BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is A God

Starting this topic i would love to mention that I'm an atheist Muslim , i don't believe in any of the holy book's gods and i will state my point of view for why i don't believe in any. In this topic we need to use reason , we need logic and we need to ask questions ( WHY ?) and make assumptions in some points deliver the idea behind disbelieving : 1- Why did god create human ? what is the purpose ? is it to entertain him ? Does god need entertainment ? No ? Then why ? can't the almighty powerful god live by himself and do anything on his own ? what did he create us for ? was he lonely ? i think gods don't get lonely only poor imperfect humans do. 2- Did god create us to worship him ? In my religion we pray 5 times a day , when i asked parents why do we pray they said to "thank god for his grace" beautiful words and yeah we humans are blessed indeed but , why will god be angry if i didn't thank him ? ....so angry that he will burn me in hell ? , Why does the perfect god need my gratitude I'm just an ant to him. Doesn't it look that way to you like god is more like a human ? feeding his ego by forcing others to pray to him. 3- Let's assume , god created us out of love (which doesn't make sense) why are we taking a test (life) that we have to pass leading us to the next point. Why didn't god forgive Adam for eating the fruit , if he is so forgiving as it's said in the holy books ? He is punishing human race as a whole , for an individual sin. God isn't justice as it's mention in the holy books. Satan is a devil , which encouraged Adam to sin and also encouraging the human race on earth to sin , Wait wait..why did god create devil at the first place ? It's said that Satan was an angel that rebel on god , why didn't the almighty god just kill him. 4- We see those who were born poor , rich , born in corrupted society , or ill. we usually have different conditions but we are taking the same test , so someone who was born with cancer or crippled , goes on a hell on earth while others are born to enjoy their lives. the universe doesn't look too fine tuned to me. - Now what i proved here is that holy books are wrong about god characteristic , if god exists he is definitely a psycho. but i don't think he exists at all because creation is a never ending cycle. Let's assume god created human beings , then can you tell me who created god ? Why are you convinced that god can't have a creator but unconvinced that humans are created by mere chance just like god is. at this point if you think rationally , believing there is a powerful mighty god up there with some angels serving him makes less sense than accepting the fact we were created randomly somehow , doesn't have to be god or big bang...the fact that we don't know how we exist, isn't a motive to create illogical explanations.
know=physical experience=absolute

Know is a verb (or very rarely a noun) while physical is an adjective.One can know something or be 'in the know' as in the inner circle of a larger group. Something can be physical but you cannot 'physical' something and also you cannot be 'in the physical'. On top of this, you cannot be 'know' as you can be 'physical' since know is not an adjective just as much as physical is neither a verb nor a noun.Experience is either a noun or a verb, much like 'know' is and absolute is a verb, just as 'physical' is.If anything this resolution should be know=experience and physical=absolute since that could grammatically work.You can have an experience and experience something. You can have something that is absolute but cannot use either term in the same way as the other. Both equations have the same grammatical disparity within themselves and both are negated along the same logic.Furthermore, to 'know' something is mental by definition and thus is not physical. Experiences are no absolute because they end up being memories which are subjectively remembered from that person's point of view and influenced by emotions along with other factors.
Is anime bad

