BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homeschool

Hello again. Thank you for your thoughts and opinions. When I said that the schools are meant for education not socialism but the world has changed it, is because when you are in class what are you supposed to be doing? Talking? Or learning your education with an attentive ear? So today's society, the kids who attend a public school think well, like you said, " am independent and can do what I want" so that would veer them to socializing and what not when really should be paying attention to the teachers instructions and/or lectures. So with that said... I hope that answers your question.. You said that sports, clubs and other things that public schools give do not give the same opportunity to home schoolers? Yet, when I was a freshman as a homeschooler I ran track against the Judson School District. So no one can tell me otherwise than what I have experienced. Also when being homeschooled, I went out on field days with other homsechoolers to do activities; which I add to you was a club that we were all in. So you cannot say that homeschoolers do not do that. Also you mentioned that for homeschoolers if they're parents are sick or something extravagant happens that the kids will miss a day/s worth of schoolwork. Yet, my mom would still get my schoolwork graded and prepared for me. You don't think its probable that even if the parents die that a child can still be educated by a relative or an older sibling? Cause guess what, I'm an older sibling and when my mom can't get around to getting the kids schoolwork, I help out. So really its up to the parents and other relatives that will take the responsibility. If a parent/relative is not equipped to teaching their kids themselves then, they should not take on the responsibility. My parents do their part and will continue to do so because they do not want their kids going to schools that only bring about corruption and confusion. And I'm sorry not all parents are that type to run every time they're child makes a mistake as a homeschooler. My parents didn't. If I made a mess, guess what I had to clean it up so no they don't cater to everything you do. another point I'd like to bring about is, homeschool is good for those especially that cannot work in a loud setting also good for those who are easily distracted. Waiting patiently to read what my opponent has to say.
Homeschool

Why do you believe that homeschooling is bad? I actually have had experience with public school and homeschool. I find homeschool more beneficial for education because it teaches you what you will need to know for college, whereas public school only teaches you what you will need to learn in order to pass the year test (taks test, star test, whichever one it is).. I know most people would say well how will a person learn to be social or have friends?.. School wasn't meant for socialism it was meant for an education, but the worlds society has changed that. But on the flip side of that, homeschoolers are still able to make friends or socialize just as much as public school students do. There are clubs, sports, and any other thing that a public school offers in homeschooling. So I would believe to say that people who are against homeschooling shouldn't be especially if they've never experienced it or were a part of it. What do you think? :
Homeschool

Here are my rebuttals: 1."My friend, your right most mothers do not have more than four children, but in my house there is 17 kids altogether. So there is team sports available." As you said, most mothers do not have more than four children, so your family is an exception. In most families, there will not be a chance for their children to play team sports if they are home schooled. 2."Also being independent should happen after the child has grown up and moved on their own.. Public school and homeschool really cannot relate to independence. Sorry..." Independence has to be trained from an early age, i.e. when the child is studying, because when the child has moved on their own, they will have to take care of matters themselves, so it is too late to start learning and experiencing. Going to school means that a child"s parents are not by his/her side, so that trains up the child"s independence skills. Once again, I thank my opponent for starting this debate. It is always interesting to hear the views of other people, and look at things from different angles. Thank you.
This research paper can be considered evidence of a 6,000 year old earth

I have carefully read through your response three separate times, and I am left with the understanding that you have zero understanding of the study that I have presented, and that you have completely missed the point of the study. Completely.For example, you state that "the study focuses on helium, but ignores other forms, it is based on a lack of understanding" when in fact helium is the focus of the study, because helium is the only by-product of uranium decay that naturally diffuses through the crystal structure and that we can establish a leak rate for.If you could not grasp the very basics of the study, I am deeply concerned that you will not be able to grasp the rest of the study. Therefore, it is my suggestion to you, that you declare an end to the debate as you (i) have violated the terms that I have put forth in my opening statement by resorting to outside information to argue for your position in the last paragraph (ii) have not addressed the approach, methods or the conclusions of the study.If I am mistaken on any of these points, please correct me, and if I find your correction to be truthful, I will concede that I have misjudged you, and we may proceed with the debate. Thank you.
This research paper can be considered evidence of a 6,000 year old earth

