BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Both Evolution and Creationism should be taught in schools.

Before I begin, please note that I came at this subject indifferently and chose a side based on what I researched. I also hope that this does not become a throwdown of insults. If it does, I will forfeit only because I have no interest in that. I am not set in my opinion, I wish to hear other people's sides so that I may have further evidence in choosing my final position. Alright. Critically proclaimed scientists such as Bill Nye have suggested that Evolution is taught in schools as the truth, as science. He also suggests that the reason Creationism isn't, is that it relies on needless faith, and is therefore unfit for the school system. Well, define faith. Isn't faith trusting in something, believing in something? I won't go into the details at this moment, but during the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate, Bill Nye's resources for information were flawed. It cannot be proven that Evolution, nor the 'Big Bang' have actually occurred. Therefore, the idea of Evolutionism is also, strongly based on faith. If the reason Creationism is avoided in schools is because of the faith involved, is it sensible for Evolution to be taught as science, when it too, incredulously, relies on faith? I believe that either both should be explained or neither. Therefore giving each student a choice to believe what they find most valid after reviewing the facts for themselves. Thank you.
the human person is a jigsaw puzzle/mosaic metaphor

At this aforementioned dark juncture, the response to irrational self-appearance related thought was to introduce the mosaic to the fold. It was through this that the more likely analogy of jigsaws emerged. The jigsaw: a complex collection of small pieces; some jagged, some smooth; some with slots, some with holes. Things piece together either through luck, assiduous effort, or by sheer coincidence. In the pursuit of ultimate happiness, the jigsaw must be completed. But pieces, like people, go missing, and, chameleon-like, they change shape. Maybe, irrespective of our efforts, the picture alters. If we deem our life a jigsaw, we can only hope that nobody comes along, deems the effort a waste of time, and sweeps it all back into the box. Then we would lie broken, fragmented, lost in a confined abyss of darkness, hoping that someone will have the interest to start piecing the puzzle together again. I was informed by a most-learned friend that the jigsaw was invented by a cartographer. The geometric and geographic combine again for the richness of art. Biographically and bio-critically, we might consider how we can Write off the Map. We do not need to be pieces in a box to be lost or found. Perhaps, on the other hand, the jigsaw is an implicit mirror, there to mask " as perhaps poetry does " what we dare not see in its explicit form. To stand on the edge of the land of Asset, and not even see the shores of Need on the horizon is a bleak foresight.
you can loose salvation

You stated a BELIEF based on opinion! Scriptures were provided showing that opinion in error and WHY! If scripture makes you feel attacked! Again your opinion is in error! PAID IN FULL is your sin debt, by Christ alone! YOU DIDN"T EARN IT! .... therefore you CANNOT LOSE IT! It"s that simple! God says so! I believe what scripture SAYS, not what I "think", not what you "think", not what they "think" . God said it, that ends it! Scripture says what it means no interpretation needed!
you can loose salvation

You have turned this into a personal attack.Look, the bible is clear salvation is a gift not something to be taken for granted.yes Gods salvation is free but we must recieve it like a gift, we cant say "i said the sinners prayer i"m saved" thats heresy.The gospel is about jesus doing a work and us accepting it.We loose our salvation therefore in the respect we forfiet it. God always holds it out to us we must accept it,if our belief is not founded right were not saved.
you can loose salvation

You are in violation of scripture! You will "Not" personally interpret Gods Word! 2 Peter 1:20-21. You are debating on your opinion that"s 2 strikes, a violation of Proverbs 3:5 leaning on human understanding, this violates Our instruction of Romans 14:13 "NOT" to cause a brother to stumble, by a self made judgement! In all violating Matthew, Luke And Mark which directs you to DENY Yourself! As Roman 8:9 informs you that you ARE NOT your own! We speak the word of God NOT Man OR our OWN!
you can loose salvation

