BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creationism is unjustifiable pt2

"Do you not find it extraordinary that a people 3,000 years ago basically nailed the process whereby this planet was formed and Initiated [sic] life? That our scientist [sic] rather than finding that these things are untrue only add to the scientific body of evidence that it occurred almost exactly as written?" Con provided no basis for his interpretation other than Genesis. What specific part of Genesis fits with the scientific narrative? I don't think any of it does. For instance, Genesis 1: 14-17 says that God created two lights: the sun and the moon. He also created the stars. Genesis 1: 11 says that God created vegetation, especially seed-bearing plants before he created the sun. Science, on the other hand, says that the sun came before the earth and seed-bearing plants. Additionally, science says that the moon does not create light; it reflects light. The two narratives are, therefore, completely different. Creationism is unjustifiable because it cannot stand on its own merits, producing knowledge through its own rational method of inquiry. My opponent failed to produce any model or framework for creationism; he simply said he had a different interpretation of creationism: that God could make the universe using scientific principles. He failed to demonstrate how God could do this. It does not matter if people have different interpretations of creation. Creationists must still create some sort of logical, coherent framework that allows them to produce knowledge and incorporate different interpretations. Scientists do not always agree because they have different interpretations of evidence, but they still have a framework that produces knowledge and incorporates varying interpretations.
Freedom of speech in England

Hello, I'm a 15 year old who's language as we speak is not that great (I prefer mathematics) however, That does not make my opinion more or less valid as today I'm writing about the freedom of speech in the UK. Now to begin we must look at the glaring issue itself and what is wrong with us in England not having "true freedom of speech". Now we can say anything however this comes with restrictions and in that we can be arrested for a hate crime and this usually consists saying something racist or some other type of derogatory thing. But the government has implemented this simply because they think that the public themselves are ignorant and that the government are afraid that if they pass the law of "true freedom of speech" that the whole country would be full of idiots spouting homophobic and racist terms all through out London. This is simply and cannot be far from the truth. There is no point moaning about a problem with out giving a solution. We need let freedom of speech be passed and the issue will sort itself out. You may be thinking how? But the issue in that has been presented will be resolved out of the premises of trust. We need to trust the the two polar opposites will be smacked down by the huge major part of the public, We need to in trust that the public will be ignorant not to in which the government has this deluded Idea on but in that the public will be ignorant to the polar opposite's and most of there ideas (because the bottom sides of both ends tend to be the worst places). The government has his fear and insecurity that Britain itself will become a racist place but however the government are becoming ignorant not trusting the people of this country to make a valid decision that racism and homophobic comments are wrong and to accept people no matter who or what there choices are.
Life

I believe, yes 100% believe, that we are nothing more than rocks. I am a worthless, pointless being with no purpose other than to come to terms with death or die trying to come to terms with it. All things 'die' even inanimate things, a rock erodes, a television gets trashed you get the picture. So I need the pro to please justify why he is any more important than a rock, especially if the end of the world, the sun and our universe is inevitable (if he wishes to refute the inevitability then he must indeed propose why it is so, preferably by proof that there is something which can exist forever, I believe that everything comes to an end based on observation of everything I have ever com to know in my life, all things I have seen or known have died).His single, and rather futile, justification for life is as follows "We wouldn't be debating this right now if we did not have life. We would never get to see movies, listen to music, read books, exercise, have sex, go bungee-jumping, ride roller coasters, go to an opera etc." But if us and everyone who reads this debate will eventually die, there is indeed no point in debating in the first place, making our existence no more worthy than a rock's (I refer to a rock as he seemed to like this comparison).I agree we should drop God because it's irrelevant and God is nothing to do with physical organic matter, which is life. Ok.
Life

