BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God

All scientific laws say that everything goes from a state of harmony to a state of choas. Trees go from living organisms to rotting ones, human beings go from living to dying, all things go from a state of perfect harmony to a state of chaos. Now that seems like common sense, right? Well, right it does, until we add the fact that there is one rule and one rule only that goes against this law of science. That one law says that earth went from a state of total and complete chaos to a state of harmony as tome went on and as time continues to carry on. How is it that if all things go from harmony to chaos that somehow every scientist in the world believes in something that goes against a law known all over the world, and they believe that the earth was an exception. They contradict each other yet everyone seems to believe that both statements are correct. It doesn't follow any rule of science, so how is it possible? Well it's possible because it wasn't an accident. God does everything with a purpose. It's no accident that somehow I ended up with this family in this town, in this country, in these years. Or even that I'm having this argument with you now. About your statement that if god loves you, if you loves everyone then why do bad things happen to us. Bad things happen to us for a reason we have to grow and learn and understand we have to show God that we are able to choose between good and evil when we need too. We didn't come to Earth for God to make every decision for us, it's called using our agency and what we know to help our weaknesses become strengths. I think that you don't think god exists but that maybe you might hate him instead for not "hearing you" when you try to talk to him. God does hear you and although you don't feel it at the moment I've seen God's hand in my life many times, and I know for sure that my parent have also. If you'd like to know these experiences I'd be more than happy to share them with you. However, I understand that it's extremely hard for you just a young 18 year old boy or me just a 17 year old girl to explain the existence of something when you don't understand it completely yourslef, and you can't see it, it's called having faith. Have you ever been to Antarctica? I doubt it, yet you still believe it's there, you still know that it exists. So then why not God? The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776 over 300 years ago, our forefathers such as George Washington, John Adam and many other great men based this country solely on the fact that God lives. You're last statement is doesn't make sense it's like asking you to drive off of the bride but still stay on the bride at the same time. God can do all things, however he will due them in his own time and now when he is demanded no man would ask god to create a rock large enough that he couldn't move and then tell him to move it but if this in fact did happen then God would make it happen. Until next time, adieu.
God

Some answers don't come right away, you don't get to demand God to do something, that's not how it works. However, I can counter your argument that there is no proof that he lives by asking, is there any proof that he doesn't? For your benefit I suggest you watch the movie God's Not Dead, because there is a very compelling argument to prove that God does in fact exist. Now, I guessing you're probably not going to, so I'll continue my argument. All scientist believe that Earth was created by the "Big Bang" you would have to have two things that would have collided together so that the Big Bang could have happened, but if there's no God where did those things come from? Other than from God, there is no logical explanation. We could not possibly exist without God. We are created in his image, to come to earth in a mortal state and be presented with many trials and tribulations that might prohibit us from moving forward but as we come to know God, our trials are lifted from us and we are able to proceed to an immortal state like our father who is in heave, yea even, God. I concrete evidence is that everything is in the perfect place, do you think that somehow a planet made from dust ended up in exactly the right place in the universe for humans to maintain life for thousands of years, by accident? I think not. You, yourself is concrete evidence in and of yourself that God exists. For you to have ran outside in a lightning storm while yelling at God to strike you is a sign that Satan was tempting you for trying to talk to God, that's what he does, and you let yourself fall to the temptation of the devil, I actually feel sorry for you. I firmly believe that you should try talking to God again and if it doesn't work do it again, and again, and again, until it does and I'm sure that one day you'll come to the conclusion that God does live and that he loves you more than you can comprehend. I enjoy arguing with you but you have no proof that suggest that he doesn't exist.
God

To answer your questions...yes, I have marveled at nature in all of the ways you mentioned, none of which led me to believe there is a God. You have provided anecdotes from various sources, but none of them are real arguments. I can provide the following "counter-anecdote" which would have the same weight as everything you mentioned: In 2014, a young man, myself, who was only 16 wanted to know if there really is a God after being repeatedly argued against by Christians and other believers. He was thinking about the issue inside his house when a storm started brewing with lots of lightning and thunder. Curious and perhaps angry at his inability to come to a conclusion, he stomped outside into the rain and screamed at the sky "If you are there, then strike me down now with your lightning! Show yourself!" Several seconds later, the young man was still standing there, untouched...perhaps disappointed. It seemed that there's no God after all. My anecdote carries just as much weight as yours...which is virtually nothing. Is there any logical, concrete argument you can present for God's existence? Anything besides anecdotes?
God