So why is anime good, exactly?Cross Examination:"I, myself, am more attracted to anime revolving around comedy, romance, and slice-of-life, and can testify that many characters in these anime are not, and are perhaps aren't even capable of ever becoming "overpowered." "Lots of anime have very powerful characters, like Dragon Ball Z, Hunter X Hunter, stuff like that. But while not all animes are like that, that doesn't mean it's good just because the skill levels are balanced. Anime is bad in other ways as well."Perhaps the question covers... too broad a topic. When one asks "is anime bad," everyone immediately thinks of one answer or another; yes or no."Isn't that what we're trying to conclude? You can't just change the resolution, just so you know. As far as we're concerned, I'm arguing that (most) anime is bad."But nobody really thinks to say... "No, anime is not INHERENTLY bad," or "Yes, anime is not INHERENTLY good." " How does this differ from "anime is good/bad", exactly? And it kind of seems like you're shifting the Burden of Proof here."With animation, one can do... most anything, really. It's impossible to say that an entire country's form of animation is bad."It is bad. I mean, Fairy Tail is overly silly, and One Piece is just a bunch of pirates."But I digress. Let's get back to the topic at hand. Back when anime was first introduced outside of Japan, it was more or less the closest thing to "adult" animation you could get."Anime, by definition, is a cartoon that came from Japan. You can't have anime that comes outside of Japan. That's called fake anime. [https://www.merriam-webster.com...]And the adult anime isn't something I'd watch. Especially if it's explicit content. It's bad because it's inappropriate, and kids wouldn't enjoy it."Even today anime is some of the most interesting and diverse animation there is. It covers a much wider range of topics and genres than any other form of animation."Such as...? If you give me an anime, I can guarantee that there's a reason I won't like it."Sure, there are a lot of bad anime. Anime where all the budget was put into t i t t y , anime with little to no real story line, anime that just... won't stop shipping those siblings... but this doesn't mean that all anime's bad. Most anime's... pretty good."An euphimism (a polite way to say something) for that would be "jugs". Also, you concede that there are lots of bad anime. But what anime do you like? I'd be glad to show the audience why anime should be ignored.Argument:Here are some anime that I've heard of, and why you shouldn't like them:Pokemon Sun/Moon: They turned Lillie from a caring girl who protects Nebby (a pokemon) and wants to rescue her mother from another dimension, to "I theorize I can only touch pokemon if I want to!".Naruto: Too much ninja stuff. (To be honest, I haven't watched Naruto since I was 5 years old. I barely remember anything.)Yo-kai Watch: We got a lazy red cat, a kid who's 'completely average' as the show mentions several times, and a ghost butler who needs Google to know anything. What would you expect?
Is anime bad

While I agree with you that, in many anime, there are very many "overpowered" characters, that usually just comes with genres involving action. I, myself, am more attracted to anime revolving around comedy, romance, and slice-of-life, and can testify that many characters in these anime are not, and are perhaps aren't even capable of ever becoming "overpowered." Perhaps the question covers... too broad a topic. When one asks "is anime bad," everyone immediately thinks of one answer or another; yes or no. But nobody really thinks to say... "No, anime is not INHERENTLY bad," or "Yes, anime is not INHERENTLY good." With animation, one can do... most anything, really. It's impossible to say that an entire country's form of animation is bad. That's like saying "all ice cream is good." While people do tend to enjoy MOST types of ice cream, we all have those flavors that we don't like. But I digress. Let's get back to the topic at hand. Back when anime was first introduced outside of Japan, it was more or less the closest thing to "adult" animation you could get. Back then there was no Rick and Morty, Hank of the Hill, Archer, or anything like that. The topics in anime were as adult as you could get back then. Violence. Nudity. Cool, exciting, fast-paced visuals, something you just couldn't get with western animation. Even today anime is some of the most interesting and diverse animation there is. It covers a much wider range of topics and genres than any other form of animation. It's fairly easy to access online, and if you aren't into piracy, you can still get a very wide range of anime on Netflix, and an even wider range on Crunchyroll. Sure, there are a lot of bad anime. Anime where all the budget was put into t i t t y , anime with little to no real story line, anime that just... won't stop shipping those siblings... but this doesn't mean that all anime's bad. Most anime's... pretty good.
Childhood Religious Indoctrination is Psychological Abuse

This debate is in response to claims I have been witness to over the internet that passing on religious values to children is akin to psychological abuse. First let me define the term, psychological abuse. The following on-line sources define the term "Psychological Abuse. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.medterms.com... http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... Of particular interest is the third source from the Journal of the Academy of Paediatrics as it comprehensively states the various forms of abuse, none of which constitute religious indoctrination in any of its forms. It is clear that whoever makes such claims does not or refuses to recognize the nature of child psychological abuse or psychological abuse in general. I would also state that there appears to be no statistical evidence for psychological abuse within any mainstream religious organizations. As opposed to statistics on sexual abuse by some clergy in Church organizations. http://www.bringyou.to... Even in the event of a withholding of information (as was the case in the Roman Catholic Church for decades), wouldn't authorities also reveal decades of psychological abuse relating to childhood religious education as well? In regards to religious indoctrination itself, this activity can be seen as a form of primary socialization. http://www.encyclo.co.uk... There is no evidence that primary socialization within a normal social mores (religion is an accepted part of mainstream society) constitutes or can lead to psychological abuse. It is my understanding based on the evidence provided that religious indoctrination does not constitute psychological abuse and is instead a form of the normal socialization of children. On a final note, I see that much of the argument for religious indoctrination being a form of child psychological abuse seems to stem from the writings of British zoologist Richard Dawkins, in particular his 2006 book "The God Delusion" in which he makes such claims. Could this be a classic case of people with preconceptions about religion simply agreeing with Dawkins because he agrees with them, or a case of "He's a scientist, so he must be right"?
Cellphones Should Be Banned In Schools