I think we need to define life before we get into this. Since pro failed to do so I shall take this responsibility upon myself. I did not “fail” to define the word “life”. To say that someone failed to do something implies that they tried to do it but were unable. I never attempted to define life, as we all understand what it means and doing so was unnecessary. It makes no sense for Con to say that since I did not define life, he must. He’s supposed to do that anyway. He’s the one who instigated the debate, not me. He should not try to shift responsibility. Con then defined life using the oxford dictionary. I agree with the definitions presented on that site. It does not change the debate. I do not see how a non physical entity creating all things has to show characteristics of life, please elaborate on this or justify any other definition you wish, however you must make sure there are no flaws in your justification. It may be possible for a life-less world to simply follow from a life-less God, but Con specifically referred to God as the creator of the world. To create involves intelligence, experience, forethought etc. all of which require life. So again, in order for God to create a world with no life, God must have life. Con’s argument is self-refuting. But suppose we ignore Con’s self-refuting argument about God creating a lifeless word. He might say that he is simply against life and not bring God into the matter. Well, life is necessary for just about everything that happens. We wouldn’t be debating this right now if we did not have life. We would never get to see movies, listen to music, read books, exercise, have sex, go bungee-jumping, ride roller coasters, go to an opera etc. Pro has not presented a case for why he thinks that a world with no life is better than a world with life. Why living in a life-filled world is better is obvious. It gives our life meaning. Without we are nothing but rocks.
Life

I think we need to define life before we get into this.Since pro failed to do so I shall take this responsibility upon myself.Life[1]: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.I do not see how a non physical entity creating all things has to show characteristics of life, please elaborate on this or justify any other definition you wish, however you must make sure there are no flaws in your justification.Source:[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Life

Rules are lame.Anyway, there is nothing that makes the statement "humans are infinitely more than rocks' true. Neither is any justification given for principle versus consequences. IF I rape someone, I'd be fine with the rape itself for I am a moral nihilist. I do not rape them because of the sole issue of the consequences of it. There are psychopaths and sadists who aren't criminals purely out of fear of consequence, even then many do it anyway because of lack of ability to emotionally comprehend consequences (sociopaths literally cannot process consequences before acting impulsively). So I see that in the human race itself, and many animals, the only thing stopping us acting madly or badly are the consequences (or fear of them) for dong so.You are not anything more than a rock because there is nothing intrinsically incredible about this debate in the first place. The rock exists and erodes and so do you. I find it rather ironic you think you have a soul, you must either give evidence of this or drop that point, we agreed to drop religion and god out of this so don't be silly and raise unfalsifiable religious nonsense into this please. I merely meant God as in the creator of universe not God the person.You statement about it being impossible for something to become nothing is nonsense, everything originated from nothing did it not? If not you must explain how not and then justify and prove the everything has existed for eternity otherwise it's logical to assume there was once nothingness.In conclusion, there is nothing intrinsically better about those that are living to those that are not, we are just as meaningless and futile in anything we do as they are, we merely have the ego and self-esteem to think we are more important.
Life

Con has dropped the God point. He says he did this because it is irrelevant. Well he’s right, so I don’t know why he brought it up in the first place. But anyway, Con has now brought up another point:So I need the pro to please justify why he is any more important than a rock, especially if the end of the world, the sun and our universe is inevitable. But if us [sic] and everyone who reads this debate will eventually die, there is indeed no point in debating in the first place, making our existence no more worthy than a rock's. Just because I am going to do one day does not make my existence just as insignificant as a rock’s existence. Con has not spelled out why he believes this is so. But it’s obvious why it is not. The consequences of something are not the only thing that matter. The thing in itself also matters. A rock cannot do anything, where as human beings can do amazing things, including hold debates. There is no comparison. Human beings are infinitely more important than rocks. The point here is that the principle of something matters, not just the consequences of it. Sometimes people go to court to sue people for a very small amount of money that they are rightly owed, but they do it not to get the money, but to uphold the principle of justice. Similarly, the fact that we are all going to die one day does not make us worthless in ourselves.And even if I am going to die one day, that does not mean that I cannot resurrect after that and live for eternity. It is logically impossible for something to become nothing. My soul, because it already exists, can never become nothing. It will always exist, so I will always have consequential importance as well. I’d just like to add that I had no idea this debate was going to turn into a debate about mortality/immortality. In traditional debate format, after a debater makes his opening argument, he is not supposed to bring up new arguments in later rounds but only continue debating the points he and his opponent made in their opening statements. If this were the case, Con would have already lost as I refuted his opening argument. But he can get away with taking the debate in a new direction now because he made no rules forbidding it in in his introduction. In fact, he made no rules.
Alternatives to Public Schooling Should be banned.

