BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Israel be a country

Israel is a legitimate country that should remain a country for these contentions: 1) Israel is a home land for the Jews, a safe place for Jews so they no Longer have to fear oppression from enemy groups like they have in the past by the Nazis, the egyptians and the Romans. If we people truly crave world peace like we claim to, dosn't make sense to Give one of the most violently oppressed groups a safe haven. 2) People argue that palestine was removed for the construction of Israel however Palestine was never a country. The area known as Palestine was British territory taken from the Ottomans during world war 1, if the British should like to build a Jewish home land from their territory who are we to stop them AFTER they have done so. 3) Israel has always been a country of good: - They were first to respond to the floods in Haiti, new Zealand and the phipines - They israelis are always helping oppressed people escape tyrannical goverment like the goverment of communist Libya - There is too many to list 4) The Israel's are our only true friend in the middle east and we should reward their loyalty with support their state hood. 5) The Christians and Jews are strongly bonded and turning on the Jews in Israel could create violence civil unrest between the goverment and the Christians and Jews of the United states
It is Impossible For A Human To Predict A Future Event With 100% Reliability

I. ConstructIt's common knowledge we live in a universe of cause and effect. Every cause creates an effect which then becomes the cause for another effect. So, in order to know an effect, all one must do is know the cause.Unfortunately, we also live in a world of many causes. Knowing a few may give an estimation for an effect, however in order to insure that are no doubts, every cause must be known before the exact effect can be known for certain.My claim is that while it is possible to have a very reliable prediction of an effect (most causes are known), it is impossible to know all causes and therefore know the only effect.This is because of a paradox caused by trying to find all causes of an effect. Here is my argument.We are going to assume a human is going to try and predict a future event with 100% certainty that said future event will occur. To do this, he must know all possible causes to this future event/effect. Let's say this man studies very intently and learns every possible cause in the universe that will influence the event he is trying to predict. Even though he now knows all the possible causes, there is still one he hasn't accounted for, his knowledge of all possible causes. Since him knowing all causes for the event could affect the outcome of the event, he decides to account for it.However, he suddenly runs across the exact same problem, he now holds new knowledge of his knowledge of all possible causes. So that knowledge must be accounted for to insure that the effect is completely certain. So he accounts for this knowledge of knowledge. But wait, you see where this is going?The man can never know every cause for the future event because his knowledge of all known causes is in itself a cause, that when accounted for suddenly becomes unaccounted for again!That is the paradox. II. Closing remarksThat will be my main contention. I think it is sturdy enough on its own to support my point.I'll pass it on to Con for his cross-examination..
Medical Marijuana

Let's get started off with the contentions. 1) Beneficial in health. As noted by my own opponent, medical marijuana can help alleviate symptoms of pain, discomfort, and lack of appetite caused by many common disease, including AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, etc. This can go uncontested, as my opponent has already agreed that medical marijuana has these properties. Of course, there are even more benefits of marijuana, such as a prevention of the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease and its progression. (1)(2) A legalization of medical marijuana would aid those who are in pain from said diseases and symptoms. 2) Reduce number of those in prison. The current amount of arrests of marijuana-related crimes totals over 700,000 thousand a year, and that was back in 2005! (3) Of these, a whopping 88% were just for simple possession, while the rest were only for sale or manufacture. (3) These inmates who have done nothing morally wrong or reprehensible are now spending years and years in prison, just for possessing or growing marijuana. 3) Help cut our spending. We currently spend more than 15.5 billion dollars a year on marijuana arrests. (4) If legalized and taxed, not only would we eliminate that spending, but we would also have a major source of revenue that would help pull us out of this recession, as marijuana is our best cash crop, pulling in $35 billion dollars per year. (5)(6) 4) Little to no side effects. Marijuana causes a very small amount of, if at all, side effects, which are negligible at best. (7)(8) 5) It doesn't make any sense to render it illegal. And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? It is not overly harmful, if at all, and it doesn't have any second-hand smoke effects. There is simply no logical/moral reason to keep it illegal. No one should have a right to tell you what you can and cannot ingest. You don't violate the rights of others in any way, shape or form, so why should it be illegal? There is not convincing argument as to why. 6) User's choice. The consumer is not forced to buy, smoke, or use marijuana in any way. It has no negative repercussions to anyone aside to the consumer. Marijuana does not make you do anything. If you choose to purchase and smoke marijuana, it is your choice, and the government should not prevent you from ingesting what you will, be it alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana. I thank my opponent for this debate, and look forward to his next round. SOURCES . http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com... (1)(8) . http://tinyurl.com... (2) . http://www.nowpublic.com... (3) . http://www.changetheclimate.org... (4) . http://abcnews.go.com... (5) . http://www.drugpolicy.org... (6)(7)
Medical Marijuana

