BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Distrusting people is the best option above all!

Now here are my rebuttals Dishonesty : Promises are made to which end up being broken because someone does not want to be serious. Secrets of personal information is shared and then someone goes and discusses it with someone else. Lying about both of these too. Simply negating the fact that promises were broken and personal information was displayed elsewhere. All of these are about select people. Your statement is a generalization. It implies that people are bad. Cautiousness : Awareness is the key to acknowledging who is real and who is not. Trusting only leads to failure and pain. That is wrong. First of all, there's a line between cautiousness and distrust. Distrust is cynical and cynicism is unhealthy. It leds to misery. Cautiousness is being careful of certain people. We all have a gut instinct. And you cannot deny that you've had your instinct leading to plenty of good people, none of which you have regretted being with. So no they are not the same. Remaining quiet seems to be the best fit of not letting anyone in. Remaining quiet is not the same as cynicism. Having a quiet personality just means you know when to speak and when ot to speak. As Anderson in Mississippi Burning told Ward (forgive me for using a rather rude example), "You don't know when to shut up and that makes you a fool. "Don't confuse having a quiet personality with being cynical. Cynicism really comes from greed a lot of the time. The point I am trying to make with these "points" of distrusting, is to simply say this; if a person/s is not willing to be honest, why bother trusting at all? But you're talking about select people. There are plenty of good people. Trust your instincts and heart. Your instinct has warded off bad people, but it has also led you to plenty of good people (don't deny it). I mean, there seems to be no logic behind that. It seems foolish to trust someone/s who you know in the end will only lead you to gruesome heartache. Sure, pain can be good for common grounds of learning and becoming wise, but under what circumstances? If my opponent can convince me to see that I am wrong, I will gladly concede to this resolution, but if not, then I will stand even stronger in what I believe here. Here's where you go wrong. It's only select people, not all. In all, pro's statement is a generalization. There are good and bad people, not only bad.
Distrusting people is the best option above all!

I will answer your question with how I will present my beginning argument concerning this topic. Distrust: lack of trust or confidence: a feeling that someone or something is not being honest and cannot be trusted. Dishonesty : Promises are made to which end up being broken because someone does not want to be serious. Secrets of personal information is shared and then someone goes and discusses it with someone else. Lying about both of these too. Simply negating the fact that promises were broken and personal information was displayed elsewhere. Cautiousness : Awareness is the key to acknowledging who is real and who is not. Trusting only leads to failure and pain. Remaining quiet seems to be the best fit of not letting anyone in. The point I am trying to make with these "points" of distrusting, is to simply say this; if a person/s is not willing to be honest, why bother trusting at all? I mean, there seems to be no logic behind that. It seems foolish to trust someone/s who you know in the end will only lead you to gruesome heartache. Sure, pain can be good for common grounds of learning and becoming wise, but under what circumstances? If my opponent can convince me to see that I am wrong, I will gladly concede to this resolution, but if not, then I will stand even stronger in what I believe here. Best wishes to my opponent.
Existence of God

"I wouldn't know why God chose to use text to communicate. " Then you don't have an argument. None. There's nothing you can say. Everything you know about your unproven god is in text form which is your bible for god's sake and you cannot even prove that your god exists! If that isn't a double whammy super massive hypocritical contradiction, What---on---this---planet---is? But see, You go into all the choppitty cop crap of supermassive hypocritical denial that your brain keeps clinging onto this electroshock therapy that you somehow get from a book of nothingness from in which I cannot help you. And if that's all you want, A complete bankrupt system of immorality in which your unproven god shows in print and that's it with a superior ego god complex, Then you go for it.
Existence of God

Well can anyone disprove the existence of God? Many people are asking me to prove God yet can't disprove him. The God I believe in is the God of the bible (Christian). Theoretically since you can't disprove God how can you expect me to prove it. I. E I can't ask you to prove aliens if I can't disprove it. The chances of God is quite higher than the chances that we are all a mistake by some random event. Also the theory that the must be a causality to a actuality cannot be explained other than a God. While religion needs faith so does not having a religion.
Voter rights will be taken away if inactivity continues

