BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is the big bang theory real

The Big Bang is the process of expansion of the universe, which is not created from nothing and is not the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang theory did not explain the original origin of the universe. Even if God exists, the universe can still expand. No matter how complicated life is, it has nothing to contradict with the universe expanding. The net energy in the universe is probably zero. Gravitational potential energy can be negative, and the positive energy can cancel them out. This is not a debate on whether God exists. In the previous arguments, the con side has provided many evidence about why a higher spiritual power is should exists (God), but this has nothing to do with Big Bang. What if the Big Bang is a part of God's creation? Something must happen before the Bog Bang to create the universe, and that is unknown to humans nowadays. All life is a amazing. But so what? Big Bang is the the only cause to life. In order to have life, you need a suitable planet with temperarure which liquid water exists, with enough gravity not to let oxygen and carbon dioxide escape... No one fully understand how simple elements turn into cells and complicated life, incluDing humans, but again, this has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Do not misunderstand the topic, the Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe, not the only cause of life, and does not contradict with any religion.
Is the big bang theory real

I want to take a step back for a minute and look at what evidence the Big Bang is missing. There are two primary things that the Big Bang cannot explain. One is how can something come from nothing? People who believe in the Big Bang theory will say that the universe and energy is what created something. But where did they come from. They say that the universe has always existed, but according to universetoday.com the universe is running out of energy, this means it is not eternal. This is where the Big Bang Theory runs into trouble. If there is no God, then because everything has to come from somewhere, there was once nothing. So unless nothing can create something the Big Bang Theory contradicts itself. Another unaddressed issue of the Big Bang theory is the complexity of life. If take a look at examples of life, it is extremely complex. If you look DNA, According to science if you were to write out all of the information in a tiny sample of DNA, you would have written out more information then there is on encyclopedia.com. Look at what all living things do. They sense and respond to changes, they reproduce, and they take energy from their surroundings and convert it to energy they can use. And look at all of the millions of species in the universe. Tigers, lions, alligators, birds. Look at all of the amazing functions and things that they do. Look at the planets. They are all amazing. This can't just be created from nothing. All of this amazing creation points to intelligent design. There had to be an amazing creator who designed this amazing universe, and made all of this come to pass. The idea of God creating the universe is more reasonable then nothing creating the universe. It just makes sense.
Is the big bang theory real

Big Bang is not an explosion. It is the process of the universe expanding. No one knows where the energy that creates the universe comes from, but it does not mean that the Big Bang theory is wrong. The Big Bang theory cannot explain everything, neither do religion. Can you tell me why God create the world in 6 days, not 8, not 10? The law of conservation of energy is not always true. Students are taught this law at school, but it does not mean it is true to all cases. It is true in most real life cases we encounter, that's why we are taught this way. For example photons, as space expands, the photon's wavelength increases (all distances increase, so that includes the photon's wavelength!). This is called "redshift". Since energy is inversely proportional to wavelength, this means that the energy of photons decreases as space expands. How can you prove that God is real? You can't. The probability of life existing in the universe is very low, but what if there are many universe and only one/few of them actually contains life? That's called multi-universe. I am agnostic, not atheist. I won't say 100% God does not exist, because no one can prove whether God exists. You think complexity is a proof to God. Let's look at the Bible. Do you think the Earth, the universe, and life, such complicated things can be created within 6 or 7 days? The church accepted that the story of God creating everything in 7 days may not be correct, as the people who write the Bible tries to write God's creation in an interesting way that people can understand. I study in an Catholic school and the religion teachers all said that science theories like Big Bang and evolution can be used to explain the origin of life and the universe, without contradiction to religion.
Is the big bang theory real

The Big Bang theory is not real. God is real and he created the earth that we are living on today. The Big Bang Theory is not real because of the complexity of life. Look at plants, animals, microscopic organisms, planets, and humans. All of these amazing things that are here can't just be a probability. There had to be someone who designed all of the amazing things that we have today. And if the Big Bang theory were true, then why aren't there explosions happening all the time? And if the law of conservation of energy is true, then where did the energy that started the big bang come from? What caused the explosion? To these questions no one has an answer to.
Laws

