BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does God Exist

Where did the Big bang come from? If it came from nothing, why don't we see elephants pop into existence from nothingness? Something can't come from nothing, otherwise we would observe it at a macroscopic scale and would see chaos. Science is always changing so quantum fluctuations are probably coming from something also. And yes Transcendental abstracts may not require any minds, but they are part of God's transcendental nature, Both God and the laws of logic transcend our reality, therefore they contradict materialism, which says only matter and energy exist. The Law of noncontradiction isn't made up of matter or energy, therefore There is a reality beyond the physical and God also exists there because He gave us the sense of logic. If life is only chemistry we would have created a cell now, but we haven't, how then could it create itself? It can't. We don't observe it in nature also, life only comes from life. and the final point was a point. The quran is not a book of fables, it is a book on science. It talks about the Big Bang, black holes, the expansion of the universe, life needing water, and extraterrestrial life before anyone even thought about these concepts. How can an uneducated man such as the Holy Prophet peace be upon him, come up with these concepts if He didn't even know what science was and lived in a time the earth was believed to be flat? Where did the knowledge in the quran come from? It is not like the bible, it hasn't been changed. 1400 years ago it answered question we are thinking about now. Have you read the quran? If not read it, and do research and you will see it is full of knowledge and proves that some higher being (God) inspired it. If not meet it's challenge, produce another chapter like it? http://www.alislam.org... http://www.alislam.org...
Does God Exist

As Con I'll first start off by refuting your points. Since I have very little space I'll have to make my arguments short and I apologize. Anyways, the cosmological argument has been done to death. First off, the big bang only describes how the universe expands, not its origins. We have other theories for that, some of which do allow for things to pop into existence from nothing without breaking any rules, especially since spacetime isn't bound by conservation laws. Second, you don't explain God's origins. What caused the first cause? Did God create himself? Why can't the universe do so? Third, just because we don't know the exact origin of the universe, doesn't mean you can give up and say its magic. On the transcendental argument, let me refute it with an analogy. The number 4 is "transcendent." It isn't a 'thing' that 'exists'. It cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured. However, if there were no minds in existence to conceive of the number 4, the shape we currently call a square would still have the same number of sides it has now. The abstraction of the number 4 is conceptual, but the concept isn't dependent on a transcendent mind for the real world underpinning of the concept to remain true. Also, atheism doesn't explain logic because atheism is only a lack of a belief, it doesn't make any positive claims. The origins of logic however are rooted in survival strategies and can be explained. As for abiogenesis, we can't create modern cells because nature can't. Early cells were very different from those today. Early cells barely qualified as life, and were more similar to viruses than anything. We can't create those because we don't know their exact structures. Also, manually controlling individual atoms is very hard. In nature however, the basic chemicals for life form naturally and form in layers. Even theistic scientists agree that in the end life is only chemistry. Your fourth point isn't even an argument. A book of fables is not proof.
It's better to be a scrub than a noob.

Not at all. The better players will go form being a noob to being a novice simply by opening their eyes and seeing that playing one extreme or the other isn't how you win. You can't permanently 'risk' and can't permanently 'not risk' you need to balance it out.Many noobs once they become novices go on to become amateurs, others stay as novices and quit the game for good in anger. Amateurs are where the majority of players will remain. From amateur one either becomes a genuine pro, mastering many playstyles and using their skills at a playstyle to play against that playstyle with its counter. The other lot of amateurs will become scrubs, who become specialists in one (or maximum 2) very specific playstyles in the game. They will be devastatingly good when people don't pick their counter-style but if people know what he scrubs particular way of playing is, the scrub is very easy to handle because a Pro will use the counter style and have practised using it so won't slip up either. Scrubs only cope with counter-styles by hoping the enemy doesn't play it very well.So we have the following scenarios of what a noob becomes:Noob - > Noob until rage-quitNoob - > Novice - > Novice until rage quitNoob - > Novice - > Amateur - > Peaks at AmateurNoob - > Novice - > Amateur - > Expert/ProNoob - > Novice - > Amateur - > ScrubOnly the last scenario is the case that Con suggests occurs for all noobs. Even so, if a noob does become a scrub they are better off as a scrub then they ever were as a noob and that's why they strived to become it.
Autism is a devastating condition, not a blessing

Why should you care you skipped a round Did you know ... " Autism now affects 1 in 68 children and 1 in 42 boys " Autism prevalence figures are growing " Autism is one of the fastest-growing developmental disorders in the U.S. " Autism costs a family $60,000 a year on average " Boys are nearly five times more likely than girls to have autism " There is no medical detection or cure for autism National Institutes of Health Funds Allocation " Total 2012 NIH budget: $30.86 billion Of this, only $169 million goes directly to autism research. This represents 0.55% of total NIH funding. https://www.autismspeaks.org...
Autism is a devastating condition, not a blessing

