BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Time and Energy Have no Beginning From a Biblical and/or Scientific Viewpoint

It is often said that the Big Bang was the beginning of all time, space, energy and matter. While I believe that the Big Bang happened, I will be arguing that this event was not the beginning of time or energy. My position is that TIME and Energy HAVE NO BEGINNING. They are eternal, they always existed. I will also be arguing the sub-point that time IS NOT LINEAR, but that past, present and future all exist simultaneously. My opponent my argue from either science, the Bible, or both (though I will accept also philosophical and rational arguments) that the Big Bang was the beginning of all time and energy, and that time is linear. My arguments are simple. 1) Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. Therefore, the Big Bang is not the creation of energy, just the conversion of energy into another form. 2) No matter how far back in time we think of, we can always think of a time before that. So if the Big Bang began time, we could always refute this nothing by thinking of the state of affairs BEFORE the Bang occurred. If it did occur at some moment, then its an event in history, in time, for events can only occur in time. Thus, there was a time before the Big Bang when nothing had as yet, for lack of a better word, exploded. I see no reason to think of time as merely the occurrence of events, because if all events stops, one could still say that events have stopped for one hour and counting, two days and counting, and when the events continue some amount of time must have passed between the freezing and continuing of events - otherwise they did not stop. The same is true with BEFORE the beginning of the universe at the Big Bang. One could think of HOW LONG the singularity or whatever it was that exploaded/expanded was there before it went boom. This is time, even without any events happening. Finally, if time has no beginning, it logically cannot have an end called "the present." There is no starting point for time to count from so that we can call where we are the present. If time is eternal, then it was always there, thus the past, present and future must exist simultaneously, for any break in time would imply a start at some point. If someone was counting since eternity, he would logically take eternity to reach the present, thus, linearly time would never catch up to the point at which we are now. So all of time must already exist. Please do not accept this debate if you don't believe the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe, and the beginning of all time, space, matter and energy. Opening arguments begin in round one.
Why Interest Rates are Important but not for the Reasons Commonly Assumed

"If deflation is the result of increasing supply where is the incentive to grow a business if it results in no significant increase in revenue." If the money supply stays the same but prices deflate, then there is plenty incentive to grow a business as your revenue does increase. Nominally it stays the same, but really that company would have earned more money. No one cares about their nominal worth in Yen, Yuan, Pesos, or Dollars, but the spending power.
Why Interest Rates are Important but not for the Reasons Commonly Assumed

The point being made was about the mechanism for money creation and this is regardless of whether it results in growth or inflation. Note I blamed it for the high inflation of the 1980s which affected the UK and the US economies as well as the low growth we are experiencing now. Why it should results in one or the other is a little more complex to answer but can essentially be put down to demand within an economy. To address the point you want to make about growth and money supply, analysis of official data shows a link between the two. The mechanism I believe lies in that well-worn description of inflation where it is described as too much money chasing too few goods. Another way is to look at it as the balance between the volume of goods and the volume of money available. As already stated inflation may result when there is too much money but what happens if there are too many goods? Deflation. This may be beneficial if results from a new process or currency fluctuations but it allows little room for a new product or service. In the stable example you give the money circulates between the factories and farms would end up covering little more than replacing the worn out goods or the basics, as by the terms of inflation described above any significant surplus would lead to inflation. Of course there will be some savings but any factory producing new goods would service a very small part of the population leading to low linear growth. More akin to a soviet system rather than the exponential growth we have recently seen in either western or Asian economies. Put another way if deflation is the result of increasing supply where is the incentive to grow a business if it results in no significant increase in revenue. The example given does not even take into account of the complexities of a modern economy. We may have a limit to the amount of stuff we want, although fashion mitigates this but when it comes to services which make up 70% of many western economies the sky is the limit. Given the chance who would not want more holidays, more nights out, more experiences and because of this the growth of the service sectors is very responsive to more money.
Why Interest Rates are Important but not for the Reasons Commonly Assumed

I believe this is called advertising on a debate, but regardless money creation does not create economic growth. If our money supply increased, our farms would grow just as much food, our factories would produce just as much stuff, and our power plants would generate just as much electricity. Inflation and deflation neither create not destroy wealth, it is merely transformed, in deflation from those with the goods and services to those who have the currency, and in inflation from those who have the currency to those who are creating the currency.
Why Interest Rates are Important but not for the Reasons Commonly Assumed

