BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
every problem does not have a solution

my next point would be the problems whose solutions do not exist or are yet to be revealed. consider the problems like ways to improve memory, intelligence, hairfall problems, ageing problems, height problems, women related problems:biological one's, mild obesity problems, etc... you would probably refer such people to doctors but what if you are a kid or what if you don't have enough money. another problem:what if somebody wants to change something or some action he/she did in past. what if a poor person needs money urgently, what if somebody is stuck into an endless desert with no water and is extremely thirsty, what if u are standing watching a bullet coming towards you and you cant think of any action(sometimes the point of time at which you come with a solution for a problem also matters. ) and so.... now what i am probably gonna face is these are question yet to be addressed or are on the way with their answers. but for people living in present these are merely problems , since their solutions do not exist now. try standing at a place with one of those problems and here you start understanding that at an individual level there exists many many problems which can't be solved. don't drive it all into science and try solving problems at individual levels..what u would probably come up with is more like hypothetical solutions.
every problem does not have a solution

its not very clear by agreeing with irreversible stuffs u agree with existence of solutionless problems. second, u didnt got my question..u r probably trying to come with a precaution. what i am concerned with is more similar to cure. there exists no way to get that heat back. though u can reduce it in some way so there's no need to get it back. since, unfortunately, we can't trace time back..the matter is the current has already passed and the heat is already lost, probably u have no way now to get the energy back. another problem comes up here..u can not reverse time. its not that one can not travel time...its about reversing it. there exists many.
every problem does not have a solution

thanks everyone for giving your views what made me start a debate over this was off course to come up with nice ways to shot down problems. but till now i have faced problems who's solution simply do not exits. there are some processes which are considered irreversible , i hope everyone's getting me if my friends have quite a knowledge of thermodynamics. the same applies to philosophy as well . SO WHAT IF WE CONSIDER THESE IRREVERSIBLE PROCESSES AS PROBLEMS. i know it would go a bit into science but just for having a nice example: when you transfer energy like transfering electricity, some energy is lost as heat. PROBLEM: are there ways to get that heat lost back? i guess no. now if u question the genre of the problem, then that might put you out of the debate coz the argument was..there exists problems , not having solution. such problems exists in philosophy as well as in all other fields.
Is This Video funny?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d2HUeCKEWs

okay... um... lol.This wasn't even a debate- maybe you should have put this is one of the forums. I might sub, but will it benefit me much.I look forward to watching any remakes of this video.Moving on.Btw, I just wanted to post this video, shameless advertising :p You should listen to it- if you like classical music shiz.http://www.youtube.com...;
Is This Video funny?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d2HUeCKEWs

Um... ok?If I can make some suggestions, try not to go for the satyrical type of funny. There will always be haters out there. If the video was more professionally done and portrayed a more serious and scary tone, people might think better of the video.I was hoping that you would talk about why you thought it was funny ....
Is This Video funny?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d2HUeCKEWs

I accept. Firstly, I think that this video was not funny or amusing... at all.It was unrealistic- I understand that the video was meant to be a joke, but it just was too "cheesy". the music seemed to be too satyrical. I found that the "demons" were somewhat disturbing (pedo faces), hardly amusing.I would also like to argue that a video being funny or not is based on subjectivity- there is no one right answer.There you go, I having stated my OP. I look forward to my adversary's response
legalization of prostitution

The biggest and the most important question put up while pre-concerting or taking into account any legislation is whether it really stops the harm done to sex workers and consequentially contributes to the betterment of the society. These days, legalisation aims at renaming prostitution to "sex work" in order to redefine the profession and establish a clean image of the same. Renaming, however, does not conceal the fact that the activity in itself is highly immoral; nor does it end the violence and exploitation that prostitutes are subjected to. It does, however, encourage panderers and organised crime rings (brothels) to operate harmoniously with the state in marketing prostitutes under the camouflage of legitimate businessmen. For a clean name will never succeed in erasing the dirty work.
legalization of prostitution

Thanks for your argument however I assume that this problems exist in the hiding world of prostitution. But after legalization these women can easily go to psychologists to talk about their emotional and mental problems and together they are more likely to solve this problems. Prostitute will not be afraid of talking about such kind of problems with other people. After the detection of such problems scientist will come to possible solution as well whereas if it is not legalized people do not know about obstacles that brings such kind of profession.
legalization of prostitution