Autism Speaks' multi-year Ad Council public service advertising campaign stresses the importance of recognizing the early signs of autism and seeking early intervention services. Recent research confirms that appropriate screening can determine whether a child is at risk for autism as young as one year. While every child develops differently, we also know that early treatment improves outcomes, often dramatically. Studies show, for example, that early intensive behavioral intervention improves learning, communication and social skills in young children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). One of the most important things you can do as a parent or caregiver is to learn the early signs of autism and become familiar with the typical developmental milestones that your child should be reaching. The following "red flags" may indicate your child is at risk for an autism spectrum disorder. If your child exhibits any of the following, please don"t delay in asking your pediatrician or family doctor for an evaluation: No big smiles or other warm, joyful expressions by six months or thereafter No back-and-forth sharing of sounds, smiles or other facial expressions by nine months No babbling by 12 months No back-and-forth gestures such as pointing, showing, reaching or waving by 12 months No words by 16 months No meaningful, two-word phrases (not including imitating or repeating) by 24 months Any loss of speech, babbling or social skills at any age The M-CHAT (Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers) can help you determine if a professional should evaluate your child. This simple online autism screen, available on our website, takes only a few minutes. If the answers suggest your child is at risk for autism, please consult with your child"s doctor. Likewise, if you have any other concerns about your child's development, don't wait. Speak to your doctor now about screening your child for autism. You can learn more about how to recognize the signs of an autism using our Video Glossary. It contains over a hundred video clips illustrating typical and delayed development. Whether you are a parent, caregiver, relative or friend, it can help you learn the subtle differences and spot the early red flags for ASD. Resources: Though autism spectrum disorders range from mildly to profoundly disabling, a diagnosis of ASD is an important turning point in a long journey. Autism Speaks has many resources for families whose children have recently received a diagnosis. These include Autism Speaks 100 Day Kit and the Asperger Syndrome and High Functioning Autism Tool Kit. In addition, our Video Glossary provides information about a wide range of treatments and behavioral interventions that may be suitable for your child. Within the glossary, you can also download descriptions of these treatments and interventions. Please visit Treatment of Autism and our Resource Guide for more information. Have more questions? Autism Speaks' Autism Response Team can help you with information, resources and opportunities. Call us at 888-288-4762 (en Espa"ol 888-772-9050) https://www.autismspeaks.org...
should laptops be allowed at schools

Hi, As a student myself, I disagree with the statement. Many student are diagnosed dyslexic and sometimes severe handwriting issues, meaning that when taking notes from the board, they cannot keep up with the rest of the class or are not able to read their own notes. Students in the older years have more responsibility when working on laptops, so I disagree in your argument generalising all years together. At the school I am currently enrolled at, we have a system where the teacher routinely checks the students work on their laptops, mainly to see whether they are messing around on them or actually doing work. I do agree that in the younger years, the students sometimes lack the maturity to use a laptop correctly for work, however when properly monitored this needn't be an issue. For the issue about broken laptops- all items brought into school are at the students own risk as is other expensive articles brought into school. Also strained eyes only come when staring at a laptop for hours on end, whilst school has regular breaks, between classes and at lunch time aswell. Laptops can be extremely useful when writing essays, or creating accurate graphs and can transport all your work easily, so overall I believe that being able to have a laptop in class at school is a good thing and more schools should allow it. Sophie2Brown
should laptops be allowed at schools

I not only as a con but as a person who tried bringing his laptop for school. I saw who that everyone that had a laptop with them are enjoying their time while others are not and that is unfair. Students say that they bring their laptops for project while in truth there is no project they only want to play with it. It is also not good for saving information let"s say you have written everything from the teacher has said and you have solved your homework on it and suddenly you"re laptop shut down without saving, or you have saved and you"re laptop gets damaged and needs format in that case you need to format it and all of it will be deleted. And another reason why I say that laptops shouldn't be allowed in schools is that you"re hand writing time by time well get worse and that may affect you at the moment or in the future. And one of the most common problems that schools that allow laptops face that is when a laptop gets lost they start to blame the school or their friends that they have stolen their laptops. Another thing is that what if your laptop falls and gets broken and can"t get fixed. What if a student copy his friend work on a flash that way by the number of cheating will increase in schools. And if students continue using laptops by time their eyes will get hurt.
The Pokeon world does not make good use of technolegy.