I am postulating a new theory that money supply is directly determined by retail interest rates. The mechanism relates to how loans are paid back in a fractional banking system. The nature of money creation under a fractional system is well documented and I will not elaborate further except to emphasise that a high proportion of any loan is 'bankers money' that in effect has been created out of thin air. The interesting point comes as the loan is paid off and this best illustrated by a focusing on a single loan. A loan repayment is made up of two elements, the capital and interest such that when the loan is completely paid off the 'bankers money' will have been cancelled out and one would reasonably assume that the total volume of money in the economy would return to the amount before the loan was made But this to forget the interest payments that have also been paid and added to the bank's balance sheets by the same slight of accounting hand that allowed fractional banking in the first place. So once the loan has been paid the total volume of money has increased by the interest payments and an analysis of official data shows this link. This small tweak to money creation has profound consequences on current economic theory, especially the established idea of low interest rate leading to high growth with low inflation and higher interest rates curbing both growth and inflation. In fact the higher lending rate the more money is created. This goes to explain why most of the western economies have seen very low growth since the 2008 crisis and at the other extreme why the UK's 1980 experiment in monetarism ended in failure. I explore the full consequences of this in my own book An Interesting Theory -Why Interest Rates are Important but not for the Reasons Commonly Assumed which can be down loaded from the Smashwords web site- https://www.smashwords.com... . As with these things you do have to register but you will be able to get the book free before the 1st January 2017 by using the code TU92S. . I would like to hear comment especially if is novel
Quran vs. Bible-which is God's word.

I am debating that there is no evidence to suggest that either the Qur'an or the Bible is the word of God. My opponent suggests that the Qur'an saying that there are 7 layers of the atmosphere proves that it is the word of God is a fallacy, it merely proves that the Qur'an made an accurate prediction. That is, if it was correct. There are only 5 layers of the atmosphere, not 7. Unless you wish to count the minor layers (which are grouped by separate definitions, and so are classified differently), then you have 9. The only way to get 7 is to selectively choose some layers to allow and disallow to reach your desired result (which would be another fallacy).[1] The Qur'an also states that we are made of clay (still with the fallacy that if the Qur'an makes an accurate prediction it must be the word of God). I would argue that we are not made of clay, however, since this is a fallacy, there is no point in arguing it or not. There is also the fallacy that just because the Qur'an has not been altered, that it is more likely the word of God. I would argue that this is not the case, and that God's word would be subject to change based on the times that the word was being applied to. Words now-a-days have different meanings then they did over 1,000 years ago. If scripture is not subject to be updated, then its original meaning is lost, thus rendering it inadequate for its original purpose. The only way for the word of God to remain understandable to the people is to be able to adapt to our ever-changing verbal styles. Surely what is important in the word of God is the message and meaning, and not the individual words. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Quran vs. Bible-which is God's word.

Number 1- we have scientific evidence. Number 2- we have an unchanged word of God, apart from the Bible Lets start with the scientific evidence, Ill make it short and simple, since my opponent has given me no basis for him being a con of the Bible or Quran. He seems to want me to prove God. "I have yet to see scientific evidence that proves God, let alone his word." So what exactly are you debating? Anyway, scientific evidence proves the Quran. If you have ever thought of the atmosphere and the way it was created, take a look at the Quran. Surah 41:12 reads, "So He ordained them seven heavens (skies) in two days (periods) and revealed in every heaven its affair..." Now think about the seven levels of the atmosphere which each have different purposes. Below is a quote from http://www.quranmiracles.com... and shows the seven levels of the atmosphere. "1) Troposphere is the lowest layer, closest to the surface of the earth. The Troposphere, which is as low as six km, extends to a height of 12 km at the equator. Atmospheric phenomena take place within the portion of three to four kilometers from the surface. 75% of atmospheric gases are in this layer. Above the Troposphere is the (2) Stratosphere extending about 50 km up. The third is (3) the Ozonosphere, the ozone layer in other words, which is the protector from ultraviolet rays having lethal effects on living beings. Above lies the (4) Mesosphere which in turn, is topped by the (5) Thermosphere followed by the (6) Ionosphere, the upper layer reaching to a height of 500 km from the earth. Radio waves are reflected from this layer, rendering communication possible. Above 500 km lies the fringe region known as the (7) Exosphere, extending up to 10,000 km. The proportion of gases in this layer is very low and divided into ions. We can thus divide the atmosphere into 7 layers." If you look a Surah 23:12-14 it says- "And certainly we create man of an extract of clay.- Then we make him a small-life germ in a firm resting place(uterus). (14)Then we make the life-germ a clot, then we make the clot a lump of flesh. and we make in the lump of flesh bones, then we clothe the bones with flesh and we cause it to grow into another creation..." This is the steps of birth, and the people 1,500 years ago could not have known anything about that. Look at verse 12-"And certainly we create man of extract of clay"- this traces man to the Earth, where the life-germ in sperm is an extract of food. Those are a few examples where science proves the Quran. Then we go to the Bible as it has been altered, for explanation of that, please see my debate with the Godhand, which can be accessed from my profile.
Quran vs. Bible-which is God's word.