Being that Con has forfeited his turn in Round 2, I will proceed with all four of my supposed arguments. In this case, Con will be forced to respond to whichever specific argument, or all of them, in the 3rd and final round. If Con intends to debate that laws are unnecessary, then I propose that laws are intended to protect the citizens, and without these laws, and the punishments that accompany them, societal groups are subject to anarchy, consisting of hostile activity towards one another. I challenge Con to provide unmistakeable proof of a society which has existed successfully without the implementation of a set of rules, either spoken or unspoken. If con intends to debate that anarchism is a successful model for society, then I respond by suggesting that anarchy in itself is not an acceptable model. Anarchy does not mean that nobody has the power, anarchy means that the power is up for grabs. Even if a society were able to successfully institute an anarchistic model, eventually someone would claim a title of leader. Eventually, there would be a disagreement of some sort, and then there would be a power struggle. There is no circumstance where a leader will not naturally emerge. Anarchists do not seek to do away with authority as a whole, anarchists seek to shift the terms by which authority is defined and attained. So I challenge Con to present any case where an anarchist society has existed and thrived, without any sign of structural collapse. If Con intends to debate that US law is tyrannical, then I suggest they reexamine the definition of tyranny. Tyranny is defined as "cruel and oppressive government rule. " While the United States culture can be argued as cruel or oppressive, this is a loose argument, and far more determined by the societal and economic structure than by the legal structure. The US laws actually protect convicted persons from cruel and unusual treatment. The majority of oppression in the United States is financially based, and the result of our economic design, rather than our government. Therefore, I challenge Con to provide evidence that the US government, specifically, has displayed legal action that proves to be explicitly cruel and oppressive. If you intend to debate that US citizens do not think independently, then I challenge you to provide evidence to support this brazen claim.
Laws

Greetings and Good Luck in this debate. First, for all intents and purposes within this debate, I will be referring to "Law" defined as: "the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties." Using this definition of "law," the federal, state, and city government bear the responsibility of creating, legislating, and enforcing laws that are intended to regulate behaviors such that individuals and the community as a whole may exist peacefully and safely, to mutual benefit. I intend to argue that the existence and enforcement of laws as defined is a reasonable and vital part of a democratic and secure society, such as the United States of America, or any other such community. Before I proceed any further with this debate, I would ask for Con to please specify what his argument is. Do you intend to debate that laws are not necessary? Do you intend to debate in favor of an anarchist-based society? Do you intend to debate that US law is tyrannical in nature? Do you intend to debate that US citizens do not think independently? These are the four key potential debate topics that you seem to be inferring via your title or initial argument. If you wish to engage in a specific debate, please don't hesitate to explicitly state which of these, or any other topic, you wish to argue. I look forward to Round 2
Both Atheists and religious-believers are wrong.

Atheists believe that there is no God. They believe that before the Universe there was nothing (As most scientific theories claim). Religious-believers (mainly Christians) believe there is a God. They believe before the Universe there was just God. They are both wrong. I am the only one I know with this belief. I believe that there is a God, but he is not some elderly man with long hair, blowing in the wind, with long robes upon the clouds. I believe that God is not a man, nor a woman, God is an it. It is an energy with infinite knowledge and power. God was the only thing that existed, untill it decided to use its powers to created Universes. It created multiple Universes with differing physics. God is simply using the Universes like an ant farm, watching what it does out of curiousity. Many parts of the Bible are false. Many parts are true. God created us in his image. And that is true, so if we were to look upon the Universe and find intelligent life, we would find Humans. God created Humans to look after his world he was given. Do you believe in Jesus? I do. But I do not think he was God, or his son. I believe he was a spirit created by God in order to deliver a message to the people of Earth, and of course other planets with Humans. I think that this is the true belief, and I am correct. I may not hold a strong position in this arguement, but hey, I try. :/
should women, shave, do thier hair and wear make up

I urge Pro to make his/her argument more clear. It's hard to follow. >>>>"yes in a way wearing make up is cheating, however it all depends on how much if you cake your self in foundation, blusher, eyeliner etc then yes but if your like me and wear eyeliner and mascra there is nothing wrong with this. you are enhanceing your eyes." Why is there nothing wrong this? Your stating opinions, debating is the projection of those ideas and proving them right with evidence or reasoning. >>>>"women who look down on other women for doing this are not nesserseraly wrong but they shouldn't do it for it is thier own choice not to and there fore should not frown apon people who do." Again, why? You lack reasoning. >>>>"men find themselves more attacted to woemn who wear a small amout of make up and take pride in themseleves then women who don't." I accept but please relate to argument. >>>>"men would find it less attactive if they found that thier girl have longer arm pit hair than he does" True, True, but so what? Relate it to the argument please. Make up should be worn for attraction? But, I thought that was wrong?: "yes in a way wearing make up is cheating" _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Try relating: why men/boys find make up attractive, is beneficial in the "should women, shave, do thier hair and wear make up" argument.
should women, shave, do thier hair and wear make up