I have read through this study, and in no way can it be considered evidence for a 6000 year old planet. The study focuses on helium, but ignores other forms, it is based on a lack of understanding. We can solve this problem quite fast with a logical understanding. All elements are created within stars. Simple forms become more complex over time. Hydrogen turns to helium, and so on, this is how we get the elements in the periodic table. When a star is created, all the leftovers are what form the planets that orbit it. This young solar system exists in a high state of energy, and forms are continually colliding with each other. The amount of energy present in this process generates an abundance of heat. There is so much heat that water (H20) would not be able to sustain a liquid form, it would exist in a gaseous state. It would take a long time for the planet to cool before oceans of water would develop. Because water is essential for our form of life to exist, it is physically impossible for life to exist without liquid water. Because all fossil fuels are generated from decomposed life, again this is impossible for the earth to be only 6000 years old because of how long it takes for these carbon deposits to build up from decaying bio matter.
This research paper can be considered evidence of a 6,000 year old earth

In this debate, I am asking whoever chooses to be my opponent, to take the time to read a scientific study, and then return to this debate room and present his problems with the study - then we will debate those points back and forth.Of course, "science says the earth is 4.56 billion years old therefore they are wrong" is not a legitimate objection in this debate. Your objection has to be about their approach, methods, and conclusions, all of which are documented very well in the study that I have linked below. If you do not agree to these terms, do not accept the debate._____________________________________________________________Short description of the study: A team of scientists who consider the earth to be 6,000 years as opposed to billions, have tried to prove their hypothesis by predicting the leak rates of helium in zircon crystals. This 17-page long study documents their work, and enables you to find errors in their approach, methods and conclusions.http://static.icr.org...
This research paper can be considered evidence of a 6,000 year old earth

That is fine, you are free to block out the world when it challenges you but it will not teach you anything. The reason for debating is to express different opinions to gain an understanding of the forms around us. So far you have not stated any terms that support your argument as to why this is considered valid evidence for a 6000 year old planet other than what the study says. I understand your faith is in question for you, but blindly accepting things is not a way to gain an understanding of the world.
This research paper can be considered evidence of a 6,000 year old earth

My method is based on logic. If you are implying that the study is not based on logic you have therefore proved that this study is not legitimate evidence for a 6000 year old earth. By my logic, 1 + 1 = 2 This is true simple logic, as the equation is balanced By your logic, 1 + 1 = 6000 This is not logic, this is hogwash
cats should be forced to wear shoes

I can only assume that my opponent's position is that cats should be forced to wear shoes because they have enormous and salty genitals. I will then contend that having large genitals in no way means that cats should have wear shoes. Shoes are defined as an outer covering for the human foot [1]. Even if we were to broaden the definition to include all animals then unless cats have their genitals on their feet, which they do not, I have successfully refuted my opponent's claim. Here are some other reasons as to why cats should not have to wear shoes: *Cats typically live inside of their owner's homes, therefore whether or not a cat should wear shoes falls under the jurisdiction of their respective owner. *Forcing cat owners to purchase special shoes that their cats should wear does not make sense as a cat not wearing shoes hardly infringes upon the rights of other individuals. *It would be an unnecessary expenditure and unethical for the government to round up all stray cats and put un-removable shoes on them because typically cats that live outdoors require their claws for survival. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
cats should be forced to wear shoes

+++++++ Rebuttals +++++++ "Ah, but as you may know some cats love to scratch and tear on things. .. Them wearing shoes would prevent this. " [Yes it would, so if you don't want your cat to scratch up the furniture then put shoes on it. There's not reason for any governing entity to require you to do this. It is a matter of whether or not you care if your cat ruins your stuff. ] "Also "as to what you had said about outdoor cats needing claws to survive" if we put shoes on every single one of them then they would not need them. .. if they came in contact with another cat they would both have shoes. Therefore no problem. " [Survival is more than just surviving fights, there are predators to consider. A cat would be defenseless against any type of hostile animal larger than itself. Cats also use their claws to hunt. These are 2 more arguments against cat shoes. ] I look forward to my opponent's next response.
cats should be forced to wear shoes

Ah, but as you may know some cats love to scratch and tear on things... Them wearing shoes would prevent this. Also "as to what you had said about outdoor cats needing claws to survive" if we put shoes on every single one of them then they would not need them... if they came in contact with another cat they would both have shoes. Therefore no problem. So this would save furniture and it would save some stray cats that would other wise be deathly harmed in mortal combat with their foes. [1] http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com...
Gun Laws

