BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Crime and mental health are linked

Some of the major types are depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, bipolar mood disorder, personality disorders, and eating disorders. The most common mental illnesses are anxiety and depressive disorders. There are many other reasons, mental illness or not, that can influence the need to commit crimes. Poverty, loneliness, lack of employment, divorce, loss of loved one, accident (e.g car accident - serious injuries or brain damage sustained from that), family issues or homelessness.
WHY DO COLOR MATTER IN MOST AREAS.

I also believe color shouldn't matter , however I needed to take this debate to tell you that the things you have posted only sound offensive and make me think you secretly do think color matters... All your garbage that you posted sounds like racist junk. So maybe you just are young and haven't made sense with your post , but the way it comes across and you being con in the argument makes it seem that you are against the statement that color shouldn't matter ..so which is it ... Anyway I will debate the PRO (I agree that Color shouldn't matter) as that is the side I have taken in this debate and maybe you agree maybe not ... I honeslt have no idea from your post Color shouldn't matter , although unfortunately it seems to. i think racism is a problem on all sides and needs to stop. I think skin color is just that. I think part of the problem with racism is that all sides have stereotypes and do not overcome them. I do think that Black people and White people both have a sterotpe of the other , and if people didn't judge a person by the color of their skin and the stereotypes that come with it , maybe racism would fade away. Unfortunately that seems to be easier said than done. I think the problem is all sides see the other side as being racist ...and therefore it causes racism in you. For example , I was always intimidated by black women when I was younger and thought they didn't like me because I was white ...however as I have gotten older I have gotten to know black women personally have some in my family and understand that is not the case , just as I have talked to them and they said they thought all white women thought they were better than them and were snobby. Both of us have opened our eyes by getting to know each other. I feel if people did this color would matter less and less.
The Cogito is absolutly Certain

The Fool:. A cogito argument is not to be read as we do most argument and or debates. It is not the kind where other sources can be referred to, nor the kind by which we can natural scientific experiment. Because the nature of this argument is justification by which all other knowledge is dependent upon. In fact in is the most important argument of all. . That is, if you never study philosophy, or have read only a little and or took a few courses this is the one you want in your intellectual arsenal, something that if you get, you can keep forever, and forever it be your save keeping. The original version of this argument was written by Rene Descartes in the Meditations. But it’s most popularly known as the slogan "I think therefore I am" in English. This quote is a translation of the Latin expression Cogito Ergo Sum, Which is a quick summary Descartes postulates in reference to the argument in the Meditations. . It is by this virtue of mediation which makes this work special, were it is not something that can be learned in any other form but self-contemplation. It is a landmark in philosophical history, as it was the first time that anyone had written in direct personal form: The "I". These concepts are key to understanding the argument. Where the writer is not arguing against anyone, nor putting up a challenge, but is simply inviting you to self-contemplate with them, where they are posing questions and differences which can only be recognized in the framework of your own immediate intuitions and or experiences. . So it could never be learned through others, It is not something to be Believed, or not believed, accepted or denied, nor can it be sensed1, felt, imagined2 or dreamed, or any form of illusion3. For the "I" is that which is necessitated, by every conscious moment, and that which necessitates the continuity, in consciousness2. It is the Unity of experiences; The Center of them which is always in the NOW. The Right Now by which each word read is being experienced. For the Cogito doesn't refer to the future nor does it the past. But is the fact of consciousness now. .For even if there is an evil God, "let him to his best ,for he could never bring it about that I did not exit here and now in this very moment. Rene Descarts The Meditations. That is, Insofar as there is immediate consciousness Now, it follows that "I" exist. Why immediate? Because consciousness is always immediate to its center. And the immediate consciousness is mine. And thus it follows from this that I should expect a different set which is Immediate to "others". But only THEY can verify That. . Hint, Hint. . Sincerely, The Fool. . 1 sense as in information from the 5 common senses. 2 imagined as in internal imagery and or pictures. 3 To have an illusion you must be conscious.
The Cogito is absolutly Certain

Cogito Ergo Sum This is often phrased in English as "I think therefore I am" This debate will be about the certainty of self-existence I will be arguing for The Resolution. Bop is on me Terms of acceptance 1. Appeal to authority or references are NOT replacement for Arguments. 2. Principle of Charity=Conduct 4. The Most informative, precise, reasonable definitions are to be taken over others. Principle of Charity -respecting the most likely meaning of the Speaker. -giving the best representation of opponent arguments. -Assume your opponent to be rational and intelligent. -Vague language is to be avoided. -no semantic Games. Important definitions: Rational/reasonable: To think incoherence with logic. First round is acceptance. Opponent can start first round but then they cannot give an argument in the last round. Choice is theirs.
The Cogito is absolutly Certain