In 2013 the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to strick down a portion of the Voters Rights Act of 1965 were the most blatantly racist state would be required to have Ferderal oversight in there polls. This portion was put in place to ensure that there were no tactics being exercised to keep a speific race or economic standing out of the polls. The Constitution of the United States states that only Congress can make such a move. Voter activity in Missouri was down 10 percent. There was a proposition on the ballot that allowed the state of Missouri to fire any techer that could not produce a certain testing score within one year. Only the people that voted had any idea about what happened. If the inactivity continues what will keep the government from slowly and patiently revoking the rights of a group of people that don't fit into their agenda?
Voter rights will be taken away if inactivity continues

Voter activity in Missouri was down 10 percent since 2010. The inactivity of young voters will be seen as an opportunity. One of the possible repercussions will be the revocation of voter rights. And because few came to vote, the amendment will be slipped in the ballot and it will be passed. The level of protest that it will take to get our rights back will be unimaginable.
Voter rights will be taken away if inactivity continues

The portion of the voting rights act of 1965 that was struck down was considered by the majority of the SCOTUS to be unconstitutional and also no longer necessary today. Much has changed since 1965 and race relations has come along way. The voting rights act was a law but not in the Constitution. The right to vote is constitutional and several amendments besides voting rights amendments refer to voting as the procedure to elect our representatives. Any bill that would remove voting rights from the people would be unconstitutional and would be struck down by the SCOTUS. Nearly the entire Constitution would have to be replaced to change that. " If the inactivity continues what will keep the government from slowly and patiently revoking the rights of a group of people that don't fit into their agenda?" Checks and balances and the constitution. No single political party has complete control of our government so those who fit the agenda of one lawmaker does not fit the agenda of another one. So such cooperation to remove voting rights from specific people would not be possible even without constitutional protections.
Uniforms should be banned from schools

"Clothes does not make a big difference" How is it such a small difference? If a student came to school wearing a religious dress, the act of bullying will be cornered on the student most probably. Pride in a student, is the fact that they are educated by that certain school. I would like to make one last point before I end my round. To buy the uniform of the school, you give money. That money goes to fund the school for better education or even service. So, the uniform's money is going into a good cause. Thank you.
Uniforms should be banned from schools

"having to wear uniforms lessens the chance of being bullied by other students"Wearing another shirt doesn't change the personality of someone. Bullies before uniforms will still bully kids when they have uniforms. Clothes doesn't make a big difference.And your statement"Uniforms are a student's pride."Is odd. It's about pride? Isn't there pride in being able to wear what you want during school, and having the right to express your own beliefs? That's pride. Pride isn't being forced to wear something because someone else made you. Uniforms will restrict one's beliefs and will chain the freedoms of a student to the solid concrete foundation of oppression.
Uniforms should be banned from schools

First of all, having to wear uniforms lessens the chance of being bullied by other students, for clothing is a big issue in schools. Children may get shunned by other kids because of difference of style. Not banning the uniforms of a school might decrease the bullying rate in schools. Another point, you mentioned how: "Students will have their first amendment, granted to them at birth, infringed." The Bill of Rights was granted at birth, but it will not be infringed. There are free dress days. Students can also wear whatever they want outside of school. Not all children get a proper education, the ones who do have the chance are educated. Uniforms don't affect learning. Uniforms are a student's pride.
Uniforms should be banned from schools

i. Freedom of speech. The freedom of speech and expression is given to you at birth from the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was added so the people can have certain rights and the federal government doesn't have all of the rights. In other words the Bill of Rights was written to control tyranny. By keeping uniforms, the students will have their first amendment, granted to them at birth, infringed. Violating the Constitution is a crime and schools should not do it and get away with it. Schools have been known to violate the religious part too, saying they can't wear certain clothes because of the religious symbol on it. School uniforms will violate this too. http://www.firstamendmentschools.org...
Uniforms should be banned from schools