God has provided many evidences of His existence. One of these is the testimony of His creations: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork" (Psalms 19:1). Have you ever looked in awe at the night sky with its billions of stars? Or studied the intricate details of a leaf or flower? Or marveled at the miracle of a tiny new baby? These beautiful and complex creations didn"t come about by chance. They are the creations of God, your Heavenly Father. They can remind you of His existence and of His love for His children. An ancient prophet declared: "All things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth... and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator" (Book of Mormon, Alma 30:44). Nothing makes sense without god. In 1820, a young man who was just 14 wanted to know which denomination was true. One day while he was reading through the Bible he came upon the fifth verse in the book of James that says "If any of you lack wisdom , let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." After reading this verse he went into a grove of trees and prayed to his father in heaven. However, a darkness overcame him and his toungue was tied, but he kept on praying with all his might, and when he looked up into heaven and beheld a light (Joseph Smith History 1:1-20) two personages appeared to the boy it was the father and the son, God and Jesus Christ. Joseph would not have said he had seen two personages who's brightness and glory exceed above the brightness of the sun stood above him in the air I feel he had not seen them. As Joseph sees these men, one said pointing to the other "Joseph, this is my beloved son" God the father and his son Jesus Christ visited young Joseph in a grove of trees in 1820 in Palmyra, New York.
Should students be allowed to listen to music in school while doing work? (2)

I accept. I disagree wholeheartedly with your opinion. Students should NOT be allowed to listen to music whilst doing school work. Your right, in some cases music can be calming and relaxing, it can relieve stress and sometimes even calm the nerves. But in a class, full of working students, music is not acceptable. (Unless of course it is learning a song for school purposes- National Anthem etc). For one it is a huge distraction. Imagine a child being in the middle of a test with a loud testy beat booming in their ears. The poor child would hardly be able to concentrate on the test, let alone keep focused on the given task. Another reason is the bad influence on children most music these days can have. If you think about it , roughly 60% of the music kids listen to nowadays is explicit or at least contains an inappropriate story line or meaning. Do you think that the parents and teachers of the students would appreciate this new allowance? Chances are, no they would not appreciate their children/students listening to music in class. The parents would be angry that their child's education is being interrupted under the infulence of music. And what about the teachers, think about what a heard time they would have trying to teach their students and get them to focus on their work... Here is what an angry parent quoted when they had, had enough of their child listening to inappropriate music: It is disconcerting that the industry allows so much inappropriate language and disturbing contents and that the audience/market buys it. That being said, it is impossible to prevent a tween/teen from hearing it and singing it. We try to discuss that certain words are inappropriate and substitute for more kosher words, but I have no doubt that when they are alone, the kids use the original versions. So you see my friend, if your beliefs were to be enforced you would have a lot of very angry teachers and parents to face up to...
Should students be allowed to listen to music in school while doing work? (2)

Well the first time I did this debate my opponent forfeited all the rounds so I'll try it again. With a different opponent maybe? I'm just gonna copy and paste my first argument that was never challenged by my opponent the first time I did this onto this one. Anyways, I think kids should be allowed to listen to music in class because it helps kids concentrate. It also could solve the problem of kids talking in class. While listening to music they wouldn't be able to hear their friends talking as well and it would block out background noise. A few points I should mention: Kids should NOT be allowed phones because that would cause more problems with txting and cheating. However, music is different. Music can relax those with nerves during an exam or just provide entertainment while you sludge though all that math. Some wouldn't WANT to listen to music because it may be a distraction to some but I don't think we should not allow something because a few are against it. http://www.teachersatrisk.com...... >>Better grades According to the American Music Conference (AMC), music won"t rot your mind -- in fact, it"s actually good for your thinking-cap. The AMC has cited research that has shown that studying and creating music may help improve your capacity to learn other subjects and get better grades overall.<< (This is copied and pasted from yahoo! sorry...) Music can also help with your creativity in classes such as English or Art. (me and my friends are all writers and artists. Music is our muse so why can't it be to others?) That's all for now! :)
Should students be allowed to listen to music in school while doing work? (2)