Given the forfeit, my opponent has suggested in the comments section that I "take this debate" since he was credited for the win in our previous attempt at this debate, even though we both forfeited. The site president has said that he would delete the other debate if TheFool agreed. I agree to having both debates deleted since he will likely lose this one, and I lost the other. They are both sour wins given a real discussion never ensued. Extend my arguments.
The Cogito is absolutly Certain

Thank you, Fool. Unfortunately I have mismanaged my time this week, and have just a few hours to post a round though I am about to leave for Sunday dinner with my family. I'm going to make this round short and sweet, and provide the details of my argument in the next round. For now, I'll provide an outline of my case, which will give my opponent not only the opportunity to respond - but the advantage of making a detailed, pro-active case against my arguments before I am able to explain them further in depth. The first thing I will be arguing in this debate is that we as human beings cannot know if ANYTHING is absolutely certain, let alone the cogito. Of course, many people (including my opponent, presumably) suggest that the cogito may be [one of] the only things we CAN know for certain. I will argue why we cannot know anything for certain, including the cogito. Descartes reached his faulty conclusion first by becoming skeptical of all his beliefs. Eventually, he became skeptical of his own existence. He then postulated that his self-doubt was evidence for his own existence. Because he doubts, he must exist. However, Descartes failed to prove that whatever has the property of thinking must exist. Just because thought is happening does not mean that the thought occurring is the result of an entity existing. The "I" as the thinking being in his conclusion is problematic. The affirmation of "I" comes from an invalid epistemological argument called the Prior Certainty of Consciousness. More about this in the next round...
Is God real

Ok, Now I am just going to go with how I think of this. What I have said is what I have learned. This argument is going to be short and sweet. And I'm done with creation. Onto evolution. So this is where a lot of people have controversy over. Some people think that evolution is a thing, And I think that it is. And this is because we don't know how many times god created man except for one specific case, This is Adam and Eve. God hadn"t created time until we sinned so it could have been thousands of years before he created Adam and Eve, Because time was nonexistent
Is God real

I didn't interpret it like that, I was also talking about the creation of the universe, I believe that was targeted to someone in the comment section but I felt like addressing it. Now, The science stuff I obviously can't argue with. I write my arguments as I go and I don't exactly know how to put this into words. But, It isn't illogical I guess? I mean, "God" technically came from nothing, But he doesn"t exist. I wanna turn back to Bill Wurtz (slightly obsessed) So, Quarks are made of protons and neutrons, Add electrons and "congratulations, Now the world is a bunch of gas. " It gets closer together for about 500 million years and a star is made. They explode. Bigger stars explode with Passion and make some cool space dust. Now a bunch of elements exist. Then we get to the funny clouds and balls of flaming rocks. But yeah, Something does not come from nothing. It's not illogical. ~~~extra stuff that's not part of my argument~~~ I thought of giving Bill's sources instead of just using his video as gospel but I don't see his sources in the description of his video. If you go to his website, Billwurtz. Com, And then hit expert mode, Go to 5. 10. 17 titled 'the history of the entire world, I guess', It takes you here https://billwurtz. Com/history-of-the-entire-world-i-guess. Html. For those who don't want to click, It says the title again and then two links. One to watch on youtube and one to download the video. So yeah, I'm just gonna take his wurtz for it.
Is God real

To further elaborate on the "something comes from nothing", You can interpret that as saying we created God, But that is not how it is supposed to be interpreted. I am talking about the creation of the universe, And let me get started, It's a doozy. Ok. So Einstein's theory was that displacement of spacetime is the cause of gravity and if you're confused with spacetime and what it is, They recently found this new particle called the Higgs boson. And this particle makes up the Higgs field which is essential. Anyways Einstein said that the displacement of spacetime is the cause of gravity, If this is the case, From the absence of gravity, Or the absence of spacetime, Must be pure gravity because of the law of flow. Things will go to the point of least resistance, And if there is nothing there to resist, That is the point of least resistance. So an absence of spacetime would be pure gravity. Black holes are an absence of space-time, Which is why absolutely nothing, Not even light, Can escape their pull. Also if the universe is all of space-time and the entire Higgs field all of space-time and matter everything, Then, Whatever"s outside of the universe must be an absence of spacetime. If that is the case then the universe is not expanding into the absolute void around it, It"s falling. Ok now think back to the beginning of time. We know that the universe has an age right. As far as we know it is 13. 8 billion years old. So 13. 8 billion years ago, The entire universe was reduced to a singularity. A particle that is smaller than the quark. However, If gravity is always working, I. E, If you jumped off a building your not going to fall 15 seconds later, You're going to fall immediately. And if gravity is always working, Then the singularity was always there. But there are people who try to say that the universe would have no age but it should be infinitely old. However it is not. As it has an age and that is 13. 8 billion years. And we're back at the "something can't come from nothing" statement. Now this is true because "something" would have to exist in order to cause itself to exist. And THIS is illogical, Because something other must have created the singularity. And that "something other" we observe, As God.
Is God real

