vunerabilities to relevant vendors

Definitions The NSA- The National Security Agency in the United States Disclose- Reveal Zero Day vulnerabilities- These are security holes in software that are unknown to the possessor of the software with the vulnerability. The NSA exploits these vulnerabilities to hack into software, instead of disclosing them to the vendor Relevant vendors- The vendor who possesses the software which has the vulnerability in it. Goodluck to whomever accepts this debate.
The US Death Penalty Should Be Phased Out

This is a debate related to the elimination of the death penalty. This first round is meant to establish the rules and parameters of the debate, along with finding a willing opponent. There will be 3 extra rounds for the actual debate, which make 4 total. I am Pro - I will argue in favor of eliminating the death penalty. Contrarily, Con will argue against the elimination of the death penalty. Con may provide his/her own arguments, or simply make refutations of mine. For this first round, Con will agree to the rules I've set up and accept the debate. After that, I will make my opening arguments. I look forward to our discussion!