I see your side that legalization of prostitution can help to solve amount of problem but 75% of women working as escorts had attempted suicide. Prostitution causes women irrevocable mental and physical damage along with heinous emotional abuse due to a derogatory social standing of being a prostitute. So in this case prostitution should be banned. Thousands of women and young girls get trapped in the atrocities of sex work. They are exploited by pimps and brothels in order to reap humongous profits while continuously being subjected to exploitation, molestation, drugs, alcohol
legalization of prostitution

Prostitution effects our society in many ways. Prostitutions is more then just a sexual related crime and can actually lead to more crimes and violence on the streets. Over the years prostitution has become a threat to our society. Prostitutes are seen for the ability to give men and women a good time by offering sexual favors for money or gifts. Prostitutes used to be women selling their bodies for money. And they sell their bodies for many reasons other then money. Drugs are becoming a common currency for prostitutes.
legalization of prostitution

Today there is a cotraversial issue concernig the problem of prostitution business all over the world. Some say that it is immoral to sell your body in order to get money, others think that it is time to stop hiding this business and start get some profit for the government and society. I am strongly of the opinion that today in the modern 21 century it is time to legilaze prostitution because of some beneficial side. Firstly, after legalization government can tax prostites for the work as such kind of trend is already experinced in Amsterdam. Secondly, all the prostitutes will be obliged to test themselves fot the venereal diseases and the percentage of AIDS will go decrease immediatly.
Christianity, in it's extreme form and in general, is detrimental to society.

Hello, Spock. I will now be refuting against you. First of all, you had no sources to support your arguments. This proves that your arguments are false, and you put believable (but untrue) arguments to make the readers believe that you are correct. Also, you still put that my resolution is not the resolution. How do you know if it's not my resolution? Otherwise, I would've explained it like I always do. I don't have time so, I will answer your most important argument. Since you said that my resolution was not my resolution (even though I explained about it), I consider that your resolution is your argument which was "Christianity, in it's extreme form and in general, is detrimental to society." I have several sources that support my side ( the ones that I stated before). With several reporters going against you, I consider that I am correct. So for all these reasons, please vote for the negative side of this debate. Thank you, readers, who read my speeches.
Christianity, in it's extreme form and in general, is detrimental to society.

I would like to debate that Christianity, in it's current form, is detrimental to society (most specifically the United States, but also the world in general). I am for religion, in it's purest form, but feel that Christianity as it stands is hurting our society. I will wait until a challenger accepts the debate before going in depth. This is my first debate, so please do not hold back and be very thorough. I do plan to base my debate on historical and current events, society (both the Christian society and society in general), the bible, the idea of personal responsibility, the influence of religion in society, and the portrayal of God and Jesus.
Christianity, in it's extreme form and in general, is detrimental to society.

Greetings, Spock! You said that you used logic and reasoning. Your knowledge isn't always better than those (reporters whom I stated before) who believe that Christianity is supportive, so your argument might be untrue. You said that you didn't understand "You are stating that I "put" that your resolution is not the resolution, and as how do I know if it is not your resolution" part. I meant that you were saying it was an argument even though it was my resolution. Me and my research was explaining about it which proves that it was my resolution. Resolution means a formal expression of opinion or intention made. You also changed my argument, it was [I consider that your resolution is your argument which was "Christianity, in it's extreme form and in general, is detrimental to society."]. You changed my argument completely, trying to make me look "fresh off the boat". In debates, you are not allowed to tease your opponent. You put that I befuddled you. It meant that since you thought my resolution was an argument, I want to think that his resolution is an argument ( and then I answered it). I hope that my opponent reads a little slower because he basically didn't understand half of all my arguments. You also said that there are reporters thinking that Christianity is detrimental. Yes, and this is because of these " reporters" are probably non- Christian scientists or other religious (normal) people who dislikes Christianity. {Our economy is the wealth of resource of U.S. ( You said that I didn't know what economy was. Well, I do.)} I thank Spock for being a great opponent. ( I just hope that he reads more carefully and slowly.) So for all these reasons, judges, please vote for the negative side of this debate. Thank you!
Christianity, in it's extreme form and in general, is detrimental to society.