The practice of home schooling has essentially been around since the dawn of time. Parents and guardians have always took it upon themselves to teach the younger generation the knowledge that they have received through their many years of experience. But we live in a different world now, governments have recognized the massive need for an educated youth and have provided public school systems to insure that vital knowledge gets passed on, also I would say that young children need to communicate with their peers have friends e.t.c it is very important aspect of humans life that we need to consider. Some children are very shy and it is hard for them to make new friends that is way parents allow them to study at home! But in my opinion it is not right young children need to learn how to solve their problems by their own! So that is why I think that home education should be banned!
Abortion Is a Violation of Burden of Proof

The argument here is that abortion does not respect how burden of proof is on the affirmative. Preborns do not consent to exist, so they are negative by default. Those who affirm them must prove preborns' state of mind. Otherwise, they are making a brutal assertion in potentially judging someone without consent, forcing personhood to assume the risk of being violated. Unfortunately, "state of mind" cannot be physically determined. It ignores the fact-value dichotomy, is-ought problem, and naturalistic fallacy. For example, in neuroscience, we induce, rather than deduce, what brainwave patterns coincide with certain attitudes or thoughts. This is done by measuring people who admit to having certain attitudes or thoughts, and then averaging the results throughout a sample. The problem is this discounts the value of outliers, and assumes that everyone being sampled has an equal attitude or thought in the first place. Similarly, neuroscientists don't know what to anticipate when evaluating when a preborn becomes cognitive. Typically, they refer to when a brain is formed during a preborn's embryonic period. The problem is we don't know whether or not a "brain" must exist for cognition to function. In fact, if we really want to get technical, even the formation of neural tissue is a "blur" as much as in the rest of biology. The definition of when cells form tissues depends on inducing cohesion from arbitrating how close is close enough for cells to come together to reflect what we identify as a "brain". This inductive cohesion is where burden of proof is shifted onto the negative. We are demanding that personhood proves itself to us rather than recognizing how personhood is innocent before proven guilty. If personhood exists, it is not obligated to satisfy the judgment of those it didn't consent to assemble with.
Police should be charged with murder if they kill anyone, including criminals.

I am going to keep this short and simple due to multiple FFS The resolution is as follows " Police should be charged with murder if they kill anyone, including criminals. " This is essentially saying that anyone including police officers should be charged with murder even in the act of self defense. That is a horrible stance to take and one that should never be considered. Even in criminology and law there is something that is called "the right to self defense". "The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force." [1] There is even something called Justifiable homicide Justifiable Homicide - a killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another, or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties. This is not to be confused with a crime of passion or claim of diminished capacity which refer to defenses aimed at reducing the penalty or degree of crime. [2] Even under most state statues we are allotted the stand your ground law. Stand your ground law - (1)Q95;A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (extended in source) [3] We are allotted these rights to be able to defend ourselves from people and government alike. A police officers primary duty is to protect and uphold the peace. Some civilians can not defend themselves and police are afforded to make use of excessive violence in dire situations. If a robber has someone hostage, or if someone is breaking and entering and they have no intent on going to jail and are not afraid to kill there has to be a scapegoat to help the people that are in harms way. Police should be afforded the right to kill in dire situations and are promised so by the right to self defense and certain state statues. Therefore the resolution is false. I would have went may more in depth but see no reason to , due to multiple FFS. [1] http://www.princeton.edu... [2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [3] http://www.leg.state.fl.us...
Police should be charged with murder if they kill anyone, including criminals.

