BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is another 'dimension' alongside of the dimension we can see/hear in.

In 1966, when I was 17 years of age, I experienced the following; It was an extremely beautiful sunny (not one cloud) very hot, summer day. I decided to drive my car to the beach, and spend the rest of the day there. I had all of the car windows rolled down. I drove my car from my home in Geraldton, Ontario, Canada, south to the intersection with highway 11 (The Trans Canada Highway), which runs east-west. I stopped at the intersection with the highway, and looked in all directions to make certain there was no traffic. I was the only vehicle in the area. The road from Geraldton to the highway, was north-south and is perfectly aligned with magnetic north-south. Highway 11 at the intersection, is perfectly aligned with magnetic east-west. After making sure that there was no other traffic, I was about to make a left turn on to highway 11, but could not do so. It was if 'there was a hand holding me back'. This surprised me. After waiting for a brief time period, I was about to proceed on to highway 11, again, when all of a sudden, a transport appeared right in front of me. At the same time as I saw the transport, I also heard it. It had appeared out of nowhere. There had been many transport accidents with smaller personal vehicles at this intersection, all of which occurred on clear, sunny days. The drivers of the smaller vehicles (including one motorcycle driver), were all killed. I spoke with a police officer about my experience. I was astonished by his response. He said, "We know this. Either the human brain is 'bringing back a past image' because a driver has drove the route many times, or 'there is another dimension'." I could see the brain doing this (bringing back a prior 'image'), but it did not explain, the lack of SOUND. Apparently, many fatal accidents on clear days, with some survivors stating that they didn't see the other vehicle, IS TRUE. There IS a hidden dimension. Perhaps there is some kind of 'link' to why planes/boats/people 'disappear' in the Bermuda triangle????
6 Degrees to Samuel L Jackson

Dev Patel --->Sam Jackson In accordance with my opponents wishes I will adhere to his *Double Challenge* and connect Dev Patel and Samuel L. Jackson in no less than 3 links. But for good measure I will go ahead and do it in 2,3,4,5, and 6 links. ==2== 1) Dev Patel in The last Airbender with Shaun Toub 2) Shaun Toub in Iron Man with Sam Jackson ==also== 1) Dev Patel in The last Airbender with Seychelle Gabriel 2) Seychelle Gabriel in The Spirit with Sam Jackson ==3== 1) Dev Patel in The last Airbender with Cliff Curtis 2) Cliff Curtis in Live free or Die Hard with Bruce Willis 3) Bruce willis in Unbreakable with Sam Jackson ==4== 1) Dev Patel in The last Airbender with Katharine Houghton 2) Katharine Houghton in Kinsey with Chris O'Donnell 3) Chris O'Donnell in Max Payne with Mark Wahlberg 4) Mark Wahlberg in The other guys with Sam Jackson ==5== 1) Dev Patel in Slumdog Millionaire with Anand Tiwari 2) Anand Tiwari in Fair Game with Sean Penn 3) Sean Penn in 21 Grams with Melissa Leo 4) Melissa Leo in The Fighter with Christian Bale 5) Christian Bale in Shaft with Sam Jackson ==6== 1) Dev Patel in Slumdog Millionaire with David Gilliam 2) David Gilliam in Severence with Toby Stephens 3) Toby Stephens in Dark Corners with Christien Anholt 4) Christien Anholt in Hamlet with Helena Bonham Carter 5) Helena Bonham Carter in Fight Club with Brad Pitt 6) Brad Pitt in True Romance with Sam Jackson I believe this to be sufficient enough proof that I am not using a website such as the aforementioned http://oracleofbacon.org... ==Challenge== Nicole Richie ---> Sam Jackson
6 Degrees to Samuel L Jackson

Jodie Foster---->Samuel L. Jackson 1) Foster was in "Taxi Driver" with Robert De Niro 2) De Niro was in "Goodfellas" with Sam Jackson -----or----- 1)Foster was in "Maverick" with James Garner 2)Garner was in "Space Cowboys" with Tommy Lee Jones 3)Jones was in "Rules of Engagement" with Sam Jackson. -----or----- 1) Foster was in "Inside Man" with Clive Owen 2) Owen was in "Shoot em up" with Paul Giamatti 3) Giamatti was in "Negotiator" with Sam Jackson ----or----- 1) Foster was in "Panic Room" with Kristen Stewart 2) Stewart was in "Jumper" with Sam Jackson I decided to use Jodie Foster's best films to demonstrate my powers. I have this sneaking suspicion that my opponent is using http://oracleofbacon.org... or a similar site to make his links, because they are always done in two moves. Sure its possible to pull off 1 and 2 move links, but usually a person doesn't do that off the top of their head. Such as pulling Meat Loaf from Spice World. If he's not using a website I apologize, but I decided to kick it up a notch with multiple solves just to demonstrate that I am not using a website and am doing this all off the top of my head. ==Challenge== Dev Patel---->Sam Jackson *Double Challenge* The websites only likes to list the quickest link. So if you put in Dev Patel it only gives you Aasif Mandvi in Last Airbender to Die Hard with Sam Jackson. In order to discourage cheating, I challenge my opponent to link in no LESS than 3 moves. This will demonstrate that you aren't using the websites.
6 Degrees to Samuel L Jackson