I will now refute his arguments. P1: Why aren't pokedex and pokeballs used for military/police purposes? My response to this argument is simple. Who says they don't? Have you noticed rampant crime in any pokemon region? Have you ever heard of a war being conducted? (That's not including the gang wars, the explanation for these is that these gangs have the SAME technology. Just like when a nuclear power is hesitant to attack another nuclear power, so are the military and police afraid to challenge these gangs. ) Clearly, pokemon trainers are living in a world free of war and petty crime. They are making full use of this technology. P2: Kids are used to gather pokemon/info on pokemon. Forgive my confusion, but. .. I don't see why this is an issue. These pokemon professors live in a free world, thanks to this technology being used to its full potential. Therefore, because of the free market, they can choose to hire whomever they wish. Do you wish to deny them this right? One could argue that hiring professionals is more efficient, but the free market principle testifies to the fact that this technology is, in fact, being used to it's full potential. In the end, we are left with a free (and almost utopian) society. The people are happy. Technology is thriving. There is no war. There is little crime. If anything, this MUST be the greatest use of the technology available to the people of the pokemon universe.
The Pokeon world does not make good use of technolegy.

Argument 1 pokeballs and the pokedex: For starters the pokeball a device that can capture seemingly any creature by hitting it despite the fact that it appears to be the size of a baseball and according to Nintendo has a vast world inside (scroll down to trophy info in the link below.) as stated in Super Smash Bros Brawl. http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com... Also the pokedex somehow knows the species of a pokemon encountered in battle when the user doesn't intentionally use it. To elaborate on its abilities and by extension the pokeball's, whenever a pokemon is captured in a pokeball the pokedex knows everything about that species of pokemon, e.g., what type of pokemon it is, what its weight is, its size, information in a written form about a variety of subjects ranging from behaviors (unobserved in battle.) to bodily functions, where they are from and an audio file of them labeled 'cry'. Considering this information I wonder why they haven't used the technology to fit large large volumes of space into objects which mathematically should contain small amounts of space, for reasons such as fitting the for several people to live in multiple houses worth a space without them having to live together in the space of one house. Or let military and police forces use master balls to capture enemies and/or criminals and transport them to their prisons that could be (And if they have problems with prison overcrowding, should be) huge. Argument 2 the people who posses the pokedex are kids: The title of this argument is correct because of that ask yourself this, why not hire several professionals to catch as many pokemon as they can then bring them back to the pokemon scientist to examine with the pokedex? Also what if an animal species was introduced couldn't they capture it get some basic information on it so they have a place to start their research?
god is evil or uncaring

Thisbis an exercise in absurdity. I have already done enough to win. None of the premises for the modal ontological argument have been even addressed, though my opponent attacked a ontological argument that bears almost no resemblance to mine. I've offered multiple reasons why God would allow evil while still being good and caring. Beyond that, my opponent has the bulk of the burden of proof and has offered no compelling arguments. Do the common sense thing and vote for me
god is evil or uncaring

It is clear my opponent has not bothered to defend any of his statements or refute anything I said. He only brings up 1 points which I will refute. You change it The definition of god so that it's all loving. The argument here is that by definition god is loving. You have to understand that changing the definition of something doesn't prove a point, because my argument wasn't "an all loving god is evil". But, that a god (if he did exist) was evil. A point my opponent made in round one was that the burden of proof was one me. So i have decide to use the Christian god as an example. I apologize earlier, but this the Christian god is the most popular one. Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." As we see here god created evil, he created the hurricanes and droughts. He created diseases and the lighting strikes, as you said earlier, that desertores homes. What purpose do these have? To test someone if they are desperate to believe in a god that won't help them anyway? Sure maybe a few people will live and devote their lives to god even more, but a lot more will die (depending on how bad the disease or disaster is). Without knowing why. Does god reward these people in anyway? And if so wouldn't it be a hedonistic paradise? Which could only last so long before it would be boring. Also, because created human nature, which is inherently evil, is he not responsible? Because we already know he could easily prevent it with a snap of his fingers.
god is evil or uncaring