I stand against this argument, school's should keep the uniform policy. Uniforms give someone an idea of which school the student is from. It also keeps you safe in some ways and gives a sense of belonging to the student. It may also symbolise the age or grade level of the student. For example, let's take the school UWCSEA. For the infant grade they have light blue shirts, middle school green shirts, Junior high school, blue shirts, and senior high school, white shirts. That way we know which grade and that might be helpful to other students and teachers.
War Scenario

There are 5 rounds, and in each other round you post what your strategy is, how many troops you allocate, and a picture to help guide thoughts if possible. Winner will be decided based on who actually won/ would win. Good luck! *No nukes or allies* The countries are, at shortest distance, 2000 miles apart (ocean, but there is a short shared island called Syroil by the north pole). Both countries are in the northern hemisphere, and both capitals are in the exact middle of the country. Take into consideration EVERYTHING from morale to oil to time! !! Countries: Upron Fit for service: 120,000,000 Active: 1,400,000 Reserve: 1,100,000 Tanks: 8900, but they are better than Ofrus in terms of speed and gun size. AFVs: 42,000 SPGs: 2,000 Artillery: 1,100 MLRSs: 1,300 Total aircraft: 13,500 Fighters: 1,900 Bombers: 3,000 Attack helicopters: 1,000 Total naval strength: 420 Aircraft carriers: 17 Frigates: 5 Destroyers: 69 Submarines: 72 Mine warfare: 11 Oil Production: 9,000,000 barrels daily Consumption: 20,000,000 daily Reserve oil: 36,500,000,000 barrels Major ports: 25 Airports: 13,000 GDP: 14,000,000,000,000 USD Defense budget: 316,000,000,000 USD Area: 12,000,000 kilometers Major cities: Sressock, Chead,Swaitcomm, Pegelmord Ofrus Fit for service: 50,000,000 Active: 800,000 Reserve: 2,200,000 Tanks: 13,460 with slightly better armor. AFVs: 29,000 SPGs: 5,000 Artillery: 5,000 MLRSs: 3,000 Total aircraft: 4,000 Fighters: 750 Bombers: 1,500 Attack helicopters: 480 Total naval strength: 361 Aircraft carriers: 6 Frigates: 5 Destroyers: 17 Submarines: 63 Mine warfare: 42 Oil Production: 10,100,000 barrels daily Consumption: 7,500,000 daily Reserve oil: 48,500,000,000 barrels Major ports: 7 Airports: 1,300 GDP: 13,000,000,000,000 USD Defense budget: 290,000,000,000 USD Area: 16,000,000 kilometers Major cities: Pelmiorsip, Vapt, Shruck, Narduque Pick country in acceptance- it"s your choice.
War Scenario

I shall invade you from my western front (your eastern) using 4 aircraft carriers to form a blockade on your coast. These could launch 2000 aircraft which will bomb major military targets, but also some civilian. I will bring upon these ships some destroyers for support followed by 9000 tanks and 1 million troops. Half of the latter 2 land north, while the other half lands south. They spread in your territory using blitzkrieg and encirclement. This 2 prong assault gives me an advantage, and I halt all trade with you. Good luck.
Divorce should not be encouraged II

Since, apparently, I am not allowed to offer a rebuttal to round 4, I shall simply conclude the debate. This debate was meant to be about whether or not divorce should be encouraged, but it mostly hasn't been. My opponent presented confusing and incoherent arguments which were mostly mutually contradictory and/or had nothing to do with divorce. He also ignored most of my arguments, and failed to answer the two most important questions of the debate: a) How, exactly, is maintaining a ruined marriage better than divorcing? b) Who, and why, has the right to force a couple to remain married? That being said, I must also point out that I elaborated on divorce, and why it is good in detail, as well as refuting my opponents arguments. Given this, and how the debate was led, I have nothing more to say. Thanks to my opponent for the debate.
Divorce should not be encouraged II