Tommy Wiseau ----> Sam Jackson 1) Tommy Wiseauwas in The Room with Greg Sestero, 2) Greg Sestero was in Patch Adams with Monica Potter, 3) Monica Porter was in Con Air with Nick Cage, 4) Nick Cage was in Kiss of Death with Sam Jackson. Melanie C (Sporty Spice from Spice Girls) ----> Sam Jackson
6 Degrees to Samuel L Jackson

Game: Debaters must connect a living celebrity to Samuel L Jackson. This is done by connecting celebrities to one another through shared movies until one arrives at Sam Jackson. Debaters are not allowed to use more than 6 links, and are more impressive the fewer links they use. For example: Brad Pitt to Sam Jackson 1) Brad Pitt was in "Ocean's 11" with Matt Damon 2) Matt Damon was in "Invictus" with Morgan Freeman 3) Morgan Freeman was in "Lucky Number Slevin" with Bruce Willis 4) Bruce Willis was in "Unbreakable" with Sam Jackson Rules: -Each round the debater solves the celebrity challenge by linking to Sam Jackson, and then offers a celebrity challenge to the other debater. -The offered celebrity must be alive currently, though linked celebrity's can be deceased. -Celebrity's must be linked through movies. Marriages, television shows, specials, appearances etc do not count. Both actors must have appeared in the same movie to constitute a link. -Debaters may use no more than 6 links. Judges should give credit to debaters who A) use impressive links, B) use fewer links, and C) complete the link successfully. -The target celebrity is always Samuel L. Jackson, thus the name of the game. -The celebrity challenge must have appeared in a movie (no offering President Obama for example, unless he has had a cameo in a movie). ==FIRST ROUND CHALLENGE== Dan Akroyd ----> Sam Jackson
youtubers influence on kids good or bad

I myself am a you tuber and watch You tube all the time. I made my brother, Owen watch You tube and he found bad stuff like some bad words some talk about drugs and bad references to stuff. When kids watch You tube they are watching stuff that sometimes have bad words or terrible stuff. My brother even once got caught watching that stuff on his tablet and got in trouble. I'm not saying that You tube is bad. But if people want their kids watching You tube. Let them watch appropriate stuff.
Debate arguments that contain unnecessary repetitions should be considered null and void

In the second rounnd, he has only added one argument. "I would invite the voters to conclude that this is a tacit admission on my opponent's behalf that debate arguments that contain unnecessary repetition should be negated. "I am happy to clear up this confusion, and simply state to you that this is not admission on my behalf that arguments with unnecessary repetition should be negated. I simply find them annoying, and considering that this site has a character limits I avoid them. I do not however feel that they are invalid arguments. As such, my opponent has made no argument at all (since his last one was based on a faulty assumption that has now been revealed). I however have shown that the resolution cannot be proven true, and therefore Pro cannot possibly win. I urge you, therefore, to vote for Con in this debate. Thank you to Brian for his candor and respect in this debate. It was a refreshing change.
Debate arguments that contain unnecessary repetitions should be considered null and void

Therefore, if my opponent were to prove the resolution true, he would actually be proving the resolution false. The resolution is therefore nonsensical, and cannot be logically true. " This rebuttal prompted me to review my opening argument and, in so doing, I was dismayed to discover that I had, indeed, unwittingly employed repetitious phrases on an apparently wholesale basis. For the irritation that this must have caused the voters I can only apologise and ask that they dismiss my first round argument entirely and do not consider it at all when they cast their votes. I was also prompted to carefully examine my opponent's argument and I noted that he scrupulously avoided using any repetitious phrases. I would invite the voters to conclude that this is a tacit admission on my opponent's behalf that debate arguments that contain unnecessary repetition should be negated. Thank you.
Debate arguments that contain unnecessary repetitions should be considered null and void

His humor and candor is refreshing and I look forward to an enjoyable exchange. As Con of this argument, I do not need to prove the converse of the resolution to be true, I must only fulfill one of the following conditions. A) My opponent's argument does not prove the resolution true. B) The resolution cannot logically be true, and therefore is false. I shall be approaching option B as my path to victory. My opponent argues that debate arguments that contain repetitious phrases should be excluded or considered false. He then gives several examples of such phrases. However, the resolution itself, as well as much of my opponent's argument, utilizes these phrases. Therefore, if my opponent were to prove the resolution true, he would actually be proving the resolution false. The resolution is therefore nonsensical, and cannot be logically true. Con therefore wins this debate as it is impossible to prove the resolution true (Pro's burden).
Debate arguments that contain unnecessary repetitions should be considered null and void