======== Introduction ======== I will be arguing that Medical Marijuana should be illegal while my opponent will argue that medical marijuana should be and/or remain legal. For the purposes of this debate, medical marijuana will stand as Marijuana used to help manage, suppress, or reverse symptoms from medical disorders, such as but not necessarily limited to AIDS, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, etc. If my opponent feels that there is something I haven't made clear then tell me during the first round of this debate and I will be more than happy to clarify as best as I can. I want to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate. I will let my opponent start his argument first. ====== Definition ====== Marijuana: The female leaves of the Cannabis plant as used to create a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs. Medical: Relating to the study or practice of medicine.
Absolute Morality proves Biblical Creation

You seem to run out of idea here since you simply repeated what you said earlier. "If there is no absolute moral code, Then nothing is actually fundamentally wrong: not lying, Not stealing, Not even rape or murder"== I explained to you how murder is absolutely wrong but it seems you couldn't response. After all what does "wrong" mean? If you could give me a defintion of "wrong", An actual definition that matches our current consensus of morality. "After all, Hitler was able to convince a majority of his people that his actions were right, But that doesn"t really make them right. " == The german people were deceived by propaganda so its not fair to say that the majority support the genocide of Jews. Also, Hitler is an example of moral evolution. As pointed out in my previous response, A genocide-tolerating, War-waging society is not going to last because those traits do eveything but increasing survival rates. Also, My extra thoughts about why the laws of Logic are the way they are. The law of non-contradiction, Either A or not A, Is a crucial law to survival. By the axiom of evolution, Whatever increases the population survival rate is going to dominate. Why is the law of non-contradiction crucial to survival? Well, Let's say "It is simultaneously true that there's a hungry lion behind you and there isn't a hungry lion behind you". What do you do? Should you run or should you not? You see, Contradictory reasoning leaves a person uncertain and therefore cannot solve life-or-death problem at hand. Contradiction is the end of a logical reasoning. Consider the statement "This sentence is false". What can you conclude? Nothing because if its true then its false and vice versa. You see, Contradictory statements does not allow us to explore deeper consequences. In most cases, The inability to reason is going to harm a person and by evolutionary principle, Such trait will naturally, Gradually die off. Therefore, Evolution is the better explanation of morality and logic because unlike god, Whose existence is virtually untestable. Evolution principle can be tested in laboratory and can be observed in all sort of biological population.
Absolute Morality proves Biblical Creation

If morality was relative then no one would be able to tell others that they are wrong. If there is no absolute moral code, Then nothing is actually fundamentally wrong: not lying, Not stealing, Not even rape or murder. And yet people cannot live consistently by such an amoral standard. If morality was based on consensus then we would not be able to denounce certain actions that we know to be wrong. After all, Hitler was able to convince a majority of his people that his actions were right, But that doesn"t really make them right.
Absolute Morality proves Biblical Creation

"In fact they were creating a only white race just like they had been taught in evolution" == LOL? When did evolution teach one to create 1 white race? You just dont understand evolution"Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, Saddam Hussein and Little Rocket Man. Nazi Germany was killing their Jews before WWII started and were surviving just fine"==== oh, Then where are they now? I dont say such society would dissapear the instant it was created. What i said was that OVERTIME, Such society cannot exist. "Those who say it is wrong must be immoral. Those who are against homosexual marriage must be immoral as well. On both these issues the majority have not had a say in the matter. "=== the majority have not had a say in the matter? What do you mean? it seems you have run out of reason here. simply, You see, Evolution can explain EVERYTHING that you claim must rely on god. since evolution explanatory scope is the same as that of christianity, And evolution is testable, It is the best theory to explain morality, Logic, Uniformity of nature. . . . . .
Absolute Morality proves Biblical Creation

Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, Saddam Hussein and Little Rocket Man. Nazi Germany was killing their Jews before WWII started and were surviving just fine. In fact they were creating a only white race just like they had been taught in evolution. Even today with abortion, Those who say it is wrong must be immoral. Those who are against homosexual marriage must be immoral as well. On both these issues the majority have not had a say in the matter.
Absolute Morality proves Biblical Creation