I will be supporting the fact that any Police officer should be held accountable for any loss of life caused in the line of duty. There are many cases of Officers killing the elderly, young children and people who couldn't even begin to defend themselves and getting away with it because of claims that they felt threatened by the individual. Yet if an individual (Non officer) feels threatened by an Officer, they are not afforded the same privilege. Police Officers are known to use excessive force. There is no reason in the world that an adult should ever have to slam, taze, or shoot somebody incapable of defending themselves. If the Officer can not subdue a child, the elderly, or somebody who is mentally Ill without causing extreme harm, They are not fit to be an officer of the law. In the case of somebody actually posing a threat to the officer, I believe that Mace (Pepper Spray) should ALWAYS be used as a first resort before a firearm is ever drawn. Police training should be to disable and disarm, not to kill. Police are trained to shoot to the chest and head, this is the absolute opposite of what they should be trained to do. The ONLY time a Police Officer should EVER use a firearm is if it is in defense of somebody else also using a firearm. It should not be waved around as a tool of fear. Tazers are dangerous and in some cases deadly to the individual they are used on. Police are wrongly taught that a Tazer is an acceptable nonlethal weapon to use on anybody regardless of age or health and this isnt true. There have been accounts of Police tazing people with health conditions and killing them, or people who were wet (causing the shock to intensify and cause burns) If a Police Officer cannot do his duty as peacefully as possible he is not fit to secure our streets. I believe that if Officers were told upfront they would be charged for 'crimes committed during the act of preventing other crime' Police brutality would immediately drop. It will be Con's case to justify Police not getting prison time for the death of criminals (or anyone.)
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time

1.I don"t understand where harassment fits into this debate. 2.The point I"m trying to make is not whether people know love or not, but that if your lover dies and you move on, after going through a grievance period, you are not loving two people at the same time, you are loving one person from your past in a way that is different from the way you are loving the person in your present. 3.In reference to premise two, again you can fall in love again, but you will not be loving two people at the same time. 4.For your premise three, you said there would be a point in time where they would pick up the pieces of their life after the loss of their love, which could take "probably years." 5.In reference to your fourth premise, being in love and loving are two different things and so is being in love and being obsessed. 6.For your premise 5, I still think you"re equating things with love that shouldn"t be considered equal. 7.A mistress is not guaranteed to be loved, she is guaranteed to be slept with. 8.In reference to your premise six, what I"m saying is just because a man and a woman get together and have sex doesn"t mean they love each other. 9.Love in the present implies a burning desire on the inside to be with that person and love in the past tense implies having a deep and constant care for a person without the desire to be with them romantically. 10.Treating people equally doesn"t mean that you love them equally or even care for them at all beyond sex. 11.The love a man has for his wife is incomparable to the love or deep like he will have for a mistress. Therefore, you cannot love more than one person at the same time.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time

1. An adult does know what love means, and no adult can be forced to love another person, beside their partner that has passed away. Especially when you have experienced love before and now you are looking for another one you know what pure love mean. People decide what their choice will be and people have the right to love again and to be happy with the new partner. To be forced to love or to have sex with another person not voluntary is called harassment, which this is not the case. 2. The fact that some people do not accept the death of their ex lovers does not mean that will never fall in love again with someone else, unless you decide to attempt suicide. 3. In premise no.3 I have not agreed with your argument. Some people after breaking up with their partner do fall straight into the arms of another person. Those kind of people that decide to do so may like the idea of being with someone else or they are afraid to be alone, but some other may take it longer to make a decision to start dating another person and fall into his/her arms, but this does not mean or include all people., so this is not the case. 4. In premise no.4 love cannot change the form of love, it does not matter if this is about your ex or present lover. Some people are in love with their present partner but also they are obsessed with their ex, there are exceptions. 5. Communication is the best tool and between sister wives it works. A man that does share his love with his wives, it does show that he love them and cares about them at the same time. They do mean everything to a man and they are everything he needs to be happy and fulfilled. 6. So what you are saying is that it is ok for a man to have sex with a women, this kind of relationship is based purely on sex, does this proof that they truly love each other or is just sex? According to my opinion or yours having couple mistress may be wrong, but this is not about what we believe or think. What is right for me may be wrong for the other society or culture. 7. Therefore, you can love more than 1 person at the same time ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------