So, after reviewing both sides of this argument, I have come to the conclusion that Students should not be allowed to listen to music in school while doing work. Here are a few points to summarize my conclusion. Music can be very distracting There is the problem of students listening to inappropriate music Lots of children will not be able to afford Ipod's and so on and therefore will be teased Teachers will get fustrated Students will find it hard to concentrate Parents will be disappointed that their child's education is being affected by the input of music So yes, students should definitely not be allowed to listen to music in schools whilst doing work. To the voters. I think you should vote for CON because I presented viable, relevant arguments. I presented true reliable facts and opions. PRO presented weak arguments. PRO did not counter argue my points Voters please vote CON! :) Kindest regards to both PRO and voters. :) Merry Christmas
Should students be allowed to listen to music in school while doing work? (2)

Thank you. I noticed that throughout your argument you mentioned "I think" and "well some" "not all" "their choice" quite a few times which to me displayed your lack of knowledge on this topic and that you do not quite have your facts set in concrete. Oh and generally in a debate you present facts for reliable sources and it is fine to have a little personal opinion but your whole debate can not be based on your thoughts and opinion, you do need at least some hard, true facts to support your statements. Anyway back to "business"... Studying with headphones on tends to decrease retention/memory, whereas music in the background can be an aid to study. The difference between the two deals with how close the input of sound is. Headphones have direct access to the brain by covering the ears, and this direct access can interfere with learning, especially if the material is new and the new material is difficult! Being "lazy," the brain prefers the close input of the music over the more distant, more difficult input from the eyes that it must translate and "work on" to understand. Unlike music through headphones, background music has all environmental noises included in it, and to hear this music to the exclusion of other input requires intense concentration. For example, if you have ever seen somebody trying to listen to an instructional recording in the middle of a busy work environment, you may have noticed that they closed their eyes to decrease visual input to help them focus on the sound. People do not use this type of concentration for environmental sounds, and can focus on the closer print material to a greater degree. Some people use familiar music to mask outside noises. With the music being very familiar, the student in some ways does not "hear" it, it is an expected noise with an expected sequence. So a student studying in a room with a stereo going can be masking (hiding) sounds from the hall or somebody's TV, while working on material for classes. Some studies even suggest that certain types of music -- such as Bach, Beethoven, or flowing instrumentals -- may even increase intelligence and retention of material. However, hard driving rock, rap music, and heavy metal cannot make the same claim! So you cannot guarantee the benefit allowing students to listen to music is going to have. And one thing we all know for sure is that not many students nowadays listen to gentle flowing melodies of Beethoven...
Is The Amazing Spiderman 2 a Better movie than Captain America 2

Thats the issue with spiderman, they throw random things at him, new villians, drama, ect. and it causes the story line to become overrated. Captain America sticks with the storyline he was written into, hes a geneticly altered hero fighting to stop other geneticly altered beings, like spiderman fighting other super villans. It was important to the creators of Captain America that they dont stray so far from the path that Captain America gets lost and ends up like transformers, thats why Captain America was so much better. And your right " Amazing Spider-Man 2, on the other hand, is about two and a half great movies smooshed into one messy, merely decent one." Spiderman ended up being another movie meant to attract girls who thought the actors were hot.
Is The Amazing Spiderman 2 a Better movie than Captain America 2

I don't think Spiderman is beaten constantly because he used his intelligence to overcome the two very powerful opponents which i think Captain America would never have fought against. While Captain America( who is very strong) fights against normal human beings, Spiderman fights supernatural humans. In Spiderman there are new characters introduced to increase curiosity of their strengths and weaknesses. In Captain America introducing same villains makes it boring since their is nothing new. The Winter Soldier is a pretty simple movie - Cap's working for SHIELD, something's fishy, Hydra Reveal, Wham, Bam, problem (kinda sorta, The Winter Soldier himself is sort of just left dangling at the end in favour of bringing more resolution and focus on the destruction of SHIELD) solved - and that really works in its favour. It paces itself steadily, never allows itself to lose track of itself, and deals with its story elements largely successfully. The simple structure really allows them to focus on what's needed to drive the movie, and it works really well. Amazing Spider-Man 2, on the other hand, is about two and a half great movies smooshed into one messy, merely decent one.
Is The Amazing Spiderman 2 a Better movie than Captain America 2

I think Captain America 2 was better because it interacted with more storylines, it effects all other avengers, shield (TV SHOW), and even the XMEN and Spiderman. but in spiderman 2 nothing in any other show changed or was effected. Spidermand didnt tie as close to the comics as winter soldier. If they had left bucky out then spiderman would never enter the avengers in the future. Spiderman is over rated, he cannot produce his own webs naturaly, is beaten up constantly, and often survives by pure luck. The villians in Spiderman come out of the blue while Captain americas in winter Soldier come from the first movie.
Is The Amazing Spiderman 2 a Better movie than Captain America 2

