BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Muhammad was prophecised in the Book of Isaiah

This challenge is currently closed, if you're interested in debating this, PM me directly.If you have any troubles with the rules, be sure to PM me about that as well to get that settled before the debate.Rules:-Burden of proof is on Pro.-No squirreling-Be civil and follow the format.Format:Round 1: Acceptance of rules, no arguments.Round 2: Opening CasesRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Closing Arguments/ Counter-rebuttalsTerms:prophecised: To be foretold.Book of Isaiah:The first book of the Latter Prophets in the Hebrew Bible and the first book of the Major Prophets in the Christian Old Testament.Muhammad:the prophet and founder of Islam. According to Islamic doctrine, he was God's Messenger, sent to confirm the essential teachings of monotheism preached previously by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.
parallel universes vs religion and other scientific theories and finds

I'm afraid I'm entirely unaware of how quantum mechanics provides for a "parallel universe" or multitude thereof. Universe, in the Oxford English Dictionary means: "all existing matter and space considered as a whole." As such analytically speaking "alternate universe" is an absurdity. If x exists, x is necessarily a part of this universe, because "this universe" is simply whatever exists. Per basic logic, A is A and cannot be non-A. Science, as an empirical discipline, could not offer "proof" of any unknown realm, except by observing it. If you wanted to debate a religionist, I'm sorry to disappoint you, because all the words "hell" and "heaven" mean to me are, respectively, the state of slavery in which most humans in history have existed, and the state of absolute elimination of force and fraud that hypothetically occurs when enough people agree with me. I also cannot see how causality "creates" a new universe, unless of course someone were to succeed in backwards time travel, which is unlikely and a recent experiment regarding beyond-lightspeed lasers seems to contradict in any case. A choice or a chance does not of any necessity determine that all options must be realized somewhere, it simply means that at the time the choice or chance was there, both outcomes had to be possible. Chance in nature outside of choice is of course notoriously difficult to pin down at the fundamental level in any case. I think you'll have to bring more detail of these "proofs" of parallel universes before anything specific heats up here though.
parallel universes vs religion and other scientific theories and finds

I believe that when we speak of heaven and hell we are only speaking of two out of many parallel worlds in which cross ours like a cats cradle. I believe that it all is concieved in a mix of chaos and that the string theory is true for every strummed string emits a wave starting an effect in which changes the course of history. I am not just speaking of actual strings but of cause and effect and how every decision branches off a new world in which that decision was made differently or not made at all.This all has to do with quantum physics and quantum mechanics which covers how chaos is order and picks apart the paradoxes that perplex our lives in this world. So my question is what are the other opinions out there? who could counter act science and the proof that it has offered us? Also to be more specific I also believe God himself is the one scientist and that science and religion can coexist and cooperate together.
Congressional Earmarks

Wikipedia is hardly the most reliable source. Earmarks can and do create new government spending, but that's not relevant. Regardless of whether they are, they are being spent less efficiently than if they went through the authorization process and had public hearings. I am arguing against the insertion of specific appropriations without public vetting or competition. I'm not arguing against specific appropriations per se, I'm arguing against specific appropriations without public vetting or competition. I'm arguing against spending federal dollars for local purposes. If it only benefits one area, that area should pay for it. Whenever you disperse costs but concentrate benefits, you are going to get less economical projects built. So with that in mind, a lot of what you are saying is irrelevant to my argument Regarding Louisiana, the problem was two-fold: 1. Lack of sanity in spending by the recipients of the money. 2. Going back to what I just said, the levees in Louisiana would pass public vetting and competition with flying colors on a national level. If you are afraid of any public vetting and competition for your expenditures, you are admitting it doesn't have merit. Regarding 4.1, if my logic is true in one place, and it happens to also be true in another, that doesn't prove an error in my logic. What you said about the executive branch is irrelevant for reasons I already stated Regarding 4.2, Apart from what I said in 4.1, I was making the point that the Constitution allows government to tax and spend for the general welfare. That means the national welfare, not the welfare of any individual entity or area. The Supreme Court has agreed with this interpretation, they just made a mistake in deferring to Congress what constitutes the national welfare, which is like letting the accused decide whether he's guilty. Taxing and spending for the welfare of any individual state or area is reserved for that respective government
Homework is a waste of time