I feel like you and Jackgilbert would make good friends. Anyway, Let's do this. "You think that something comes from nothing. " No I don't. The earth came from stars exploding, Which made, In the words of Bill Wurtz "rocks, Ice, And funny clouds. Like this ball of flaming rocks (Earth). Oh sh*t, We just got hit by another ball of flaming rocks. " The eventually, The entire world is an ocean. Point is, That's how Earth was made, God did not do anything. "There is no scientific proof that God doesn't exist" well, The proof that God doesn't exist is the "proof" that God does exist is incorrect. "it might be that the universe was created last year, But with all the memories and physical evidence, To look like it was much older" the world ended in 2012 REEEEEEEEE. We have written, Video and photographic evidence that the world wasn't created a year ago. Sources: https://youtu. Be/xuCn8ux2gbs ('history of the entire world, I guess' by Bill Wurtz) This argument is weak as f*ck but at least I know god isn't real.
Is God real

God. He was there when nothing wasn't. Science proves itself wrong. You think that something comes from nothing. That is illogical. There is no scientific proof that God doesn't exist but there is proof that he does and you still think that he doesn't. If you do then at that point you are just being stubborn. Stephen Hawking's theory was that "space and time were no longer Absolute, No longer a fixed background to events. Instead, They were dynamical quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe. They were defined only within the universe, So it made no sense to talk of a time before the universe began. It would be like asking for a point south of the South Pole. It is not defined. If the universe was essentially unchanging in time, As was generally assumed before the 1920s, There would be no reason that time should not be defined arbitrarily far back. Any so-called beginning of the universe would be artificial, In the sense that one could extend the history back to earlier times. Thus it might be that the universe was created last year, But with all the memories and physical evidence, To look like it was much older. This raises deep philosophical questions about the meaning of existence. I shall deal with these by adopting what is called, The positivist approach. In this, The idea is that we interpret the input from our senses in terms of a model we make of the world. One can not ask whether the model represents reality, Only whether it works. A model is a good model if first, It interprets a wide range of observations, In terms of a simple and elegant model. And second, If the model makes definite predictions that can be tested and possibly falsified by observation. " this is a word for word of Stephen Hawking's incorrect statements. Gravity he said created everything, But this is illogical as gravity has no supernatural aspects. Just gravity is gravity and nothing else the universe was created by something and gravity is nothing.
Is God real

If we are thinking about the evolution of humans, Then how do we know that Adam and Eve are even modern humans? Who's to say that they aren't early humans that are closer to the "ape/monkey stage" of humans. And even so, How do we know that we even were related to monkeys (please don't reprimand me on that last one). And I've watched all those documentaries about how we think evolution went down but what if we were wrong. . . ( V5;ಠ B2;Q5; V5;ಠ)
Is God real

Well, Say that Adam and Eve was real, Time was still existent they just weren't aging. Time was still passing, It would have still existed, They just didn't age. So that isn't really proof that god is real. Also, Evolution still could have happened whether or not god is real. If god isn't real, Then they evolved from you already know the argument. If god did exist (which he didn't(I have to throw that in because this argument looks neutral as f*ck)), He put some creatures on earth and then they changed to their environment. So therefore, I don't see hoe this argument proves god is real.
Validity of Racism and Affirmative Action

I will be arguing against racism and in favor of affirmative action on the grounds that racism is unjustified and affirmative action ensures equalized opportunities. You can structure your argument however you'd like, but I will be using each round to argue, no intro or conclusion. Sources and/or professional input are, as always, valued but not necessary. Also, this argument is confined to the US only (simpler, I think). Let me know if I left out any important parameters and/or if there are any you'd like to add. Good luck!
The Hummer H2 Good or Bad

The total number of Hummer H2 produced is about 150k. Of these cars, a small fraction have been used for the unique features and capabilities it was produced for. They are a symbol for the owners as well as for those that have grown to dislike the car. Considering the failure of the car in the market, it would seem that the overall critique is the car is "bad". The answer to the question is - the Hummer H2 is not good.
The Hummer H2 Good or Bad