The English language contains various different terms, phrases, idioms, expressions and sayings that, to all intents and purposes, repeat themselves. First and foremost among these, alphabetically-speaking, is the legal term ‘assault and battery'. The two nouns in this saying have broadly the same meaning - "assault": a violent physical attack; and "battery": the act of battering or beating. (1) Is it really necessary to employ such repetition in order to maintain law and order? Other similar phrases include: Beck and call Cease and desist Kith and kin Peace and quiet Rack and ruin Safe and sound Spick and span Vim and vigour Of course, people should be free to express themselves without let or hindrance, but the needless duplication of words is irritating and only serves to add to life's trials and tribulations. That's why I duly assert that debate arguments that contain unnecessary repetitions should be considered null and void. Thank you. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God

Well then, since I am not allowed to debate anything, that is rather unproductive. Basically, I started this debate trying to prove the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God. Since I am not allowed to refute my opponent's arguments, I guess that means I am not allowed to post what I couldn't fit in the last round? I think this debate could of been better if it was at least a few rounds longer, and didn't focus mainly on the Bible and my opponent's opinions on it. Moreover, bringing up topics like evolution within this debate was irrelevant to the topic at hand. There are ways to prove the Bible is the word of God, yet I never got a chance to really show them. Unfortunately, this debate is at it's end now. I'd like to redo a debate similar to this with bluesteel if they accept with a different structure. My personal opinion is that the current structure is a bit unfair, but I did accept the debate. So basically, thanks for the debate. I hope we can debate this again with a different structure and with more characters and rounds. That way I can have the chance to really outline more of my arguments that I never had the chance to outline here. Moreover, I can't even refute your arguments like I did in Round 2.
Gay Marriage

I will start by saying that one main reason I am against gay marriage is because, like you said, I am following a religion. That being said, I have plenty of other reasons why I feel gay marriage is wrong, and I would like to focus on those instead of the religious side of it. I would ask that you keep my religious beliefs out of this discussion, or if you insist on bringing them in, do so respectfully. I would like us to treat this discussion as if I don't follow a religion in order to eliminate bias in the voting. Can you do this for me? In response to your first comment, I would ask you to look throughout history. Marriage has traditionally been a bond between a man and a woman with the aim of having children, educating them, and for the unity and well-being of the spouses. According to TFP Student Action, same-sex marriage "denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their [unity] in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children." This is how it destroys the system of family. Addressing your second comment, you are correct in that marriage is a relationship in which "two human beings love, care, and understand each other." However, as I stated earlier, marriage is a bond between a man and woman in which these characteristics you listed are fulfilled. Bonding two humans of the same gender is not a true "marriage". It is completely different from a true marriage, and thus cannot be called a marriage. Now to address your third comment. I will happily provide you with the evidence that I found this information from. To begin, homosexual couples raising children deprive the children of having a father or mother (a parent of the opposite gender of the gay "marriage"). Both fathers and mothers in regular family have special responsibilities and unique impacts on their children. As seen in an article by the "Family Research Council", important impacts that fathers have on their children include "reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls." In addition, fathers significantly influence the "biological development of [their] daughter[s], that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends." Mothers play just as important of a role in the development of their children. Mothers "excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants [...] they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront [...] physical, emotional, and social challenges[...]". To conclude, mothers and fathers both play unique roles in raising a family. Raising children in a gay "marriage" does not give them the psychological nourishment that they need. Here are the links to my sources. Please feel free to look over them, as they cite sources they use as well. https://www.tfpstudentaction.org... http://www.frc.org...
Gay Marriage

You stated: "The family is the most basic unit of our society. Gay marriage completely destroys this system. " Okay, how is it that having two human beings that have the same gender destroy the system of 'family'? Unless you are following some sort of religion or government control, there are no rules written ANYWHERE that state that two women or men cannot become one as a family. You stated: "There are men and women on this earth for a reason. These two were made to be together and to have children." Again, where did you find this information? No one is "made" to marry other. If having children is the only reason, then you are missing the whole point of marriage. Marriage is when two human beings love, care, and understand each other. It is not true that all marriages NEED to be lead to having children. You stated: "Studies have been done to prove that children raised under a man/woman couple grow up happier and healthier than those raised under gay marriage." The only way that the gay couple actually retrieved a child to care for is from adoption, where a man and or a woman have given up a baby. When a couple actually has the heart and willingness to care for someone else's child, it can do well for that child's future. Also, could you please send some links or citations to where you found those studies from?
Morality isn't subjective

