BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Insanity

First, let me say that I find your questioning of something that people have come to accept as true or unquestionable, extremely commendable! I believe this level of mental alertness is the foundation for anyone who seeks to be virtuous. So kudos!!! Its a pleasure to 'meet' you! And I totally agree that if taken at face value the quote does, as you say, seem to be a discouragent of perseverance...lol. But i believe if we set it in the context of Einstein's vocation, it can be interpreted as cogent advice for one who truly seeks to affect a change in their circumstance. So, if Einstein was a scientist, considered by some to be the greatest of the modern age..the quote can reasonably be placed in the context of scientific experimentation (humor me, please..lol) i.e., in the setting of a controlled environment. Now this is not to say that the quote should be exclusively applied to laboratory mangers...lol, but rather that a rational person ought be aware of all the variables (actions/thoughts) that lead to a certain outcome. So, continuing to apply an experiment (action) with the same variables that lead to an undesired result would be considered insanity. If one is aware of time (change over time) then they are in fact applying it as a variable which would not be the same experiment, and would therefore be adherent to the advise of the quote. The view that one should simply 'try try again' however, in the anticipation that results will change over time, is purely speculative. So i believe the quote is predicated on a certain awareness of one's actions and their consequences... I hope this makes some sense, I would hate to have wasted your time... Very nice topic!!!
Insanity

Albert Einstein is generally credited with the quote, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Whether or not it was truly Einstein who said this is irrelevant to the purpose of the debate, for I want to examine the statement on the merit of what it implies, rather than the authority from whence it came. This quote has often been cited to me in a variety of settings--from well-intentioned friends trying to advise me on the best course of action in solving a problem to managers who use it as a plug for change. Whenever it is said, I have an immediate cringe factor toward its implications, many of which seem overwhelmingly obvious to me. The primary apprehension I have is its disregard for the nature of an action--that it cannot be separated from the time and place in which it is executed. This, to me, right out of the gate puts a wedge in the wisdom of its counsel. If each time I perform an action, I am aggregating it to the mounting body of instances in which it has taken place, time may be the crucial factor in the actualization of either failure or success. One cannot stipulate from a week long diet that it will not bear results. Nor would it be insanity to persist in doing it "over and over again expecting different results." What this means is that it is very often the case that results lie dormant, waiting to emerge after a sufficient quantity of time. This length of time is surely to vary case by case. So to merely assert that we are yet to see results and, consequently, change is in order, is to draw attention away from the central argument. Whether or not there has been sufficient time for the fruit to manifest itself ought to be inextricably tied to a discussion on modification. Otherwise, we are led to believe we are "insane" if we refuse to accept the wave of change. Granted, I understand that the frequently intended use is merely to imply that sometimes we need a new game plan, rather than remaining resolute on a path that seems destined for defeat. My issue, however, lies in its misapplication backed by a slightly slanderous inference that requires little more than rhetoric to induce its passive consent in the abortion of a plan, that perhaps, may have yielded fruit given sufficient time. In conclusion, this is one among many quotes that gets thrown around whimsically to successfully garner support without the enlistment of substantial critical thought. To a person, like myself, who is generally amicable to a utilitarian approach to things, I am frustrated that such a poorly devised statement gets so much traction.
WW3 will be fought over Water and Religion

Canada has 20% of the worlds water and has 0.01% of the worlds population, a lot of countries will come for the water and they will not be nice about it either, and do you think Canada is just going to let them take it? of course not. And as for Religion a lot of people are getting killed for being Christians in different countries and eventually something is going to trigger a commotion. and if that does not start a war than the tension between Islam's and the Muslims is pretty bad because of Jerusalem the closest place to where Jesus died it is a major target.
WW3 will be fought over Water and Religion

Thank you for posting. :) Lets talk about water first. Water, as you know, is a renewable and recyclable mineral. So, all the water that was ever present on the earth is still present there. Technological advancement is a tool that can be used to get all that water back. Even the distillation process can be used. I know it is a clumsy process, but it will take place on a very large scale if the water level drops down to near-zero. No country wants a war. After all distillation is better than another world war,isn't it? According to the government of Canada(https://www.ec.gc.ca...)-"In 2009, the average Canadian daily domestic use of fresh water per capita was about 250 litres." Now that is a serious problem as not all the water present in Canada can be used. Some of it is unaccessible. So by the time WW3 will take place, Canada would have used most of its water. So hunting down Canada for water - not cool. Also, almost all of the countries are taking measures to curb this water problem. And trust me when I say this- Most of them will succeed in sustaining their own water supply. An example to prove this can be the village of Sukhomojri in India which has shown that it is possible to 'undo' land degradation. If this can happen with land, why not water? Would you mind explaining your views on religion. I didnt get what you were trying to say. Thanks.
The film "Expelled" makes significant errors and misrepresenations.