1.) . "First of all, you had no sources to support your arguments. This proves that your arguments are false" Just because I used no sources doesn't mean that my argument is false. I just preferred to use logic and reasoning in this case. 2.) "Also, you still put that my resolution is not the resolution. How do you know if it's not my resolution? . How do you know if it's not my resolution? Otherwise, I would've explained it like I always do." I'm not sure what my opponent is talking about here. Searching through my argument I never used the word resolution, through the course of the entire debate. You are stating that I "put" that your resolution is not the resolution, and as how do I know if it is not your resolution ... I do not understand. If you're speaking about the economy statement, I was merely stating that I didn't feel that you understood what an economy was, because you didn't speak at all on anything having anything to do with an economy. I would ask if my opponent knows what an economy is, to try and clarify things for those reading. 3.) Since you said that my resolution was not my resolution (even though I explained about it), I consider that your resolution is your argument which was "Christianity, in it's extreme form and in general, is detrimental to society." You have, once again, befuddled me. 4.)" With several reporters going against you, I consider that I am correct." Is your basis for whether someone is write or wrong contingent upon the number of reporters that are "going against" them? If so, allow me to give you some sources to peruse. These are all authors and reporters going against you: Sam Harris, A Letter to A Christian Nation Dr. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion Dr. Lea Masiello, When Religion Hurts Society, http://www.english.iup.edu... Bertrand Russell, http://www.positiveatheism.org... Gregory Koukl, The Real Murderers, http://www.str.org... Too Much Religion Hurts Society, http://www.progressnowcolorado.org... Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great. I thank James for a spirited, albeit confusing debate and ask that he use a portion of his final bout to try and clarify things for readers.
atheism vs God

In the big picture of things, I do not debate this to simply win. I really care about my opponent and everyone else that reads the debate that is atheist. I want people to now that there are very good answers to the questions you have about God and the Bible, and I would like to answer them. I am ready for anybody that wants to challenge me on this subject. I will use my argument from round 3, but I will not require an answer anymore. Please bring up any contradictions you may see in the Bible. I also have knowledge of archaeological finds proving that events in the bible actually happened.
atheism vs God

If a spinning object breaks apart in a friction-less environment, the fragments will all spin the same direction. This is called the conservation of angular momentum. If the universe began as a swirling dot, like the "big bang" says, why is it that two (maybe three) of our planets (Venus, Uranus, and possibly Pluto) spin backwards? Not only that, but 6 of the 63 moons rotate backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. The rock layers: According to evolution, the rock layers took millions of years to form. We have found standing petrified trees within these rock layers that supposedly formed over the course of millions of years?? The sediments would not have slowly formed around these trees. The trees would have fallen over dead. But let's say there was a flood... scientists have found that the rock layers would form in about twenty minutes naturally if there was a world wide flood. We have also found a closed petrified clam (clams open when they die) at the top of Mt. Everest. How did that get up there?? Evolution?? So once upon a time there was a rock, and eventually, after millions of years, that became intelligent life? Wow, seems scientific. (sarcasm) Could I get some proof, or at least some science and logic on that please? The only mutations that have ever been found were negative. The Earth is digressing. Disease is spreading rampantly. Everything is at a constant rate of deterioration. (law of deterioration) This is not evolution, this is digression. I still need an answer to my previous argument.
atheism vs God

My opponent has not tried to disprove any of my claims, instead he has simply claimed that they are not valid.... I will validate them: He says that my opening statement that the one true God by the name of Yahweh created everything is just an opinion. But if this statement is in fact true, than it is not opinion, but fact. It is my opponent's job to prove this statement false. Next off, God DID create EVERYTHING that exists. I'm sure that my opponent is aware that everything that is "man made" or "formed by man" already exists in another form before the the reforming of it into another form. Ex. Cotton from cotton plants is "formed" into a shirt. And on the subject of plant and growth: I want to make aware to my opponent that everything that grows, has grown, or will grow (whether plant or being) already exists within the pre existing plant or being, and on down the line all the way back to the first that was CREATED by God. This is a scientific fact. Nothing is being created, and nothing is passing into non existence. It is the cycle of reproduction. The Bible: I called it the Bible for a quick reference as to what I'm talking about. I will clarify: ALL OF IT in it's original form from Genesis to Revelation. Old Testament in Hebrew, and New Testament from the Aramaic Peshita. In these forms, we have many ancient manuscripts that all agree about 99.9% of the way through, word for word, letter for letter. 365 manuscripts in Aramaic for the New Testament alone that date back to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries. Do the American and world history books of today hold this much evidence of being fact? My statement about all the religions was simply a disclaimer so that no one thinks I'm on any of their boats. A religion is a cult, a relationship with the true God is pure.
atheism vs God