Banning "disruptive" things in classrooms has always been a fad of the day for probably as long as humanity has existed. In Ancient Greece, writing in class might be construed as disruptive to the understanding of the material, because remembering by heart might have been seen as better than relying on a piece of written material at the time. In medieval times, the advent of the printing press might have seem threatening to the classroom as well, because people might not need to copy down material on their own, which might be disruptive or bad for learning, some probably argued at the time. At some point, responding to the teacher, asking questions, was probably seen as disruptive as well and not allowed in classrooms. Talking between each other was seen as disruptive in an environment that should be led fully by the teacher at some point, some probably argued, while we encourage group works nowadays. Anyway, these past examples just illustrate how the perceived high problem of disruption of one generation is the next generation's treasure or new way to distill knowledge that might actually be beneficial to everyone. That said, I don't believe for a second that the use of cellphone in classrooms is the next generation's advancement in teaching technology, it remains to be seen, and we are anyway pretty poor at predicting the future. The problem with Pro's resolution is that he proposes the banning in schools, not just in class. i. e. , having a cellphone is perfectly possible when outside the bounds of the school, but when stepping a centimeter inside the boundaries of the school, then it's banned. Furthermore this "should be banned" resolution kind of begs the question, banned by whom ? , and how do you enforce or regulate that ban ? Do you propose this to be a federal law that all states and all schools in those states should abide for, and punish the offenders with federal prison ? Should it be a state law, should it be mandatory that each school ban them and punish the offenders however they feel ? Should it be the same ban for all schools or are some schools allowed to band differently ? Considering that cellphones are a now ubiquitous piece of technology, a total ban would need to be enforced in a harsh and unforgiveable way: i. e. mandatory frisking at all school entrances, harsh penalties for having a cellphone inside the school, stuff like that. That's not an environement for good teaching, because the teacher and schools will have to spend a large amount of time policing instead of doing education. Recommending no cellphone use in class and temporarily confiscating offenders' phones if they use it in class, the current situation in most schools, is sufficient policing IMO, anything going above and beyond that would probably involve policing to a degree that is not good.
Cellphones Should Be Banned In Schools

cellphones should be banned in schools because they are a distraction,temptation,and disruptive to the school environment. They are a distraction because children text and social network during class and pay no attention to the lesson which causes their grades to drop. Next is the temptation to cheat on exams, tests, or homework. Cellphones provide this temptation because they are equipped with calculators and the internet. Also this may give the temptation to cheat when they are to distracted with texting or social networking during class. Finally disruption, even if a kid isn't cheating or texting during class it can still go off during classes and unfocus students during an important lesson. Therefore cellphones should be banned in schools.
The Real ID Act of 2005 should be repealed

Note: I would prefer to avoid an argument of semantics. It is my hope that my opponent will stick to the issue of the Real ID Act, or a national identification system. Contention 1: The Real ID Act creates a national id card for the United States. Contention 2: A national id system has the potential for misuse. Contention 3: Said system has the potential to be used to violate privacy. Both from the public and private sectors. Contention 4: The system would require a centrally linked database making it easier for identity theft. Contention 5: Since it does not allocate federal money to help with state compliance the cost would eventually fall on the taxpayer, either in the form of state taxation, or in extremely high costs for the ID card, or a combination of both. Contention 6: There are very few positive effects that would result. These are heavily outweighed by the negative listed above. Conclusion: The negative results of the Real ID Act (outlined above) far outweigh the good. Therefore, the Real ID Act should be repealed.
Wrestling is tougher than basketball