To my mind We have to expect to get a certain amount of homework per day and build other activities around the homework. Homework can be a useful part of time with family as it provides a chance for parents and other relatives to take part in schooling. Also, I would like to add that We should think of homework as being a continuation of our classwork. Not everyone in the class works at the same rate so it is necessary for teachers to give anyone who is falling behind the chance to catch up. If this was done in class those who are faster would have nothing to do during this time, which would be a real waste of time. Homework then allows those who are behind to take as long as they need to catch up with the rest of the class. Of course, you may say that teachers should not give classwork as homework. However, what about that during lesson students have a habit to ask many questions in order to understand a new topic, therefore teachers do not have enough time to explain everything. Moreover, if they leave some information due to they have a schedule for every academic year then what knowledge will students have?
Homework is a waste of time

Time is very valuable. We should give some time for ourselves. School without this takes a lot of time and we need to have a time when we do not have to concentrate in study. Yes, of course , you can say that in addition to all the lessons abound free time. However, it is not. People have time to only half of their cases. Someone not getting enough sleep , doing lessons until late. In the end, all of this together can result in stress, depression, nervous breakdown, poor health . If you say that it allows you to become more organized, in order to become such is quite simple to learn and invest efforts at the lesson .Education is not the only important activity in everyone`s day; physical activity, play, and time with family are just as important as all teach life skills just in different ways. The internet makes it possible to be learning at home, there are even many computer games that help with learning. Homework clashes with these other activities. It can damage family relationships as it means parents have to try and make their children do their homework.
Homework is a waste of time

Do you think that homework is a waste of time? I strongly believe that it is wrong to think that due to that it helps us to improve and fix our knowledge. To my mind we need homework to better understand topics that we have learned at school. It is known that teachers do not have enough time to explain everything clearly to each student. Moreover, it helps us to become more responsible by working independently. I believe that homework helped me to become more organized too. Because of that I did it every day of each academic year I got used to do evetything on time and in a good quantity. It can be added that if you are more organized then it means that you will do every work faster than it could be done.
Homework is a waste of time

Yes we all need a good education but homework is just over the top. We have no idea why teachers think that 6-7 hours a day, 5 days a week isn't enough. That's plenty of time. And on top of homework, I have at least an hour of music practise to do. The jump from year (grade) 8 to high school is significant as each teacher we have does not have ANY sympathy about us having homework from various other teachers. I have a poor relationship with my parents as I hardly ever get to spend time with them. Recently, I have been banned from playing games because I had so much homework to do (at least 4 assignments a week) that I went insane. My friends also think the same as me. Finland distributes no homework at all, yet 90% of all students graduate. Homework never teaches anyone anything for us. Also, most of the arguments between children and parents, are over homework. To restate our point, homework should be banned because it takes up too much time, doesn't have much use and causes arguments.
Homework is a waste of time

To my mind our debate is not about size of homework, therefore we cannot talk about too much homework. However, I believe that doing homework will not make you "smarter," but it will teach you how to use the "smarts" that you have in your brain already - doing homework makes you faster and better at doing other things.Homework is something that we all need. Homework helps us develop a work ethic and get better grades. Homework can be a good and bad thing. Homework shouldnt be stacked on top of each other but planned out from teacher to teacher. Moreover, to conclude I would like to add that Im a student who relies on homework to help me out on grades and preparing for tests. So, I totally believe that all students have to do homework in order to at least develop their skills.
Homework is a waste of time

Especially if we get too much homework it can take the enjoyment out of learning. No matter how engaging the teacher is in class homework will almost certainly be stressful, boring and tiring. It is simply much harder to make homework engaging and interesting as it is often done on our own. We know that there is no direct link between how much homework is set and grades. Studies done on this come to different conclusions so teachers should only set homework when they are sure it is needed. When we only get homework occasionally we will consider that piece more important and a better use of time.
Homework is a waste of time

Fitst of all I would like to add that anyway teachers have to repeat last topic in order to see did everyone understand it or not. Therefore I think that when homework does take up time in class it is helpful for learning. And when it does not then it does not harm the classwork. Homework aids classwork by providing a space for those who have not finished the work to catch up and by helping us to remember what we did in class. Do not you think that Homework is a way for you to practice what you are learning? If you didn't have homework, you would have to stay in school until you finished your practice, and since everyone works at different rates, you'd be there until the slowest people finally caught on. Will you like it?
Homework is a waste of time