Inspired by a discussion in a comments thread where a member cited the film to positively highlight the voices speaking out for intelligent design. He's declined the challenge. Anyone else want to take a swing at it?First round for definitions and acceptace.Resolved: The film "Expelled" makes significant errors and misrepresenations.DefintionsExpelled: the 2008 film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (1)make: to deliver, utter, or put forth (2)significant: Important, of consequence (3). The details of what is considered important and of consquence will obviously form a part of the debate. I consider important errors and misrepresentation those that cast doubt on and/or undermine the message of the film.errors: deviations from accuracy or correctness (4)misrepresentation: the noun form of misrepresent - to represent incorrectly, improperly, or falsely.(5)(1)http://www.imdb.com...(2)http://dictionary.reference.com...(3)http://dictionary.reference.com...(4)http://dictionary.reference.com...(5)http://dictionary.reference.com...
Evolution Did Not Occur.

"Species evolve through natural selection, which involves mutations, am I correct?" You are correct. "A bacterial genome is what all species came from if you believe in evolution right?" Incorrect. There are other simpler life forms but I will let this one slide "Well, a bacterial genome, contains a lot less information than a human genome." That is correct. "Through mutations, information is at a loss. No new information is gained through a mutation." That is incorrect. Mutations can involve a loss or gain of information. A mutation can involve the addition, elimination, of shift of nucleic acids in a genome, resulting in the production of different proteins. "How do you explain the fact that human genomes contain more information? The NDT (neo-Darwinian theory) explains how information in life is built up by evolution. (Or at least supposed to) And evolutionary scientists cannot find a way to explain this or support it in terms of their theory. Can you or anyone?" Therefore, the rest of this argument is invalid. **** I have debunked my opponent's opening point and will begin to argue for evolution. In laboratories, we have successfully witnessed species of single-celled organisms evolving. Theists term this "microevolution". However, there is little to no difference between micro and macroevolution as the genetic changes are not like steps on a ladder, rather, like a sliding scale. If small changes are possible, big changes are possible too. It's just that evolution takes millions of years, which is slightly longer than most laboratories are open. Speciation is also clearly visible and explained. The fossil record dates back the necessary hundreds upon thousands of years and places organisms in their respective time periods. We can see visible changes in structure of organisms, how they grow, and how they changed.
Evolution Did Not Occur.

Species evolve through natural selection, which involves mutations, am I correct? A bacterial genome is what all species came from if you believe in evolution right? Well, a bacterial genome, contains a lot less information than a human genome. Through mutations, information is at a loss. No new information is gained through a mutation. How do you explain the fact that human genomes contain more information? The NDT (neo-Darwinian theory) explains how information in life is built up by evolution. (Or at least supposed to) And evolutionary scientists cannot find a way to explain this or support it in terms of their theory. Can you or anyone?
Playing high school football is better for a man than playing high school baseball

Playing high school football is better for a man than playing high school baseball. I have played both sports at the high school level. I have also coached both sports at this level. Playing football is better for a man and does more for a man than playing baseball. The sport of football teaches a man more about life than baseball does. There are more lessons in football than baseball for a man to learn. Football turns a boy into a man faster than baseball could. The men battle on the lines forms bonds with other men that last a life time. Men are always talking about their old high school football stories and their friends from the team. Baseball does not give the same feeling of team as football does. There is no locker room like there is for baseball. The environments of both sports are different.
Playing high school football is better for a man than playing high school baseball

Football is also a more athletic sport than Baseball. This helps with keeping in shape. There is a different range and demand of strength, speed, agility, and overall athleticism. There are more moves that can be done in football. More cuts and quick turning. There is a lot of quick reactions and insticts that are needed in football. The toughness is very important in football. You have to sacrafice your body for your team. Football helps to keep your body in great shape and have big muscles.
Playing high school football is better for a man than playing high school baseball