You are using verses in the bible to prove a non existent point.You said "will be saved only" I ask you who said?. Does not the same God say, in that day "I never knew you". I concede the bible does make statements on never losing salvation, but only in certain context"s,just saying the sinners prayer one night or saying "I believe in my heart proves nothing, how can anyone say a just,good, God can allow man to mock him? salvation depends on what a person does with christ.
you can loose salvation

Topic: you can loose salvation Answer: FALSE Proof: Romans 6:23 -For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesusby grace our Lord. Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, 1 Corinthians 3:15"If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved"even though only as one escaping through the flames. This proves there will be Christians in Heaven who are SAVED ONLY!
you can loose salvation

Firstly, im christian.Secondly God cannot be mocked.Thirdly christians need to define their terms. Yes salvation is free, but it is not to be taken for granted. God will not be mocked. You cannot say a sinners prayer,say you believe,then live as you want, and still think you will go to heaven. In this respect we loae our salvation, the lord will say "away I never knew you". Only those who actively follow and seek christ,who have a remorse for the wrongs in their lives will inherit salvation.
Ak-47 is much superior than M-16

1. My opponent has completely ignored the rest of my argument. My point was that the low weight of the bullet was an advantage in some situations. 2. The M-16 bullet tumbles, tearing through the target. The AK-47 bullet punches a hole though it. The lack of stabilization works in the M-16's favor. 3. You stated that he M-16 can penetrate to a depth of 15 inches, which is enough to kill someone. The extra 11 inches of penetration from an AK-47 are unnecessary. 4. My opponent didn't really make an argument here. He said that he agreed with my statement, and then made assertions about the AK-47 5. Not everyone will want to spend their time cleaning, but it could be worth it for a better weapon. 6. You are right in that there is no point buying a more expensive weapon when the cheaper one is better. However, the nature of the debate is "Which one is better?". It can't be assumed that the AK-47 is a better weapon, so your point falls apart.
Ak-47 is much superior than M-16

http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com..."The M-16 bullets' low weight and lack of stabilization allows them to tumble, causing more severe damage to the target. "-You say that the M-16 bullet has a low weight which means that is has no penetration power. A low weight bullet compared to the powerful Ak-47 bullet is like comparing a 4GB usb to 32GB usb. Obviously the ak-47 bullet is better than the tiny M-16 bullet."lack of stabilization" -This contradict to what you wrote before which says that M-16 is more accurate than the Ak-47. If the bullet isn't going in a stabilized direction then how is it accurate. "Although the AK-47 can penetrate farther, it does not result in a more destructive weapon."- This statement is wrong because how is Ak-47 not destructive more then the M-16 when it can penetrate farther then M-16 and has more power. "In an urban area, both weapons would be able to hit their targets. The difference is that the M-16 would have an easier time of hitting its target outside of an urban area, making it a more versatile weapon."- Yes in an urban area both gun should be able to hit their targets but can they confirm the kill for sure. M-16 might take a while to shoot and kill, but Ak-47 takes only a few rounds to kill. Its not a versatile weapon if it cant survive harsh conditions around the world with out cleaning the gun every few hours. "3. As I stated in 1, the tumbling of the bullet allows it to destroy more. A battle is not won by penetrating a wall, there is far more to it than that. A weapon needs to be able to handle whatever situation it is placed in." - My opponent says that penetrating a wall doesn't win battle. That is something I agree, a battle is won by using a good gun. A weapon that penetrates and kills is the one and only Ak-47. Ak-47 can penetrate a wall to kill an enemy and it can handle whatever situation you put it in. Even if you change the settings or the time it will be able to kill and destroy whatever you need. " Not every moment of a soldiers' life is spent fighting, they would likely have time to clean it f it needs to be done."-I think this statement is false because my opponent is assuming she knows what a soldier wants to do during his or her free time. Maybe the soldier wants to eat or sleep during his or her free time. My opponent is assuming the situation, when an Ak-47 doesn't need whatever cleaning because it is able to shoot no matter what happened to it. "6. There is no point to buying a cheaper weapon when it is inferior. th price itself is not what make it inferior, it is its' characteristics."- No point in buying cheaper weapon is false statement because if that cheaper weapon is better in so many ways then what's the point in buying something more expansive. Characteristics of an Ak-47 is more superior in M-16 in many ways. Conclusion Ak-47 is better than M-16 because of all the pros for Ak-47 outweighs the con of having one. When being compared to a M-16 Ak-47 dominates for its effectiveness and powerfulness.AK-47 is Superior than M-16. http://www.enemyforces.net...
Ak-47 is much superior than M-16