For rebuttal for Con's Round 3 argument: As mentioned, stresses is managed by the person or couple. It is up to them how to manage such situations they are facing. Offering divorce is like giving them an option just to simply break. "Dysfunctional family relationship" would have occur if the couple would just give up on their problems. "-Feeling of loneliness -Being too hard on oneself -Finding it hard to relax and enjoy -Difficulty expressing feelings -Extremist responses and decisions -Problems forming intimate relationships -Adopting themselves to abusive relations -More concerned in helping others, apprehensive to seek approval -Taking over more than they can handle -Incompetent handling of anger, frustration and hatred" The list above is a result of one's personal action, on how he/she takes his/her stresses, not from marriage. If divorce is encourage, then couples may just give up when they would want to. Children in a particular family may be affected in their growth. More broken families will arise. As said, people should take marriage as "permanent", and whatever problems they face they must solve.
Divorce should not be encouraged II

Divorce should not be encouraged as it was one of the reason for health problems in every individual in the family like the father, mother, and worst, the children. Consequences are: 1) Suicide: 75% of all suicides being committed by men - over 22,000 men per year. And suicide rates for divorced men are even higher than that - divorced and separated men are TWICE AS LIKELY to commit suicide as other men, per the study "Marital Status and Suicide in the National Longitudinal Mortality Study" by Augustine J. Kposowa, Ph.D., at the University of California at Riverside. CBS News covered the report in some detail here. The study showed that being single versus being married made no difference in suicide rates. - Simply 'being married' does not provide singificant mental health benefits relating to suicide. Even more tellingly, for women marital status, married, single, separated or divorced, made NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE in suicide rates. - So somehow, divorce affects men in a much more significant way than women. One wonders what that way could be... Previous to this study, increased rates of suicide for men had been explained away by claiming that significant mental and physical health benefits were to be had from married life, and by 'congitive differences' between men and women - women purportedly spending more time 'processing' their problems and thinking more 'inclusively' than men, Well Dr. Kposowa's research has exposed that canard, (wait, let me speak plainlythat misandrous, shovenist tripe for what it is. Let's take a moment and really reveiw those numbers, which we will extrapolate using the published rough perecentages in the CBS news article: Total Suicides: 30,000 per year Men's Suicides: 22,500 per year Women's Suicides: 7,500 per year Divorced/Separated Men's Suicides: 14,850 per year. Source: http://antimisandry.com... 2) Divorce would have bad effects on children Children feels bad about seeing their mother and father separated. Their psychological and social health may be affected. Suicide, crimes, and disorder from physiological to mental are being suffered after the parent's child had divorced. http://fathersforlife.org... 3) It ruins family. Divorce is not only for parents, but again, for children, and even sometimes, for grandparents and in-laws and all people related to their family. http://ezinearticles.com... Conclusion: Divorce gives health problems. Though, it may not be severe at first, but as seen, it gives us mental health problems like depression, to the point that, people commit suicide. Children were badly affected here also. Besides, there are ways that can help resolve marriages and solve problems: http://www.ehow.com...
Divorce should not be encouraged II

"Divorce should not be encouraged" Divorce has been a wide practice around the globe. So, instead of saying, "Divorce should not be ALLOWED", I used the term, "encouraged", since it is already allowed. As Pro, I will provide reasons on why divorce should not be allowed. Rules would be: No Trolls Provide evidences in claims as possible Round 1 would be for acceptance. Round 2 will begin the start of presenting argument Round 3 is where rebuttals will enter Round 4 is where last argument and rebuttals for Round 3 Round 5 is for conclusion. Conclusion can be presented in every round (Except Round 1 since this is an opening remark and is for acceptance purpose ONLY) We have 4 rounds for debate. Please do follow the rules. For some reason, I have mistaken putting the number of characters for every argument, therefore, I have to make another debate with the same debater.
Bohmian Mechanics Is Probably False