Football also makes a person organize their time more. They have to learn the playbook before the season. Then during the season new plays are added in for each different opponent. The student athletes have to do their schoolwork and study for football also. This does not occur in baseball. High School Football is also more important for a school. There is the Homecoming game, Friday nigh games, and home games bring in a crowd. Most of the school goes to the football games because no other sports are really playing at the same time as them. They bring in a crowd and help the school raise money by charging people to get in. This helps a man because he is performing infront of a crowd. he is also helping his school out. Everybody in the school knows the football players and talks about what they saw at the last game. Some teachers do not like the football players but the players just do their work and avoid the teacher. In baseball there is a game during the week while other sports are going on so the crowd is not as big. Less people in the school talk about baseball. Football is also a sport where you have to be tough. You can not let anyone push you around. You learn to stick up for yourself and for your teammates.
Playing high school football is better for a man than playing high school baseball

Football is also more of a release for young men in high school. they are allowed to be physical and hit people in football. A kid can not take out their anger in baseball, it is not allowed. The debate is about young men playing football and/or baseball and which sport makes them into men better. It does not apply to the whole student body because most girls would not like to play football. Even if a girl were to play she would not be the topic of the debate. The locker room is more than just a place for your pads and helmet to be kept. The young men are in the locker room for a long time together. They are there before and after practice. Also before and after games. The men like to hang out in the locker room and be around their team mates. The team grows in the locker room they form bonds with their team. For every team that I have been a part of as either a player or a coach, the players are always getting told to leave the locker room by the coaches. It is hard to get the players to leave sometimes. Football is a second family for everyone on the team. The bond is stronger than in baseball. In baseball when the practice is over everyone just leaves and goes home. There is not the same kind of bonding. For football there is more of a sense of team than in baseball. The team concept is more important. For baseball a back up first basemen but never see the field. In football a back up running back could be in on different offensive formations and play on special teams. Special teams gives almost every player on the football team a chance to contribute to the whole team on the field in games. second and even third string players are seeing time on the field. In baseball back ups are not playing as much as in football and gives it a less sense of team. Also in baseball it is easy to take away a teams best player by using the intentional walk. In football to stop a great player it takes a team effort. Team is very important in football and it is not just for the starters. Football players learn to be one cohesive unit and it makes it better as they grow up. They can use what they learn about teams in their jobs. Football is better for a man than baseball is in high school.
lf Jesus Was White! He wouldn't Have Been Crucified

First off, you did not present biblical evidence to support the fact that Jesus was white. Therefore, there is no for sure evidence that Jesus was in fact Black. Second, your whole argument hinges on one big assumption; everyone from Africa is black. Africans toward the Mediterranean would have a look similar to that of the Jewish population, light brown skin. Since this is a debate about Jesus, I would expect you to mention Jesus at least once in your pervious argument. However, nothing you said relates to religion at all. I admit, it was a very impressive listing of facts, however those facts hold no weight in a religious debate. Therefore, since you have provided no evidence that proves Jesus was indeed black, except for the assumption that blacks migrated from Africa and ended up with the same color thousands of years later, I will chalk this up as a win and hope that you think about what you are actually debating about next time.Thanks for playing.
lf Jesus Was White! He wouldn't Have Been Crucified

Ok. First off, I was never going to mention either of your examples because, obviously, they are flawed. Michelangelo was an artist, therefore he took certian artisitc liberties and made God and Jesus white. Let me state the facts for you: He was the son of a Hebrew woman from the town of Nazareth in the modern-day nation of Israel. He would have been from Jewish descent, and therefore of Jewish complexion, which is light brown skin tone, comperable to a person of hispanic descent. Jesus came as the Jewish Messiah, therefore He had to be Jewish. The messianic prophecies could not be fulfilled in Jesus unless He was physically Jewish. To be from the tribe of Judah required Jewish lineage. It is evident from passages such as Hebrews 7:14," For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah," that Jesus was ethnically a Jew. I challenge you to find biblical evidence proving he was black.
Abortion