1. The M-16 bullets' low weight and lack of stabilization allows them to tumble, causing more severe damage to the target. [1] Although the AK-47 can penetrate farther, it does not result in a more destructive weapon. 2. In an urban area, both weapons would be able to hit their targets. The difference is that the M-16 would have an easier time of hitting its target outside of an urban area, making it a more versatile weapon. 3. As I stated in 1, the tumbling of the bullet allows it to destroy more. A battle is not won by penetrating a wall, there is far more to it than that. A weapon needs to be able to handle whatever situation it is placed in. 4. My opponent has made a fallacious argument, in that he is assuming that he knows exactly what the soldier wants and that his representation of a soldier is accurate. 5. Not every moment of a soldiers' life is spent fighting, they would likely have time to clean it f it needs to be done. 6. There is no point to buying a cheaper weapon when it is inferior. Th price itself is not what make it inferior, it is its' characteristics. Reasoning the magazine can be replaced with a more durable aftermarket model, such as H&K's all-stainless-steel magazine. Sources [1] http://www.enemyforces.net...
Ak-47 is much superior than M-16

The Facts-Ak-47 Designed in 1947weight (with loaded 30 round magazine) - 5.22 kgOverall length - 87 cmBarrel length - 40.6 cm Cartridge - 7.62 x 39 mmBullet weight - 123grvelocity- 2,400 ft/senergy- 1,560 ft ft/lbseffective range- 350 meterAccuracy- 2 to 4 inchesPenetration- 26 inchesRate of fire- 600 rounds per minutes The Facts-M-16Designed in 1957weight (with loaded 30 round magazine) - 3.6 kgOverall length - 100 cmBarrel length - 50.8 cm Cartridge - 5.56 x 45 mmBullet weight - 55grvelocity- 3,280 ft/senergy- 1,314 ft/lbseffective range- 350 meterAccuracy- 2 inchesPenetration- 15 inchesRate of fire- 750 rounds per minutes http://en.wikipedia.org...Rebuttal for all the reasons. " The M-16 fires at a faster rate than the AK-47. The M-16 has a cyclic rate of fire of 700-950 rounds per minute."-I think the firing rate won't matter if you have a gun that can only penetrate only 15 inches. Ak 47 can penetrate 26 inches which can even go through solid wall and armor." The M-16 has a longer rage of fire, at 600 meters."- Most war now happen in urban areas where fights happen in close range. Ak-47 is perfect for this type of situation." The M-16 also has a faster muzzle velocity, at 948 m/sec. [1] Comparatively, the AK-47 has a muzzle velocity of 715 m/sec. [2] This makes the M-16 a more destructive weapon, as the rounds hit their targets faster."- Because a gun has a faster muzzle velocity by only about 200 m/s doesn't make the gun more destructive. A gun like the Ak 47 can destroy and penetrate through wall while it can take M16 longer time to destroy it because of its lower penetration." The M-16 has less recoil than the AK-47 [3], making it easier to use and more accurate."- I agree, but any soldier will trade a better gun with greater penetration and energy than a gun for its recoil."The M-16, with proper cleaning, can be just as reliable as the AK-47. The problems with it jamming in combat situations were mainly attributes to the false marketing of the M-16 as self-cleaning, so soldiers allowed dust and dirt to build up."- M 16 jams while Ak 47 doesn't. Even if your clean it that takes time and skills. Ak 47 can still shoot no matter if its covered in dirt or mud or water."The low price of the AK-47 also comes with a decrease in rate of fire, range of fire, and muzzle velocity. The only gain is in recoil. Although the AK-47 may be cheaper, the M-16 is a better weapon."- The fact that the price is low isn't a bad thing. You can almost buy 3 ak 47 for the price of a M 16. Ak 47 beats m16 in other categories.Reasoning1) My same reasons for round 1 still stands.2) "The M16's magazine are made of light weight pressed/stamped aluminum. Therefore, it is easier to damage than an AK-47 magazine. Also, the feed lips are proportionally weaker when compared to the AK-47."- this proves that Ak-47 magazine is better.The newspaper report you gave is clearly an opinion. Ak 47 for the win!!! http://www.youtube.com...
Ak-47 is much superior than M-16