i understamd were my opponant is comming from. yes in a way wearing make up is cheating, however it all depends on how much if you cake your self in foundation, blusher, eyeliner etc then yes but if your like me and wear eyeliner and mascra there is nothing wrong with this. you are enhanceing your eyes. women who look down on other women for doing this are not nesserseraly wrong but they shouldn't do it for it is thier own choice not to and there fore should not frown apon people who do. men find themselves more attacted to woemn who wear a small amout of make up and take pride in themseleves then women who don't. men would find it less attactive if they found that thier girl have longer arm pit hair than he does
should women, shave, do thier hair and wear make up

I'll take your argument as: "I believe that women SHOULD not be made to shave do THEIR hair and makeup. But if they choose to do this then they should not be looked down on BY women who BELIEVE that they are only doing it for the men." (CAPS are Edits) I'll assume you're Pro from your argument. In relative to the resolution: Should women, shave, do their hair and wear makeup. >>Arguments<< >Against the superficial Nature of Body Alteration (shaving, hair alteration, makeup.) What is Self Alteration for? Make up is for the increase of self image. You boost how you look for some apparent gain. In the Laws of Human Nature and Anthropologies, Man's(or woman's) primary nature is to live as long as possible (Extend longevity) and to mate and reproduce as much as possible. These Alterations, unlikely as they may seem exist to attract a mate. Makeup for Partner--> To Get "it" with the Partner Makeup to look nice for you and only you --> You feel better, feeling better allows you to get a mate. Make up for a Non Partner --> Righhhht "Non Partner" ; ) Doing things in a proactive Nature is a cultural Taboo. >This Alteration is False By wearing this, makeup not only do you cheat (not necessarily bad), you shame is your Natural Image. You create this new Image in spite of the old one. Why? Is your old one so bad?
Progressive Taxation

Progressive taxation is crucial to American society. According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of wage earners in the United States were taxed at a rate of 31.6 percent in 2008, while the lowest quintile of earners was taxed at a rate of 1.1 percent. Many consider this beneficial because it means that those who can afford to pay more taxes do, and those who are poor can spend more of their wages on essentials rather than on taxes. http://www.ehow.com...
Progressive Taxation

"Under a flat tax system, struggling households must give up a larger portion of their purchasing power to tax obligations than higher income households." They're actually giving up the same exact proportion ... because that's what a percentage is ... a proportion of 100% (the whole). Some might argue that, but all argue that they don't want to be the ones paying the highest amounts for that to happen. It might be easier to swallow if that money was truly going to essentials alone. But when a person armed with an EBT card gets in front of me at the grocery store and ends up eating better than my family, and that little money they do make goes toward purchasing cable, internet, and apps on their smartphone ... that's when its a problem.
Progressive Taxation

I can attest the fact that it does not make for a happy society, because i am currently doing that and am not happy because of it. Progressive taxation is income inequality. You can't fight fire with fire on this issue. It is quite simply creating an imbalance towards the other direction with the gross majority of us stuck in the middle (high taxes and no benefits ... the perfect storm). It may be morally right for people who can pay more to do it, but it is morally wrong to make them do it. It takes all of the good out of charity if it is forced. It also takes all the appreciation for that charity out of the equation too. No one getting their welfare check ever sits down at the dinner table and gives thanks for it.
Progressive Taxation

Progressive taxation helps deal with income inequality. Under a flat tax system, struggling households must give up a larger portion of their purchasing power to tax obligations than higher income households. Progressive taxes serve to correct this imbalance. Also, some argue that it is morally right that those who can afford to pay more in taxes should do so. Those that have very little income should be helped out by those who can afford to help. A progressive tax allows governments to collect money from those who can afford to pay, and uses it to help create a society that is more happy as a result.
Progressive Taxation

I wholeheartedly disagree that progressive or tiered taxation is beneficial for American society. To put this into perspective ... I am 29, middle class, bought my first house just last year, am raising a family of two. I am by no means that 1%. I paid, however, just over 24% in income tax alone. On top of that I have to pay state taxes and title fees just to get to work for that income. Property tax for the house. You're worried about 1% of Americans? How about if that other 99% was paying their dues. Even just 15% tax? I don't blame the few for this disparity, I blame the many. Theres a much bigger group of people out there dicking over our country and progressive taxation slows their financial growth and incentive to change.
Zoos should be banned.