Abortion can cause many problems to the mother.Women who had abortions also had: 59 percent increased risk for suicidal thoughts, 61 percent increased risk for mood disorders, 61 percent increased risk for social anxiety disorders, 261 percent increased risk for alcohol abuse, 280 percent increased risk for any substance use disorder. Mothers that have abortion also have the risk of committing suicide. Not only is the mother killing herself but she is also killing the child. Some women get post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A study has been found to show that 14% of women get all the symptoms of PTSD. PTSD is a psychological dysfunction which results from a traumatic experience which overwhelms a person"s normal defense mechanisms resulting in intense fear, feelings of helplessness or being trapped, or loss of control. Some symptoms of PTSD are the person can have flashbacks or nightmare, they can also have difficulty sleeping, etc. Abortion can cause problems in people"s relationships they can either get divorced or they can separate. Abortion can increase depression, violent behavior, alcohol or drug abuse. 30-50% of the women who experience difficulty adjusting to a past abortion report experiencing sexual dysfunctions, of both short and long duration, beginning immediately after their abortions. Post-abortion stress can lead to an eating disorder. http://afterabortion.org... http://www.adaa.org...
Abortion

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." "Ninth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment protect the modern-day constitutional issues such as abortion, the right to die, and gay rights. An abortion case Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, remains the law. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy," and that "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This was declared by the US Supreme Court to be a fundamental right by the US constitution. Abortion is not killing a baby it is simply getting rid of a pregnancy, it is not considered a person because we don't count the fetus as a human being because the have not been born, or even have a birth date. Then fourteenth Amendment- "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws." This amendment states "person of life" does not say any unborn fetus. The baby being aborted will most likely not feel pain because it has been studied that the cortex isn't functional until the 26th week and usually wouldn't feel pain until about the 29th week. "Even as the total number of American households with children increased by 160,000, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Today, one-third of American children " a total of 15 million " are being raised without a father. Nearly five million children live without a mother." says the Washinton D.C Times and this wouldn't happen as much if abortion was not a problem. link https://www.lifesitenews.com... http://abortion.procon.org... http://www.alternet.org...'silent'_ninth_amendment_gives_americans_rights_
Abortion

In 2011 there were about 730,322 abortions reported to the centers for disease control. There are about 1.7% of abortion of women's ages from 15-44 each year. Women who already had abortion earlier in there life time have abortion again. At the age of 45 a women will have at least one abortion. By the 12th week of pregnancies 88.7% of women have abortion. In the U.S. black women are 3.3 times likely to have an abortion than white women. http://www.operationrescue.org... http://abortion.procon.org...
Abortion

Round #3-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Many of America"s child welfare systems are badly broken " and children can suffer serious harm as a result. Some will be separated from their siblings and be abused. Many former foster kids have a tough time out on their own, when they age out of the system, they're more likely than their peers to end up in jail, homeless or pregnant. They're also less likely to have a job or go to college. Its likely that a person get adopted in three years or more or go in to another foster care more than 3 times in their life. Taking away the choice to abort is taking away 2 of the 3 unalienable rights, liberty and happiness because liberty is freedom and women should have that right to choose abortion and it takes away happiness if the women or teen does not want the child. http://www.childrensrights.org... http://www.npr.org... https://davethomasfoundation.org...
Abortion

Instead of abortion the mother of the baby can give the baby away to an adoption center or a foster home. In 1973 there was only 9% of infants that were put for adoption, from 1996-2002 there was only 1% of infant adoptions in the United States. In the Declaration of Independence it states " All men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Abortion takes away the unalienable rights away from the child. http://abortion.procon.org...
Abortion

The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion. If having an abortion was illegal some women would have to reminded by their child that they got raped and the women or teen would have a child with no father.
Abortion

Abortion is unsafe to the female and to the child. 97% of women that have abortion say they experience with pain during the procedure and they are described as intense servers or very severe. Some doctors say it's the same pain as having cancer. There is more pain for younger women than older adults. The mother that is having abortion can have a harmful physical complication from abortion for example they can get overzealous curettage can damage the lining of the uterus and lead to permanent infertility. Having abortion can also lead to never becoming pregnant ever again in life. Abortion can also lead to death or it can lead to unwanted memories which can result to stress or depression. http://www.healthguidance.org.... http://www.cdc.gov...
Abortion

Abortion should be an option for women because it is a right as a women to chose their future for themselves, less than 2% of teen mothers graduate college by the age of 30. Daughters of teen mothers are three times more likely to be a teen mother. 80% of teen involved unmarried mothers who haven"t earned a high school diploma have financial stability problems with their child. The lack of formal education often leaves teenage mothers unqualified for higher paying jobs, and makes it far more difficult for them to support their families and provide necessities needed for their children. http://teenagepregnancysupport.net... https://www.oneworldeducation.org...