Homework does not only take up time doing the homework at home but also takes up time in class. First there is the time that the teacher takes when explaining the task. Then more time is taken going through the homework when it is done and marked. This time could be better spent engaging with the class to find out what they do and don"t understand. The answer to this is to have more time in class rather than boring homework. We are not the only ones who take a lot of time on homework, our teachers do as well. The teacher needs to design the homework, explain it, mark each piece individually, and tell everyone what they got right and wrong. If all this is not done then the homework loses its value as we need to be told individually what our mistakes are to be able to learn from homework. Teachers could as easily use the classwork to find out who knows what they are doing and who are making mistakes and it would save them time.
global warming

All I have sen in this debate from my opponent is information from sites that i am quite familiar with. sites that are controlled by the government and are pro green party. i have come to the conclusion that global warming is a complete scam, Wallace S. Broecker got rich off he idea of "global Warming" and there is no proof that the earth is getting warmer. If anything the world is getting colder, he polar ice caps are bigger than ever. My opponent seems to believe everything that the government tells him, what a pity.
global warming

I extend all arguments. My opponent's "arguments" were copied and pasted from a post on this link [1].Once again, I extend all arguments. All my opponent has done was copy and paste information from links. I will give him one last chance to respond to my arguments. Until then, consider them dropped. All of the information from the Telegraph link was refuted my round 3 arguments (see ARCTIC ICE, GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE BEING ADJUSTED.)[1] http://www.24hourcampfire.com...
global warming

my opponent seems to be getting mad for no reason... like a typical american citizen that believes everything the government tells them... How have we come to be told that global temperatures have suddenly taken a great leap upwards to their highest level in 1,000 years? In fact, it has been no greater than their upward leaps between 1860 and 1880, and 1910 and 1940, as part of that gradual natural warming since the world emerged from its centuries-long "Little Ice Age" around 200 years ago.This belief has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth"s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and by the University of East Anglia"s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville. One of the more provocative points arising from the debate over those claims that 2014 was "the hottest year evah" came from the Canadian academic Dr Timothy Ball when, in a recent post on WUWT, he used the evidence of ice-core data to argue that the Earth"s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of all those recorded since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In reality, the implications of such distortions of the data go much further than just representing one of the most bizarre aberrations in the history of science. The fact that our politicians have fallen for all this scary chicanery has given Britain the most suicidally crazy energy policy (useless windmills and all) of any country in the world. source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
global warming

According to NASA"s own data via Remote Sensing Systems , the world has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979) however, that does mean the world is warmer, right? The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . since then, we"ve actually had temperatures dropping. as a matter of a fact the north polar ice cap is increasing in size. In recent satellite images from NASA there is at least a 43% increase in size.Leaked emails from global warming scientists state that the Earth is not warming, such as this one from Kevin Trenberth that states, "The fact is that we can"t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can"t."It is becoming harder and harder for the global warming community to ignore some of the scientific data that show the Earth is not getting warmer . . . instead, the world is getting cooler. source:http://www.newsmax.com...
global warming

I accept this debate under the following resolution, which has been taken from instances where the opposition has said that global warming is a scam:"Global Warming is Legitimate." To clarify, I am NOT debating whether global warming isgood or bad for the Earth. Switching this resolution mid-debate should be seen as an automatic loss, for my opponent was somewhat straightforward about his suggested resolution by saying "[Is] global warming fake or real?" I ask that my opponent stick to this resolution, and only this resolution, so we can keep the debate on track.I also ask that my opponent back up his evidence with sources. This is because debates like this can easily lead to personal opinions and insults, throwing the debate astray. I also ask, if this is not too much, for my opponent to use proper grammar and formatting so I can refute and debate in a cleaner and easier manner. Since this is a five round debate, I believe this is essential to the quality of the debate.I will now present the definitions to be used in this debate. The definitions may be argued, but these are, in my eyes, the most trustworthy definitions. They will all be taken from the same site so there is no bias or differing opinions involved.Global Warming: an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution [1].Legitimate: Real. (For this debate, "accepted" and "official" do not apply [2].)Since this is a five round debate, I will reserve this round only for acceptance. I will use the rest of the four rounds to argue and solidify my point. I wish my opponent luck, and I return the table to him.Sources:1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Should women have the right to an abortion