I'm sorry that my opponent has decided that he does not want to provide any evidence that the Qur'an is god's word. while he did present some things that shows the Qur'an was right about some things (and not about others, such as the atmosphere), he did not present any logical reason to suggest that it was God's word. We can also see that he is involved in two other debates on this exact same topic, so I was hoping he might like to debate a slightly different view, but it turns out he doesn't. If he would like to try again and actually debate the accuracy of the Qur'an being the words of God, without imposing the false dichotomy. I would love to do that debate with him. Thank you.
Homosexual couples should not have kids since the kids will have a tough time growing up

Talking about the definition of Normal, I'd state that I agree to you that "There is no such thing as normal". True. It's too complicated to really judge something if it's normal or not, regarding to the definition of Normal. Yes at least in USA, it's more Okay to have a family of two homosexual people. But is it okay for me to widen this viewing point a little bit more because for now, although people are more likely to accept same sex marriage/homosexual but it still depends (nations, cultures, religions, etc.). By "normal" here, I mean "claimed to be normal/more likely to be accepted for a long time". I apologize for not mentioning this but anyway, about the child of a homosexual couple. Yes kids can tease each others on whatever, the way they dress, hair, having a poor family, not having both parents like what the standards in their minds have. You can see... that's already sad enough. Now when having homosexual parents comes in, imagine a kid being asked and gossiped about at school "Are your parents both men? Or both women?", "Who do you call Dad? and what about Mom?...blah blah". It's pretty irritating for the kid. Though the kid can be loved by both parents just like most of any other kids but ... you know what I mean. And to repeat, the kid was adopted when he/she was really young, just a baby perhaps, so being a homosexual couple's child was never his/her decision to make. The kid can grow up being more opened to homosexual/same sex marriage but they can have a tough childhood because they would be more focused on, maybe even tougher comparing to those "typical" kids that live in families with both straight parents. Since not all the kids accept homosexual parents, unless all parents teach them to so It's pretty much new to most kids. p/s: I'm sorry for my English if my post is giving you difficulties understanding.
Homosexual couples should not have kids since the kids will have a tough time growing up

Definitions(2): Normal - conforming to the standard or the commontype; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural What do you mean by normal? If you mean normal in America, there is practically no such thing as a normal family. Families can range from a married mother and father, a single mother and father, to two mothers or two fathers. As mentioned in the definition of normal, it's very common and usual at least in the United States(1). Besides LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual) parents, there are also parents who are poor or parents that are multiracial. Children with LGBT parents aren't the only children who have a tough time growing up; poor and multiracial children have the same problem with their parents being "not like others" in some cases. Yes, kids can be cruel and ignorant but they can be cruel and rude about anything- from the way you dress, to the way you act and look. (1)-http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... (2)-dictionary.com
Homosexual couples should not have kids since the kids will have a tough time growing up