The Bible is 100% truth front to back. Atheism, Buddhism, Islam, and every other religion is a lie. Christianity and Judaism are two middle fingers in God's face". I will go through this piece by piece. 1:"The one true God by the name of Yahweh created everything that exists. " My opponent states his opinion here, Since opinion means nothing in a debate, this doesn't have any relevance. My opponent goes on to say that God created everything that exists This is very undefined, If god created everything that means that you do not believe in any science, you also don't believe in birth or growth. Again you have shown no evidence and just stated your opinion. The definition of create is: to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes. 1. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Therefore you are claiming that God makes all of our cloths, god makes our music, god makes our food etc. If god creates everything than that means you also disagree with the term "Man Made" My opponent goes on to say that the bible is 100% true bible: noun 1. the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments. 2. Also called Hebrew Scriptures. the collection of sacred writings of the Jewish religion: known to Christians as the Old Testament. 2. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Since there are 2 definitions of the bible and my opponent has not clarified which one he is talking about therefore we can disregard this claim although once again my opponent does not supply any evidence or reasoning. Finally we get to the end of my opponents claim which is just saying that everybody else is wrong, and he and his beliefs are the only correct ones. This section of his claim is just childish and pathetic and once again he supplies no evidence whatsoever. All together I practically have already won because my opponent has just stated his broad inconsiderate opinion. thank you and I look forward to the next round
Are Bi People Valid

Definition of Bi: Liking both SEXES, not all genders. Rules: Just be nice Don't be bum hurt if you loose and if I loose I promise not to be bum hurt either. Of course people who identify as bi are valid in their sexuality. People who think people who are bi are seeking attention, are waiting to choose, are confused, or are trying not to be fully gay are simply uneducated. Many of my friends are bi and later I will include quotes from them about their sexuality. Saying some one's sexuality is a phase is the exact same a telling a straight person they are gay, or bi, or pan, or something else in the spectrum. So I conclude, being bi is valid.
Are Bi People Valid

Warmest regards to my honored opponent; I accept your challenge. "Parents have no favorite child; they love them all equally.""Justice is blind, and applies to all.""No one considers race when making decisions."These are all "truths" that polite society insists on, and they're all objectively bull manure. Human beings have favorites; from favorite color to favorite food, to best friend, to favorite class in school and beyond. It is in our nature to constantly classify things into one category or another, and to assign them a heirarchic value. Thus I assert that true bisexuality, in that context, does not exist. Sure, there can exist someone who is attracted to both males and females. And sure, their craving can waver from time to time, just as I might decide I want coffee iced cream one day and pass it up for rocky road the next. But no matter how many times I elect to pick rocky road to satisfy a whim of the moment, coffee iced cream is and always will be my favorite. It's just that simple. Bisexual is a term of convenience. Yes, it is often used as a "crutch" by gay people unwilling to fully embrace their gayness during that awkward period when fitting in is so important. Yes, it is sometimes a "phase" because someone has simply not yet experienced the variety of sexual activities available with both genders, and thus has not yet established their true preference. And yes, it is also used by people who want to keep their options open; who want to declare that their whims can change, and they can be in the mood for one or the other depending on the day. But deep in their heart of hearts, even the most adamant bisexual has an actual preference; true 50/50 is just impossible. There'll always be just that one detail (I'd cite examples, but they'd be graphic to the point of bordering on pornography) that makes one set of equipment more desirable than the other. And maybe we'd all be better off if we just admit that.
On balance, domestic surveillance control by the US government is beneficial to US interests.

All I must prove for this argument is that the Domestic Surveillance we have today is more beneficial than getting rid of domestic surveillance in the United States. I also provide the following definition. Domestic Surveillance is any type of surveillance conducted by the United States, including but not limited to CCTV cameras, investigating foreign affairs, and electrical investigations. domestic surveillance is beneficial to the country as a whole because it will hold criminals more accountable for their actions and give us more evidence to go off to catch the criminal. In the New York Times it says Quote, "In the case of Mr. Martin, an unarmed black teenager who was fatally shot by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, the most crucial evidence about how an alteration between the two began, one that ultimately led to Mr. Martin's death came down to Mr. Zimmerman's word.". In this case there was no domestic surveillance and all the evidence they went off of was Zimmerman's words and a few witnesses. So Mr. Zimmerman was found not guilty but if we had had used Domestic surveillance maybe it would have shown us a more accurate outcome of the crime. Also by the Domestic Surveillance Directorate "In the past, domestic law enforcement agencies collected data AFTER a suspect had been identified. This often resulted in lost intelligence and missed opportunities.". By lost intelligence and missed opportunities I mean if we have gained this surveillance sooner then it would may have led us to identifications to new targets and for the more serious crimes that could maybe even help save lives.