I feel Amazing Spiderman 2 was a better movie than Captain America 2 because Captain America 2 lacked a proper storyline as compared to Spiderman. Also the movie contained too much action which was supposed to be there. Spiderman on the other hand had a good story and also moderate action. The villains of Captain America did not have much power or strength which made them weak. Also the villains of Spiderman 2 where not bad in nature. Electro was not a bad man. He became bad when he fell into the aquarium like tube with electricity around him which made him power thirsty. Goblin became bad in his greed to cure himself.
kill or rather get kill

I am sorry for violating some of your rules! I would like to just say one thing before concluding, I would like to make a counterpoint. In your argument you state that "you only have one life" , I will accept defeat if you can prove that! that quote seems to be your opinion and not a fact, this opinion of yours may be shared with other people but all I would like to say is that there is no evidence that you only live once. The main point I see you making is that you want to live your life properly before dying because apparently you only have one shot at it, so basically your argument sort of lies on the fact that "you only live once" so since that is your belief, I respect it, but I would like you to prove it because evidence is key in everything. If you succeed in proving that life only comes round once then I shall accept defeat happily! I am really happy to hear that you think fondly of me! so thanks for that.
kill or rather get kill

It is going to be hard to make a point as there is no background/scenario explained because with a valid situation this debate would make a little more sense (do not take any offesnse) . Now, the reason as to why i would rather get killed is because "killing is bad". This might sound like an awfully dull point but I've said it in the most simple terms, it is bad, killing someone would mean Jail, depression and maybe guilt. Think about it yourself, that is why killing is against the law. And if you are a good person you wouldn't go against the law, you wouldn't break the rules that guide society fairly, you wouldn't demolish the biggest system in the whole world infact by breaking that law you would be destroying an ancient, timeless product that has been showing the human race the true path of righteousness. My words may sound very exaggerated but its all true, bitter but true. I am not a fan of dying so it would be difficult to face death (obviously) ,but it would mean that i would have died being a law-abiding, truthful samaritan of humanity and anyway we will all die someday so why not die being a good person rather than a guilt-ridden criminal which society rejects. Those are my biggest points yet. .. .. .. but i personally feel that they are true because being a good human is the foundation of life, it's what basically everything depends on, it is the base of your existence. Please take into account I'm only a 13 year old, please forgive me if I'm wrong at any points of my argument!
kill or rather get kill

Simple. Kill or rather get kill. For the sake of this "thou shall not kill" should not be use in this debate. Religion should not intervene in this. Also for the sake of this, there's no background, or whatsoever that happened that led to this. It just something that happen and weather if you'll kill or get kill. You nor I can really make a justification, but rather state why we should live and not that person, vice versa. List as many points as u want and defend them. Ex: Good: Blah Blah Blah Love: Blah Blah Blah Kind: Blah Blah Blah So do not put your argument in one sentence or clot all of them together. This is a one time debate. I will let my opponent go first and than I will present my side in the second round as I do not want to present it in explaining the rules of this debate. No rebuttals at all. I will not rebuttals my opponent points. I will only present my points. My opponent should not reply in round 2 rather simply say "Good debate" or something that is not furthering his stand. He/She should make his stands in the first round, as it is his/her only chance. I simply extend this debate to two rounds because its where I want to make my points, not in the first round where I'm making the rules. I will take the pro side of this and say I rather kill.
Bullying should be a crime

I am the obvious winner in today's debate, due to the forfeiture by my opponent. I win on conduct because of forfeiture. I win on spelling and grammar because of my opponents many mistakes in his Affirmative Speech. More convincing arguments, is up to you to decide on as judge. I was the only one with sources, all of which were reliable. My opponent never challenged any of them, so they must have been reliable.
Bullying should be a crime

Bullying should not be a crime. I think bullying one for one reason or the other is extremely cruel. People need to understand that children are developing and can grow out of things. Some bullies can ruin childrens lives, but a car accident can also ruin another persons life. What I mean is, we are growing in a population. Which means growing up with more children around, results in more opportunities for children to get bullied. I think giving children and legal action for something they look at as humorous because they are children is cruel and usual punishment in itself. Besides what legal actions could you face with 6"17 year old's for picking on one another. I think the work should be left in the parenting. Parents should teach their children picking on people no matter what skin tone, language, or economic class they have. Bullying is not a matter for the police or court system, its a matter of school, parent, and student.