First point I'd like to bring up is that: On the stand of a kid of a homosexual couple, it is harder for him/her to grow up because the family he/she has is not observed to be normal as other kids. Kids can be very ignorant and cruel in their ways.,depends on how their parents teach them. The kids that are raised by homosexual couples might be more open-minded about same sex relationship/marriage but they will be teased at schools and get hurt for what they didn't do.. Let's say they were adopted when they were very young., babies to be specific. They never got to choose their parents., yet now they have to suffer a tough time growing up accepting that their parents are not like others. Also., as parents.,none of us want our children to be teased and to try to stand up everyday for what we are responsible for.,do we.?
Homosexual couples should not have kids since the kids will have a tough time growing up

Okay... So for this topic, I'm gonna be a Pro since.... I have debated about this in my class being a Con and I failed. Sorry. Therefore, this time I'm gonna be a Pro and I'd like to restate the ideas that won over me the last time to anyone who's willing to be the Con. P.s: Don't be too hard or serious please... :p I'm not a native English speaker and I'm here to improve my English and also improving my skills in debating. So thank you :)
Homosexual couples should not have kids since the kids will have a tough time growing up

Definitions: Logic- a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something; a particular way of thinking about something. I know you barely speak english, and that's okay, but I still find it difficult to understand what you are trying to say, so I will do the best I can to answer your questions. No child chooses their parents- homosexual or straight. All of us have been bullied in some part of our lives so I'm well aware how sad it is to be bullied by certain things (looks, beliefs, ethnicity, etc), but I don't see any difference if children were bullied because of the sexual preference of their parents; bulling is bulling. Do you think that kid you want me to imagine, who was adopted by two homosexual parents, would not be bullied or talked about if he/she had straight parents? As much as I would like to talk more about bulling, we're kind of getting off topic. This debate is about whether or not should homosexual couples be able to have kids. I understand that you want a fuller view of the topic, so I will do the best I can with that as well. Instead of thinking religiously or culturally, what about logically? Is there a logical explanation as to why they shouldn't have children? Will they endanger the welfare of the child? In my opinion, I think the system (such as foster care) is doing more danger to the children than LGBT parents. What I mean by this is many states in the US still ban LGBT couples from adopting while there are over 400,000 kids in the US foster care system. Same-sex couples are six times more likely than their different sex counterparts to be raising foster children and four times more likely than their different-sex counterparts to be raising an adopted child(3). If there are this many LGBT couples willing to adopt than heterosexual couples, why stop them? Why stop children from having a potentially loving home? Will the children of LGBT parents be mentally or emotionally different from children of heterosexual families? Research has shown that the kids of same-sex couples " both adopted and biological kids " fare no worse than the kids of straight couples on mental health, social functioning, school performance and a variety of other life-success measures(2). "[T]here is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children"s psychosocial growth." - American Psychological Association, Lesbian and Gay Parenting(4) Sources: (1)-http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2)-http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (3)-http://www.familyequality.org... (4)-http://www.afer.org...
Hamas has no right to shoot rockets into Israel.

With all do respect, my opponent is dodging my points and accusing me of trivializing “Hamas’ attacks by assuming they have no cause to attack.” My points are: Hamas DOES NOT HAVE a right to shoot inaccurate rockets into Israel, threatening the civilian population. The rockets are doing absolutely nothing except provoke Israel. Even if Israel is unjust toward Gaza, there is still no justification for Hamas to fire weak and inaccurate rockets that do absolutely nothing except provoke Israel to attack Gaza’s civilian population. This is not a debate about Israel’s human rights violations or unjust treatment of Palestinians. This is a debate on whether Hamas is justified in shooting rockets at Israel’s civilian population. Just for the sake of argument, lets say all your points are true, Israel is indeed committing human rights violations against the Palestinians, pelting them with missiles, and the Gaza offensive is unjust. That still does not give a right for Hamas to shoot inaccurate rockets into Israel and threaten civilians. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Again, I am not arguing that the Israeli offensive is wrong or right, and am not taking sides. I am arguing that Hamas’s rocket attacks are unjust. Indeed Hamas are “pea shooters compared to Israel.” Yes, “they have every right to want to strike back” at Israel after it bombs them, but it does not do any good for Gaza because it provokes Israel to kill civilians. My opponent uses a scenario of Texas getting annexed by Mexico. If “Texas got annexed by Mexico”, and Mexico was absolutely military superior to Texas, it would not be smart of Texas to attack Mexico, even if Mexico is the aggressor. There must be another way to deal with the situation.