Let me go back to cultural relativism and morality. 1. First of all, By what standard do you appeal to, In order to say that morality is defined by what communities want it to be? And what makes the largest community the highest authority? These are ad hoc assertions with no justifications of any kind. 2. How are you going to prove that the communities have the right to decide what is morally right or wrong without appealing to the decisions of these communities themselves? But if you do this, How are you not arguing in a circle and assuming what you are supposed to prove? Your third premise is that "communities outside of that decide whether they are right or wrong", But your conclusion is essentially the same: that "right and wrong is a hierarchy and not an absolute". You put forth your conclusion as one of your premises and therefore engage in circular reasoning. 3. The idea that morality is decided by the sum of all communities is itself an objective moral claim: namely, Something is morally good (objectively) if this is what the sum of all communities deem to be good. If there is nothing higher than the sum of all communities to appeal to, Then the totality of all cultures becomes the objective moral standard. But if this is true, Relative morality is again refuted. Thus, If your cultural relativism is true, It is false. The only consistent moral relativism, By contrast, Is actually a denial of any such thing as morality. In that case, No person or community would be a higher moral authority than any other, And nothing would be truly wrong. 4. This system does not allow for moral progress on the highest level of the hierarchy, Because any change in moral direction by the sum of all communities would always be defined as good. If the collective says torturing babies for fun is good, Then it is. And if they change their minds, Then it isn"t. 5. According to this system, Any individual moral reformer who goes against the sum of all communities is evil by definition. So if the whole world, By-and-large, Accepted chattel slavery, As it once did, Then abolitionists were acting immorally when they opposed that practice.
Girls are very bad at keeping secrets.

God may not be provable through mathematical formulae or properties of physics, But we live in an era where the evidence of God is all around us. Just look through the Hubble Telescope and peer to the edge of the massive cosmos. View the monitor of an electron-scanning microscope and delve into the intricate world of an organic cell. Sit down and read an entire library of information that reveals the complexity of the digital code that turns a fertilized egg into a human being. Study principles of quantum mechanics and investigate the world of extra-dimensionality. Review the nature of your conscience, Subconscious, Standards of morality, Thoughts of religion. Then, Try to reconcile all of these realities with a basic theory of randomness. Not believing in God is much more of a "leap of faith" than ever.
High school students should be required to learn a foreign language.

I'll attack m opponents case then present my own case. Rebuttal: "Only 5.6% of the people on Earth speak English as a primary language. If those that spoke it as a secondary or a third were counted, only 4/5 of the world's population would not be English speakers." My Response: This is true, not so many speak English as a PRIMARY language. However, in most industrialized nations, or growing nations, the schools make it mandatory to learn English as a SECONDARY language. Also, this stat shouldn't make the US government force children to learn another language. "You could possibly have more career options as a travel tour guide or a translator." My Response: Ok, then learn it in college as a major. The US government should not make it mandatory in HS. If you want to learn a language in college, thats your choice, IT SHOULDN'T BE MANDATORY. "You would be able to listen in and fully experience the "everyday life" on a trip to a foreign country." My Response: This is totally untrue. I'll present my own stat. According to the College Board, only 5% of kids that are American, without any beginning language studies before HS, come out of HS being able to speak a language fluently. My Case: I. Making a language mandatory in schools is unamerican. Making schools teach a language as mandatory is unfair to the school and the kids. Teaching a language costs money, and some schools don't have the budget to do so. Also, a kid shouldn't be required to take a language if he/he doesn't want to. We should have a choice to do or not to do. It's the land of the free, let's keep it that way. It's also contradictory to make it mandatory for US kids to learn a language, when its not mandatory for other kids that transfer or are here illegally to lean English. (Hypocrisy theory) II. Only a minimal amount of kids learn a language fluently after HS. Link my above stat. Lot's of kids have trouble learning because of mental disabilities, etc. Making them learn something else, besides the CORE subjects,which they probably struggle with is just plain cruel. Since kids don't even learn the language, you are putting stress without any results. If these kids want to learn it, let them take it, and they can take it in college. It's all about the choice especially if the mandatory doesn't reap results.
High school students should be required to learn a foreign language.

List your points; it doesn't have to be in paragraph format. -Only 5.6% of the people on Earth speak English as a primary language. If those that spoke it as a secondary or a third were counted, only 4/5 of the world's population would not be English speakers. -You could possibly have more career options as a travel tour guide or a translator. -You would be able to listen in and fully experience the "everyday life" on a trip to a foreign country.
The Roraima Pollen Paradox

P1: The Theory of Evolution predicts that pollen first evolved in the Early Cretaceous (135 myrs ago).(1)P2: Fossil pollen has been found in Precambrian (1,700 myrs ago) rock.(2)P3: The Theory of Evolution got a quantitative prediction wrong by more than an order of magnitude (by more than a factor of 10).Conclusion: The Theory of Evolution is falsified.(1)http://paleobiology.si.edu...(2) Con's first source.
The Roraima Pollen Paradox

My thanks in advance to my worthy opponent for this unusual opportunity to demonstrate that my namesake never existed.I shall oppose the following:The discovery of pollen in samples of the Proterozoic Roraima Formation [1] falsifies the theory of evolution.Burden of Proof is on Pro, who may use this first round for debate.The final round shall be used for rebuttal and concluding arguments. No new evidence shall be presented.[1] Stainforth, RM (1966) Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana. Nature 210, 292 - 294.Original Abstract: http://www.nature.com...Full-Text Reprint: http://rpasmd.org...
Affirmative Action