I only have about ten minutes, but fortunately my opponent is so horrible that I could forfeit this round and be okay. ( no offense, statement if fact not insult). Following numbers are the responses to the same numbers my opponent used. 1. If God obly made us feel love or joy it takes away our free will to feel otgwr emotions. Duh SMH. Also without pain there would be nothing to weigh joy against to even know it is good. An omniscient God in a freewill scenario knows every possible future, but given that his creations have freewill, would not know what decisions they would make, necessarily. 2.I'm not even sure what my opponent is saying here. Maybe his reading comprehension skills are so low it prevents him from understanding what I wrote, so he puts random crap. I'll just answer C. U mean seriohsly WTF is he talking about? C) no supernatural entities can have free will just like humans in that scenario. This has nothing to do with interference by God. I hope I answered that vorrectly because ut was mostly rubbish and hard to figure out what you meant. 3. WTF? Thua guy just seriously googled a rebuttal for the Ontological argument. The worse part is that he googled a rebuttal to the wrong Ontological argument. I gave the modal Ontological argument guven in Godel's proof fro the 1970s, not the one from the 13th crntury. This is a dropped argument on his part. I provided premises, and did not define God into existence. Whatever my opponent is so bad this 5 minute rebuttal will do.
god is evil or uncaring

Each point will be a rebuttal to my opponent 1.The problem of evil/free will defense My opponent brought up that god is omnipresent and omnipotent and makes us go through misery to build up moral character and appreciate life more. That if we lived in a hedonistic society we would be miserable from the meaninglessness. The problem is it is still god that is causing the suffering because god not only caused that suffering but also gave us the our human nature. Which made us greedy and shallow. He could've made us only able to feel love and joy. Would our lives be and more or less meaningful? Also, if god knows what we would do and how we will react then it is meaningless and as such would not be worth a deity's time. 2.Natural Evil a)What is the point of receiving "moral tests" if god knows what is going to happen? b)This implies that "god" is more like mother nature. But, this means that it is neutral and nullifies the argument about "moral tests". c)God has horrible "moral agents" if he doesn't know if they'll do bad or good. Which also goes against free will if god is interfering. 3.Ontological Argument This is the weakest one of them all. Simply adding existence to the definition of a thing does not congour it into existence. Sure the concept exists but that doesn't prove it exists outside of it's concept. Take for example the realicorn, it's like a unicorn but it exists. If you know and understand what a realicorn, then it must exist. Because if it exists in that world, it exists on all worlds. See both are stupid. Also, it doesn't disprove that god is evil or not. It's all really just begging the question. Conclusion God is dead, vote for me.
god is evil or uncaring

God (if real at all) is either evil or uncaring. Why? Because there is too much suffering in the world. Suffering he created. Not only that he could easily cure these things with a flick of the wrist. And depending on which book you read, he supports genocide,slavery, and pedophilia. Not only that he allows good people to suffer and he even those that follow him. And If he isn't evil, than he doesn't care and just watches us for amusement.
We Should Adopt the Right to be Forgotten

Hello once again, my name is Forever23 and I am here to bring forth the premise which is that we should adopt the right to be forgotten. My roadmap will include first answering and clarifying my opponents questions and then quickly restating my assertions and finally putting 2 new assertions onto the table. The opposition did not understand what was wrong with large companies owning tons of information about us. They mentioned if you have a problem with others knowing a lot about you, just don't post. However, this debate is framed to only irrelevant or untrue information. That means that if someone posts a picture of you drunk, you should have the right to take it off. You haven't made the choice of posting this... That was probably information that you wanted to keep private. This I assume, also answers the oppositions team second question. Now to quickly restate my own assertions. 1. Internet companies have an intimidating amount of unauthorized data and influence over the citizenry. 2. The social impact of having people base their impressions of others solely off what they see online on social networking sites. Now onto introducing two of props new assertions. My third assertion is that the right will ensure the protection of citizens and their right to privacy. By adopting the right to be forgotten, we can ensure that citizens do not have to suffer because of something that has been posted about them on social media that is embarrassing or defaming and can have harmful effects on their life. According to NPR.org, "Proponents say the "right to be forgotten" strikes a fair balance between personal privacy and free speech and gives individuals the ability to control their own lives in a world where more and more personal data is collected, bought and sold by third parties." This is important because the people"s right to privacy must be protected since the effects of things on the internet can severely damage one"s life. By adopting the right to be forgotten, we can ensure that people"s lives are secure and their privacy is protected. My fourth assertion is that it helps foster a safer online environment. The right to be forgotten makes mistakes by people amendable and creates an online community that is safer for a larger audience, including children or senior citizens."It creates more clarity and should create more trust in the online environment. Of course we must balance the right to access to information with the right to privacy. " (Neelie Kroes, Commissioner for the Digital Agenda). With an ever expanding number of users going on the internet, with many young and elderly people, the right to be forgotten ensures that all of these users will be active in a safer community. By adopting the right to be forgotten, the internet will become clearer, safer, and more trustworthy for all users. Thank you Kasmic for accepting and thank you audience for reading my debate. Please vote proposition