First I'm going to rebut your arguments "Zoos don't allow animals to live in their natural ways" Actually enclosures in zoos are made to be as close to natural habitats as possible. When you look at an enclosure containing a bear, you will see artificial rivers and huge lumps of rocks inside the enclosure, that's just an example. "Zoos claim to help with conservation"? Actually zoos really DO help with conservation, and have done so in the past. Do you remember the passenger pigeon which went extinct in the early 20th century? The last effort to keep the species from going extinct was done by a zoo in the US by breeding them. The last passenger pigeon to die was from a zoo. And another example, the Sumatran tiger, there are less than a hundred of them remaining in the Indonesian island of Sumatra, and efforts are being made by Indonesian zoos to conserve them by breeding them. Without those zoos the Sumatran Tiger would have gone extinct. "Zoos spend huge amounts of money on breeding programs" Zoos only spend huge amounts of money on breeding endangered species, as it's necessary and it's mandated by the government. So I think that's justifiable. "It's 50 times more expensive..." Where did you get that info from? Reference please? Now these are my arguments -Zoos educate the younger generation about animals -Zoos provide joy for children -Zoos do help conserve animals as mentioned before -Zoos are not that expensive, many zoo employees are actually not that well paid.
Zoos should be banned.

The major problem with zoos is that the animals who live there are kept in enclosures that don't allow them to live their lives in a natural way. Zoos claim to help with conservation. However, hardly any zoo registers their animals on an international species database and most zoo animals are not endangered at all. Zoos spend huge amounts of money on their breeding programs, even though breeding animals in captivity isn't the best way to help in conservation. It is at least 50 times more expensive to maintain elephants in zoos than to protect equivalent numbers of elephants in the wild. I really think that zoos should be banned.
Zoos should be banned.

Zoos are indeed not the only way to save species, but they are one of the ways. Just because there are other means of conversing species it doesn't mean you can discredit zoos and ignore the contributions to the conservation of wildlife which zoos have done. So my argument still stands; Zoos have contributed to the conservation of wildlife. One point, animals in zoos are not kept in cages, they have their own special enclosures which are sizable. The only times when these animals are kept in cages are during some rare moments such as giving birth or when they are sick or when they need to be transported somewhere. **** Is there any scientific proof saying that elephants sway their trunk back and forth because they are unhappy? Actually trunk swaying is part of elephants' normal behavior. Even elephants in the wild sway their trunks over and over when they are bored or resting. **** You cannot assume zoos mostly keep one animal of one type just because they display only one animal of a specific kind at a time. In a zoo there is always some sort of backyard in which animals are kept when they are not put on display. But it doesn't mean they are not treated well there. Look at the amount of money spent on zoos by governments. Zoos' backyards are specially designed to provide the best care for animals possible. **** Why am I sad because I say it's funny? It's actually funny because zoos are not a source of wealth, everybody who is sane knows that. No one can get rich from managing a zoo. There is someone known as Bill Gates who got rich from managing Microsoft, but has anybody gotten rich from managing a zoo? No one. But if you believe someone has, Tell me who the guy is :)) So your argument that zoos only look for profit and zoos give their directors "great wealth" is invalid. Offcourse pet shops don't just sell cats and dogs. BUT STILL the other types of animals they sell couldn't possibly come from zoos, like for example hamsters or pet fish. Or are you trying to say that pet shops sell lions or elephants? Research facilities have always used mice and rabbits throughout history. **** Man let me teach you the concept of value. Something is valuable if it's hard to get. Can you see lions apart from in zoos? So seeing lions is a valuable experience. **** Well not everybody has the luxury of having a computer and an internet access to open youtube and see wildlife videos, not everybody has the luxury of having cable television so they can watch national geographic. or the luxury of having a book specifically written about wildlife. And still you can only see them in pictures and photos or videos if you say so. It's just like seeing a painting of an extinct animal. Zoos provide us an opportunity to see these animals with our own eyes.