Arguments 1. The M-16 fires at a faster rate than the AK-47. The M-16 has a cyclic rate of fire of 700-950 rounds per minute. [1] The AK-47 has a cyclic rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute. [2] This contributes to the status of the M-16 as more effective weapon to have in battle. 2. The M-16 has a longer rage of fire, at 600 meters. [1] The AK-47 has a range of 350 meters. [2] This would be beneficial in a firefight because you could shoot at you opponent from a farther distance, potentially keeping out of their range of fire. 3. The M-16 also has a faster muzzle velocity, at 948 m/sec. [1] Comparatively, the AK-47 has a muzzle velocity of 715 m/sec. [2] This makes the M-16 a more destructive weapon, as the rounds hit their targets faster. 4. The M-16 has less recoil than the AK-47 [3], making it easier to use and more accurate. Rebuttal 1) The M-16, with proper cleaning, can be just as reliable as the AK-47. The problems with it jamming in combat situations were mainly attributes to the false marketing of the M-16 as self-cleaning, so soldiers allowed dust and dirt to build up. [4] 2) The low price of the AK-47 also comes with a decrease in rate of fire, range of fire, and muzzle velocity. The only gain is in recoil. Although the AK-47 may be cheaper, the M-16 is a better weapon. Sources: [1] http://www.colt.com... [2] http://www.izhmash.ru... [3] http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ak-47 is much superior than M-16

. http://www.youtube.com...Argument:1) Ak-47 is more reliable weapon than the M-16. Both weapons are used through out the world. Ak-47 is one of the best assault rifle ever built. Created in 1949 it is still used around the world today. 2) Ak-47 is a cheaper gun than M-16 and is an amazing gun for the price. For the price which is about one third of the cost of a M-16, the gun Ak-47 is more efficient and cheaper. . http://www.budsgunshop.com... Ak-47 is only $361.00. http://www.budsgunshop.com...M-16(The most close related gun the AR-15) $954.00. http://www.hyattgunstore.com...Ak-47 is only $338.99 . http://www.hyattgunstore.com...M-16(The most close related gun the AR-15) $ 913.99Conclusion:Ak-47 is better than M-16 because overall Ak-47 brings more to the table than M-16. Ak-47 is a gun that is reliable than M-16. Ak-47 is also cheaper than M-16 in the market. If deciding between these two assault rifle to arm your country you would use Ak-47 for its reliability and its cheap to produce or buy. There are many different cons and pros about both of the rifles, but Ak-47 wins in many crucial components that M-16 doesn't have.
god is not needed for morality

I am incredibly sorry, As I was preoccupied with other matters. Religion has seriously impacted human morals and ethics as we know it today. I can prove this by making a simple comparison, The evidence being provided by your own understanding. The morals of animals are different than that of humans. We can see this in the respect that we, As humans, Have evolved differently from them in the ways of morals and ethics. Because of our religion, Our values of good and evil have been developed, And this started out as there being the law so that god would not smite you. Religious belief have been the cause for justification for murder and bloodshed, And in the animal kingdom it's food, There aren't laws that protect endangered amimals.
god is not needed for morality