I played basketball for 7 or 8 years before a started wrestling this year. The most i ever ran for a basketball practice was probably a half mile or maybe a mile. In wrestling, our runs are around four miles a day. Wrestling requires endurance because unlike in basketball there is no stopping. In basketball, except for transition and things such as fast breaks, you only make short sprints or shuffles in offense and defense. In wrestling, if you take the man down you cannot just stop and take a breather, you must tilt him or hold him down, or you will be called for stalling. Also, I also mention strength. You google some of the best wrestlers in the world, and they are all muscle; there is, literally, no fat on them. Also, there was a wrestler who weighed 125 pounds, in college; he could bench press 320 and do 50 dead hang pull ups with chains on him. So, even if you can make an slight argument for endurance, you need to admit there is no matching the strength needed in wrestling.
Wrestling is tougher than basketball

I will make a quick argument, if my opponent doesn't forfeit, I will make a bigger one. Basket ball requires much more endurance than wrestling. The average wrestling match is about 15-30 minutes with plenty of breaks in between. All you do is fight your opponent, and then rest. Basket ball is non stop strategy, sprinting, lay ups, shots etc. for 4 whole quarters, with 1 break in between each quarter. You are going to need much more endurance for basket ball than for wrestling, making basket ball much tougher than wrestling.
Roman Catholicism

I shall start with a few questions to get the ball rolling. Overall what is your opinion of the Roman Catholic church? In your view what is the best thing about Catholicism? What is the worst? How do you feel about how the church ways in on issues of equality? How do you feel about proselytization of the religion? Do you believe the dogma of the church (e.g. Jesus was crucified, buried on the third day rose again, born of a virgin, God is the creator of mankind e.t.c.)? What are your praises of the church? What are your criticisms of the church? These are just a few questions to kick things off, it would be appreciated to avoid back and forth type arguments you did not give vague answers and answer the questions directly and honestly. Thank you I look forward to this discussion.
That Pennies Should Be Abolished

The purpose of currency is to facilitate the exchange of goods and services by providing a good with an agreed upon value that can be traded for a multitude of other goods. As Pro in this debate I will argue that pennies are failing to fulfil this purpose. The context of this debate is present day United States. For this debate "penny" refers to the one-cent-coin. The model I am proposing is that the US mint simply stops producing any more pennies. All pennies currently in circulation are to remain as legal tender. However, after their expenditure shops are to send their pennies back to the US mint where they will be melted down. This means that the supply of pennies will gradually decrease. Price transactions are to be rounded to the nearest five cents. RulesThe opening round is for acceptance only. I will give the Pro case in the second round. Standard debating rules apply, they are as follows: 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.3. Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 5. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R5.5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.
Balanced Budget Amendment

Resolved: The US Should Adopt a Balanced Budget Amendment Definitions:1) Balanced Budget Amendment - A BBA requires congress to pass a balanced budget for each fiscal year. Currently, there is debate going on in the House and Senate between different versions of the amendment. There is very little difference between the two, however for sake of the debate, I will use the Senate's version found at . http://tinyurl.com...;2) Balanced Budget - The overall amount of spending within a budget is equal to or less than the revenue brought in. 3) Should - Ought, is proper4) Adopt - Put into placeRounds1) Acceptance2) Opening Statements (ONLY)3) Rebuttals 4) Rebuttals/Closing StatmentsRules1) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. 2) No forfeiting or plagarism is acceptable. 3) Please structure and format your arguments in a way that is easy to follow.4) No trolling - debaters should have adaquet debating experience.5) Failure to abide by any points above will result in an automatic loss
The bible plainly states( pun intended) that the earth is a stationary plane.

Just trying to clarify, you said that prescriptive text should only be taken literally because they are God's word? And no scriptures mentioned were a part of God's word? If the writer's write what Jesus was saying? Otherwise it's always metaphorically. How convenient it is to be able to completely change the meanings of the words unmovable, fixed and foundation to mean spinning, orbiting, and flying through space! Can you provide any scriptural backup? Never mind that, I'll try to move on... Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. These scriptures clearly point to there being an up, down, under, and above. Can you explain which part of a spherical earth the firmament is above because that would put it under another part of it. Daniel 4:10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. 11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth: All of the earth could see this tree that grew with Height, to the end. This also applies to the story of when Jesus was tempted, as he was shown every kingdom on the earth from a mountain, as well as Jesus's return in revelations that every eye shall see... None of these possible on a spherical object. Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? Speaks of the ends of the earth.
The bible plainly states( pun intended) that the earth is a stationary plane.

I'll start with a few verses that explain the earth is stationary. Unless someone can counter, I'll move on to other verses. 1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..." Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."