AveWith permission from RT, I'm going to define some terms and outline what I will defend in this debate.Useful DefinitionsBohmian mechanics-- a non-relativistic Galien invariant for the motion of point particles formed on a configuration of space. His equations give us the configuration of the system of particles, the trajectory of the particles given the initial data, the equation for the motions of the particle, as well as the universal wave-function: an equation governing the trajectory of all particles.Verification principle-- the doctrine that nontautologous statements are meaningful only if it is in principle possible to establish empirically whether they are true or falseEpistemology-- the branch of philosophy that studies knowledgeOntology-- the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being (existence)Introduction and OutlineIn this debate, I will be defending three contentions. My first contention will be that Bohm's mechanics is empirically equivalent with standard quantum mechanics, so there is no way to falsify it without disproving quantum mechanics itself. My second contention will be that none of RT's arguments to serve to establish the implausibility of Bohmian mechanics. My third contention will be that, even though all interpretations of quantum mechanics are empirically equivalent, we have good philosophical reasons to affirm Bohm's interpretations.I look forward to a challenging and interesting debate with Rational Thinker. I will try to keep my arguments relatively non-technical to make this an easier debate to judge. I hope that RT follows me in doing this.Thanks for the challenge.Vale
vote stuff

Oh, come to personal attacks now have we? That is the easiest way to tell who is losing a debate; the same will be launching personal attacks, like you just did against me. And logic, my friend, is simple, too simple. It is governed by one fact: Something cannot both be and not be the same thing in the same respect at the same time. (principle of non-contradiction) If you do not understand this, then you should not be debating at all. Does that make sense to you?
vote stuff

Hmm, I did. I would assume that by religion, you mean those who belong to it, since a religion is not a person and cannot perform actions like voting. Therefore, logically the only conclusion is that you mean that those who belong to a religion cannot vote for or against something concerning that religion. If that is the case, then I am not talking non sense, I made logical arguments. Smokers should be able to vote in questions about cigarettes, otherwise the vote would be rigged. The only reason why children should not be able to vote about playgrounds is that they have not gained the proper use of logic and reasoning. If you mean something else by: "religion shouldnt be able to vote for or against itself.. like a smoker shouldnt be able to vote for or against cigarettes.. or a child vote for or against there being playgrounds on every corner of every street.. like with churches" then i am sorry for having accepted this debate, because it is neither sensible nor worth two seconds of any man's time. Please try being more clear when you start debates, so people like myself won't be wasting our time. Pax Domnini sit semper vobiscum!
vote stuff

It does not seem right to deny someone their rights simply because they are concerned about the outcome. That would be like barring Republicans from voting in the Republican Primary. It is simply contrary to logic to bar those concerned with a problem from voting on the problem. That is the same thing as what the kkk and other hate groups have done. The only way to rig an election is to debar those who are fighting for a certain side. Like Blacks, who before the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments who could not vote against slavery, because they were slaves.
Border Fence

I will keep my side of the argument as clean and as clear as possible. My opponent has provided many examples that make it clear that illegal immigration is a great problem in this country. However, his proposal for a Border fence is simply not the best one available. Instead of building a fence, I propose that we build a wall instead. Walls are sturdier than fences, and are easier to patrol. In addition, the building of a wall would require more manpower and government projects are a great way to stimulate the economy. Moreover, the construction of a wall over a fence would decrease the chance of people attempting to climb it. Fences are used to delineate neighbors. This provides far too welcome a message to illegal immigrants. Walls send a better message: Do not enter. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... This is why I believe that what we need is NOT a fence, but a WALL, and all of my opponent's points support my argument as well as his. Since I have shown that a wall is the better option, I urge a CON vote to the flimsy fence in favor of the much better wall. Thank you.