I can"t provide proof of why this moral system is fundamentally true because you would need to know everything to provide an explanation of a set of moral rules that hasn"t been found yet. I"m not arguing that this fundamental truth can be used, Or is in any form practical, Rather that it exists and isn"t subjective. Just be a use we can"t access something, And it"s essentially useless in modern day time, Does make it nonexistent. When you refer to such a thing as "moral systems" I assume you mean things such as religion and philosophy. The are not "moral truths" in such, But systems that have their own view and idea of what "morality" is. This is called a "moral view" and is very much subjective. What I"m referring to is morals themselves. Consider a stadium filled with people. In the middle of, Say, A football game a cow walks onto the field. Suddenly the sound of gunfire rings out and the cows dead. Some people in the crowd say that the shot came from the fifth aisle, Some say the ninth, And some say the thirtieth. All of these people have their own view on where it came from, But none of them know for certain. Each believe that they are correct, But again, None know for sure. This gunshot could not have come from all of these places, And therefore we know that either one or none of these people are correct. We don"t know which row it came from, But we know that it came from one. Through time and evidence, The police are now close to finding the source of the bullet. The same can be said for morality. Although so many of us see things in different ways, Interpret things differently and have our own beliefs on morality, This doesn"t necessarily mean that all of our beliefs are the "right ones". Let me ask my opponent a theoretical question. If an innocent child was raped and murdered for no reason, Could this be subjectively right? (Note that the words "innocent" and "no reason" refers to the perpetrators own thoughts. ) I can not stress the following statement enough "What people believe to be fundamental truths are their moral view, Which is subjective. This does not mean that their is no objective moral truth. They can"t all be subjectively correct. " The fact that there are fundamental moral truths is about as concrete as your chair. What colour is your chair? People who are blind or colorblind would probably answer this question different to someone with twenty twenty vision. This does not change the fact of your chair colour, Just displays the views of other people.
Morality isn't subjective

It sounds like you are essentially arguing that there is an (unspecified) moral system out there that is The One Fundamental Truth, But you haven't provided any explanation of why this one moral system is fundamentally true. In order for something to be accepted as fundamentally true, It has to be proven so. There is no proof of a true moral system, So therefore there is, For all practical purposes, No fundamentally true moral system. Maybe there is some kind of fundamentally true moral system, But as yet we have no way of accessing it, So for all practical purposes there is no fundamental moral truth. If morals are fundamental facts or beliefs accepted as true (for your value of true) than how do you explain the fact that there are multiple conflicting moral systems accepted by different people as being in accordance with reality? Fundamental moral truths cannot be demonstrated, So therefore they do not exist. But we still think that there are fundamental moral truths. We just disagree on what they are. What each person considers fundamentally true differs between people. Therefore, Moral truths are subjective. There is not yet any proven fundamental moral truth. Therefore, It is up to us to morally interpret the world as we see fit. I am not arguing that nothing is objective. I am arguing that only concrete things are objective. It is an objective, Fundamental truth that I am sitting in a chair writing this. Both I and the chair are concrete objects interacting in a concrete way. But morals are not concrete. I can't pick up a moral and look at it, To determine what it is. Morals are a lens that humans have made up to interpret the actions of themselves and others in order to determine how to respond. We have created morals in order to look a the world through them. (Note that I am not saying morals should be disregarded) No moral system can be demonstrated as fundamentally true, So we have to look at morals subjectively. We, Of course, Are already doing that. For the purposes of the human experience, (which is the only relevant perspecive) morals are subjective.
Morality isn't subjective

I am arguing the point that, For something to be considered as "morals", It can not be subjective. By definition morals can"t differ from persons to person, Otherwise those aren"t morals. A moral is a principle, And a principle is a fundamental truth. A fundamental truth can"t differ from person to person. Views on which morals are correct, And which way of viewing morality is correct, Is subjective as it differs from person to person. Morality in itself is objective, As something can"t possibly be considered as a moral without it being a "fundamental truth of what is good and what is evil. " I agree that people"s experiences can influence their views, This doesn"t however mean their view is fundamentally correct. I am not necessarily arguing on which moral system is "correct" rather that there is a moral system that is the correct one out there, And that all moral systems/morals can not be considered as subjectively correct, Because by definition they can"t be considered as morals. One can consider such to be "moral views" which are subjective since they demonstrates what one considers to be "moral", But this does not mean that each person"s moral view is "subjectively correct. " Moral - standards of behaviour; principles of right and wrong Principle - a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning. Truth - a fact or belief that is accepted as true. Fact - a thing that is known or proved to be true. True - in accordance with fact or reality. Therefore morals are "fundamental facts or beliefs accepted as accordance with truth or reality regarding right or wrong. " If my opponent considers a fundamental truth to be subjective, You would theoretically have to argue that nothing is objective.