I held off on accepting this to see if Con is going to be active. I hate it when I get full forfeits. Anyway, onto Con’s arguments. Con states that affirmative action is currently hurting the majority. This is nothing but a bare assertion fallacy. It is a purely speculative assertion. He claims minorities will become the majority if affirmative action continues. I can’t really make sense of what this means, but it definitely seems like a slippery slope fallacy. Con also brings up this concept that AA is reverse racism. First, this misunderstands the program. It is not giving someone a job solely because they’re black, it’s because they have wronged. The only reason race is involved is because race discrimination happened. It is about providing compensation. Similar to how Germany paid Israel compensation after World War 2. They weren’t paying them just because they’re Jewish, it was because of the holocaust. The idea of reverse racism assumes a moral philosophy called moral absolutism. The concept has huge problems. For example, if there is a law in place that prohibits people forcefully keeping someone in captivity. Let’s someone kidnaps someone else and forcefully puts them in captivity, but the police are called the the kidnapper is caught. By moral absolutism, we can’t imprison him, because that’s keeping someone in captivity. We see how this moral theory falls apart. There are other real life examples. We are opposed to someone cutting someone open with a knife. However we find that it’s sometimes okay, when that person is a surgeon and about to perform surgery. Con’s second argument is incomplete. He doesn’t make the connection from bias to ending or modifying affirmative action. So far, his second argument supports affirmative action. If everyone is unconsciously biased, then there would need to be some regulation to fairly give minorities a chance.
Affirmative Action

I fully believe in the idea of affirmative action, but I am against how it is currently being done. I believe that there should be a way for minorities to advance more efficiently in society, but the current form of affirmative action, while indeed advancing the minorities, declines the majorities. I believe if the current form of affirmative action continues, the minorities will become the majorities and we will be forced to change our perspective once again. I get that affirmative action is made to balance and integrate society as to where racism no longer exists, but frankly, that is impossible. For one thing, affirmative action within itself is racist, as racism is not only the negative discrimination of a race, gender, age, or culture, but also the positive discrimination of a race, gender, age, or culture. Secondly, humans are within themselves biased on where they live, what the majority is, how the parents and peers around the individual act, and how the individual is raised.
Resolved - The earth is spherical

Just to clarify, my burden of proof is not that the earth is EXACTLY geometrically spherical, but it has a general spherical shape. Pictures from orbitEver since 1946 (1), we have been able to photograph the earth from space. Every single one of these photographs show a roughly spherical earth. This proves beyond reasonable doubt that the earth is spherical. HorizonsIf someone was to be placed in the middle of a becalmed ocean on a flat earth, they should be able to see the coastline through a telescope even if it was 1000 miles away. This is because there would be no obstruction to the light reflecting off the coastline and into the observer's eyes. However, in reality this is not the case. No matter how good my telescope is I cannot see the coastline if I am placed in the middle of, say, the Pacific Ocean. Therefore there must be an obstruction that prevents the light reflected off the coastline from reaching my eyes. As we do not see a ridge of water in the ocean, what then is the obstruction? If the earth was flat then the obstruction could only be a hill or ridge, but such forms cannot be formed by water. There only remaining feasible explanation is that the surface of the earth is curved, which would explain why we cannot look at things beyond the horizon. As you can see from this photo (. http://www.debate.org...), the spherical shape of the earth would explain why we cannot see the areas marked in red (the part of the earth's surface beyond the horizon). The MoonWe know that the moon is circular, as we have observed full moons. However, we also observe that the moon can appear to have a crescent shape. This change in shape is not caused by the moon being diminished in mass, because we can see a very faint outline of a circular moon even when only the crescent part is illuminated (2). This suggests that the change in apparent shape is caused by a change in the way that the moon is illuminated - it goes from being fully illuminated to being partially illuminated. We know that the moon is illuminated by the sun (3), and that the sun's light is constant (4), so any lack of illumination is caused by a shadow. As the earth is the closest large celestial object to the moon, it is reasonable to suppose that this shadow comes from the earth. In order to move from illuminating a circle to illuminating a crescent, the shadow must be circular (5). As this shadow is caused by the earth, the earth must be circular in order to cast this shadow and so the earth is round. As crescent moons are observed from all over the world, the earth must be round from all orientations. This is therefore, geometrically, a spher(oid). Therefore, the earth is spherical. I will now pass over to my opponent! (1) . http://www.universetoday.com......(2) . http://www.cambridgeblog.org...(3) . http://www.universetoday.com......(4) . http://space-facts.com......(5) . http://en.wikipedia.org......(6) . http://www.timeanddate.com......