Ok the H2 is a wonderful vehicle. That remains to be seen. it delivers a smooth ride with superior comfort. Mediocre ride quality. http://www.popularmechanics.com... It comes loaded with just about everything you could want in a car. Opinion http://www.cars.com... It has heated seats, Optional onstar, Optional/subscription leather as standard features “Cloth trim is standard. With the optional leather seats… http://www.lynchhummer.com... http://www.cars.com... Also its a GM product and not only a GM product but a GM truck which means it has superior build quality when compared to any other big vehicles. https://carfamily.wordpress.com... In addition it has amazing ride height which makes it great for everyday use No proof of needed ride height for “everyday use” and clearance which makes it a perfect out of the box 4x4 in addition to that it has locking diffs 35in, This makes no sense. If you are saying 35” WHEELES, no it does NOT. http://www.wheel-size.com... BF goodrich A/T's, triple sealed doors for heading water (with ground clearance and everything accounted for you can drive in up to 48in of water without the possibility of water coming in do that in your wrangler!) 20” is the speck. http://www.elcovaforums.com... and skid plates this makes it perfect for offroad use. Then on top of this it uses GM 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton pickup parts which means parts for repairs will be as common as water like a jeep. Although the fuel mileage is low it isn't 10 mpg its somewhere around 11.5-14 mpg and I can attest to that. The Hummers poor fuel mileage isn't to be blamed on its sheer mass and size but instead the powerhouse GM decided to use. GM dropped its 6.0L Vortec gas engine which puts out around 325 hp and 360-lbs of torque. Take this motor out of the H2 and drop it into something say like a silverado, tahoe, or suburban and you will see the same poor 11.5-14 mpg. Even though this isn't exactly the best fuel mileage there are certainly better trucks people could have picked for the bad MPG poster child. For example the Ford excursion gas gets a completely behind lousy 8.5-10 mpg. The silverado 8.1L 2500hd gets 9-11 mpg and the Dodge ram SRT-10 gets 7.5-8.5 mpg. Then when we look back at it today 12 mpg was almost average for any SUV/Truck. 2002 Dodge ram 1500 12 mpg, 2015 Nissan titan gets 13 mpg city, pretty much every Aston Martin ever made gets 12 mpg, Toyota 4 runners average 12 mpg, 2004 Toyota tundra average 12 mpg If I keep going you can clearly see that the H2's 12 mpg average isn't that awful. So whatThe Hummer H2 has been a general flop. It is impratical and has been rejected by the market.
The Hummer H2 Good or Bad

Ok the H2 is a wonderful vehicle. It exceeds at just about everything it delivers a smooth ride with superior comfort. It comes loaded with just about everything you could want in a car. It has heated seats, onstar, and leather as standard features just to name a few. Also its a GM product and not only a GM product but a GM truck which means it has superior build quality when compared to any other big vehicles. In addition it has amazing ride height which makes it great for everyday use and clearance which makes it a perfect out of the box 4x4 in addition to that it has locking diffs 35in, BF goodrich A/T's, triple sealed doors for heading water (with ground clearance and everything accounted for you can drive in up to 48in of water without the possibility of water coming in do that in your wrangler!) and skid plates this makes it perfect for offroad use. Then on top of this it uses GM 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton pickup parts which means parts for repairs will be as common as water like a jeep. Although the fuel mileage is low it isn't 10 mpg its somewhere around 11.5-14 mpg and I can attest to that. The Hummers poor fuel mileage isn't to be blamed on its sheer mass and size but instead the powerhouse GM decided to use. GM dropped its 6.0L Vortec gas engine which puts out around 325 hp and 360-lbs of torque. Take this motor out of the H2 and drop it into something say like a silverado, tahoe, or suburban and you will see the same poor 11.5-14 mpg. Even though this isn't exactly the best fuel mileage there are certainly better trucks people could have picked for the bad MPG poster child. For example the Ford excursion gas gets a completely behind lousy 8.5-10 mpg. The silverado 8.1L 2500hd gets 9-11 mpg and the Dodge ram SRT-10 gets 7.5-8.5 mpg. Then when we look back at it today 12 mpg was almost average for any SUV/Truck. 2002 Dodge ram 1500 12 mpg, 2015 Nissan titan gets 13 mpg city, pretty much every Aston Martin ever made gets 12 mpg, Toyota 4 runners average 12 mpg, 2004 Toyota tundra average 12 mpg If I keep going you can clearly see that the H2's 12 mpg average isn't that awful.
Debates are an unreliable source of truth.

I am not necessarily arguing that this debate is an unreliable source of truth. I am arguing that if this is an unreliable source of truth, then my opponent can't prove debates are an unreliable source of truth because his arguments are unreliable, and if this is a reliable source of truth, then it is not the case that debates are an unreliable source of truth and I am correct and my opponent can't prove his/her claim. So whether or not debates are an unreliable source of truth, it is impossible for my opponent to fulfill the burden of proof for his claim. No I am not saying my opponent is saying is necessarily wrong if his claim is true, just that my opponent's arguments would be unreliable which means there is a reasonable chance he/she is wrong, which means his/her claim is not fulfilling burden of proof.