Humans and other mammals evolved with an innate knowledge of right and wrong, I. E. Caring for their young, Not killing their own kind, Respecting the person and property (territory, Shelter, And food) of others of their own kind. Humans have developed sophisticated laws about these things, Many of them enshrined in religion. With the separation of state and religion, It became evident that morality exists outside religion. That is because we evolved that way. It"s a survival mechanism of social groups. Human communities share most morals no matter what religion they are, Thus making god unnecessary. Religious morality is dogmatic and authoritarian, Making followers obedient not moral and unable to improve their morality. It's only through abandoning certain widespread religious ideas that progress towards a truly just and consistent morality is possible. There's an ongoing need to develop and refine our moral understanding. The problem is the false and morally corrupting idea that the lawmaker is perfect. It's corrupting because, In causing us to accept unjust laws, It leaves us defending the indefensible.
THBT Death penalty is necessary

Point Death penalty does not deter crime. According to the National Research Council, those studies that claim that death penalty is an effective deterrent to murder were weak. Furthermore, a 2009 survey of criminologists revealed that over 88% believed the death penalty was NOT a deterrent to murder.1 Another is that states in the US that do not have death penalty have lower murder rates than states that do have.The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.2 Rebuttals: It also is the ideal punishment for someone who has murdered several people or murdered even one person in a cruel and unusual way. Killing a human being has never been an ideal punishment. Life imprisonment is the ideal way to punish offenders as they will feel suffering for many years compared to instant death. It is possible to put a criminal/mass murderer on life without parole in prison, but this still has a chance of them escaping prison and murdering more people. Improving the security and intelligence in the prison cell is the solution, not death penalty. Also, the death penalty is only given after extensive research into the crime and can only be given when the government is 100% sure about the decision. There is no perfect justice system in the world, we can never be 100% sure. Sources: 1 http://www.amnestyusa.org... 2 http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org...
THBT Death penalty is necessary

The death penalty is necessary to keep crime in check. It also is the ideal punishment for someone who has murdered several people or murdered even one person in a cruel and unusual way. You might say that two wrongs don't make a right, but the death penalty would not count as a wrong because it is removing a possible endangerment of US citizens. The government gives us the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and if the government did not stop a criminal that had murdered many people and would possibly do it again, it would be taking away our rights as citizens of the United States. It is possible to put a criminal/mass murderer on life without parole in prison, but this still has a chance of them escaping prison and murdering more people. Also, the death penalty is only given after extensive research into the crime and can only be given when the government is 100% sure about the decision. Anyways, would you want to spend the rest of your life in a prison with absolutely no chance of getting out legally?
We should be a Communist Society.

Hop off my D bruh. Of course im tryna be a slave and if you don't want to then you gotta have something checked out in that puny mind of yours. If we were all slaves then we'd basically all be citizens cause we'd be in the same situation. So we wouldn't know any better life. We wouldn't have to go above and beyond and "run the extra mile" as some republican losers call it. Mega XD. LET A NEW STALIN RAISE TO POWER ONCE AGAIN!
We should be a Communist Society.

We will not worship a random 'ultimate leader' guy. Non sense. Right there. Oh, So now you want to be a slave. Do what HE says, WHEN, You must and HOW you must. The world will not be perfect and it will be not relaxation. It will be pick your butt up and "do the work I tell you to do". So what if its free. Lifes not meant to be free. Why you think its called a challenging life, Why do you think we have money, HEY?
We should be a Communist Society.

We should be communist because it will help our planet and other countries will follow because we are a world power. The hope is that we have one ultimate leader that makes all of the choices for everyone and we worship him has our God. We will be worry free because we do exactly what he says with no exceptions. Life would be easy, Relaxing, And fun. People underestimate the goodness of communism. If we are communist we are given free clothing, Free housing, Free everything. It is all paid for by the government. The only thing we have to do is what he tells us to do. It sounds so perfect, But it is much more perfect then it truly sounds. Join me in the push to make communism more popular and attractive! Let the future generations live capitalism free! Begone thots!