I was hoping for a good debate. Well, I guess it's my fault I accepted this, because I failed to realize the Instigator was a new user. I don't check the profiles of Instigators when I accept debates; something I should learn to do. All the effort I spent on my case was wasted, thanks to this. I don't care about win records; I debate for fun. The fun was lost. I'm disappointed. == Conclusion ==First, the government legislates to maximize benefit and minimize harm, and there's no coherent "benefit" to legalizing abortion since the fetuses don't feel benefit. Banning abortion, therefore, lacks rational basis. Second, abortions won't stop if they're banned. Dangerous "back-alley abortions" will start, causing thousands of deaths. Third, women face psychological harms from being denied abortions. Fourth, self-ownership is a basic right that ought to be respected by the government.
hate is a necessary evil

this is a debate.. not me lecturing you in what you clearly cant be con in atheism=a theism, belief to the contrary=belief even knowledge is viewed as belief from the viewpoint of a theist, or else gods word couldnt be truth or knowledge.. so it has to be belief, like christianity is belief to muslims as they have knowledge but christians are disbelievers of islam.. and humans must be demons to theists, as believers are the "real humans".. the curse of religion, its existence
What is more important - having abundance of natural resources or having skilled population

I have case study of GCC countries and venezuela where they have abundance of natural resource 'Oil'. But when 2008 and 2014 oil crisis comes, venezuela's economy fall badly. Similarly, other countries which oil based economy found less GDP growth. But if you have skilled people, you always lead your countries towards technological innovation which leads to economic growth. Also the important point is that if you have abundance of natural resources but you need skilled people to utilize them. So, having skilled people is more important than having natural resources.
What is more important - having abundance of natural resources or having skilled population

This will be my first debate so I’ll apologize just in case I did anything against the customary of debating. I’m also not a native user of English so I apologize if any of my grammatical error causes a misunderstanding between us. My argument is having abundance of natural resources is more important than skilled population because it's natural resources that create, and develop the required skills for the population. It's the natural resource that set the needs of skills. To further support my argument is that the fastest growing countries in the world right now are those that are resource-abundant. As such, having abundance of natural resources is more important than having skilled population.
Alternative Energy used by 2010

Hello Bears and thanks for debating: "i was saying is that we need to start making a jump towards these types of cars because our oil source is not very dependable and also its the MIDDLE EAST."- Bears I guess bears, that you haven't really looked at car news these days (i live around cars, because my family owns a dealership so i love to read about all the new cars). Just this week, President Bush signed the Cafe Bill to become a law (which i'm against). This is going to require that by 2020 all cars must have 35 mpg's. Also that Honda FCX is now available in southern California. GM will also start selling Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell cars, which are powered by hydrogen. This car is strictly powered by water, no gas. Also, plug-in hybrids are coming. Toyota will have one available in the 2nd half of 08. Chevy has the highly anticipated Volt available in 2010 and Ford plus another China auto maker has plans to produce plug in hybrids. For hybrids, Chevy will have a Tahoe hybrid (SUV) that will have better fuel economy than a regular hybrid. Imagine that? There are tons of other cars, but I have to stop at some point. "I like how you are in agreement with the alternative energy and you have a 2009 camaro as your picture."- Bear I back the producing of alternative fuel cars, but I love Chevy, and can't wait for the Camaro to come out. The design is awesome, in my opinion, so what does this have to do with supporting alternate fuels? "You have to realize we have E-85 available and we just are not making cars that can use it."- Bears We aren't making enough E85 cars?!?! That is what you want to believe for this debate, but it is totally wrong. In chevy alone there are 7 E85 capable cars. At our dealership, every car we get that's available for E85 we order and we have no trouble getting it or having a car that is E85 capable. I can speak for GM, they are making plenty of E85 cars. "But did you know that GM and Ford bought out the electric car because they knew it would sell but stopped selling it because they were losing money." -Bear I can not speak for ford, but GM is selling the electric car in 2010. As I mentioned before it is the Volt. It runs on plug in electric for 40 miles, then your choice of E85 or biodiesel. They stop selling it, because they were LOSING MONEY! You will get no where when you are LOSING MONEY! So in conclusion, you have clearly haven't read Motor Trend yet and saw that there are already alternative fuel cars out there. Car companies can't just decide they will make a electric car one day, and be on the lot the next. It take 4-7 years for that. We are currently in the 2nd or 3rd year. Everything just takes time. Go to http://www.chevrolet.com... for more info. Merry Christmas