So I think I am supposed to say why gun laws should be in place because that is what my opponent told me in a message. Contention 1: Not all guns should be restrictedBy all means we should have tighter gun control. But I am not referring to taking away our guns. Access to, and the types of guns that we have, should be more closely regulated. Guns for hunting and sport shooting and even for one's personal defense could be allowed. But no one outside of the military or the police needs a semi-automatic rifle or heavier guns. Contention 2: Recent ShootingsI'm sure you have seen the news lately. Schools, movie theatres, former police officers, teens, and a former sniper. Why? Because all of these people have managed to get their hands on any type of guns because the law permits them to. But if these laws were stricter, then they wouldn't be able to get their hands on ALL these heavy guns used in the military, police, and other government related departments. I am not saying to ban all guns to citizens. I know that we need them. Contention 3: Mental PersonsWe cannot control a mental person's action. Sometimes not even they know what they are going to do. Like the one in Aurora, Colorado. The man had some type of mental illness. If the government enforced that the person to own the gun wasn't having mental related issues, then the citizens of the United States would be a little safer. Additional Info: An average of 83 Americans die every day from firearms in the United States. And the U. S. has the highest firearm homicide rates in the developed world. In 33 of the 50 states, criminals can buy military-style weapons from "private dealers" on the internet without any ID or background check. This can be very dangerous. Each year in the US, there are 30,000 deaths related to guns. This is a hot topic in the media, but the presidential and congressional candidates do nothing about it. Once again, I am not saying to ban all guns. I am saying to enfore some stricter laws on guns so that the US citizens are safer in their homes and evironments. Sorry for the short round; if I had posted it earlier, I would have been able to make it longer. Thank You and Enjoy!
density=compression

Counter Rebuttals It is true that you cannot have a compacted substance without it being compressed however I never spoke against this claim. My opponent concedes when he says the following: "compressed=compression+density" [1]Whilst, it isn't necessarily true it is enough to negate on alone. My opponent acknowledges that density and compression are different factors that make up a separate conclusion. If they are different factors then they cannot be equal. This is enough to vote Con on alone. If my opponent wishes to change the definition of equals (=) to 'is' then this is fine. Plus (+) can also be referred to as and as my opponent appears to have requested or stated to explain his concession formula. Sources[1] http://www.debate.org...;
density=compression

ArgumentsDensity = the degree of compactness of a substance [1].Compression = the action of compressing or being compressed [2].Equals (=) = be the same as [3]. The degree of compactness of a substance is a measurment of how compact something is. The degree by which a substance is compacted is not the same as the actions of compressing. In essense, compression is what allows you to measure density but just because density is neccessitated by compression (or compaction), this doesn't make them equal, it simply makes the former dependant on the latter. Density and compression often appear together due to this neccessitation and we can show that they are different factors by this illustrated graph as an example: As you can see, the density and compression are both on different axis whilst the correlation is being measurred. No correlation would be found if they were both the same thing because the match up would not produce fluctuating points as the graph shows [4]. RebuttalsMy opponent is correct however this does not affirm. If matter is shaped by a force acting upon it, then we can call the force compression or in this case c. We will refer to density as d and x as the amount of compression. y will equal "how" dense it is. yc = xd c/x = d/yc= xd/y As you can see both c and d are different factors and will ultimately have different numbers (x and y) which demonstrates their dependance / neccessitation on eachother. This does NOT, however, prove them to be equal. Sources [1] https://www.google.co.uk...;[2] https://www.google.co.uk...;[3] https://www.google.co.uk...;[4] http://www.scielo.cl...;
0=nothing=information

1. The dictionary meaning of nothing is "Something of no importance. " But zero is very important for what is one hundred without a zero? 1. What is the difference between 10 and 1? A zero. What is the difference between 0.1 and 1? A zero. (And a period but that's not the point. ) What makes computer programs run? 1s and 0s. With all that uses of zero I think its safe to say zero means something. 2. * It simply cannot happen. 3. One banana plus one apple equals how many bananas? 1. So in that equation the apple equals nothing though it is something. It is like a zero.
0=nothing=information

pick up 0 sodas from the floor i can cut an apple in 4 pieces, and then resemble the apple and have it look like i got a full apple, but i have an apple in 4 pieces 1+0=1 is a false equation, 1 can not be added to 0, so its just 1, 1 banana + 0 bananas dosnt mean 1 banana dissapears and neither is 0 bananas added, it simple cant happen, and i still have 1 banana.. so 1+0(1) 0*6(6) 0/3(3) 3/0(3)
God most likely does NOT exist (Copy)

Thanks for answering these questions. First of all, if you believe that noone created the Universe, why is it in such complex, fabulous form? Someone had to create it. I agree that Big Bang theory doesn't exist. But someone had to create the Universe. For instance: If a barrel explodes, its surroundings will fly away but can not go in correct order. Therefore, Big Bang theory is not real and someone had to create the Universe.
God most likely does NOT exist (Copy)

"'Could you answer these questions? Just want to know." Yes, definitely. "Who do you think made the Universe?" Noone. "Do you believe in the Big Bang theory?" No. Please do remember that not believing in a being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality does NOT equate to believing in the Big Bang theory (The theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature). I believe that the Universe was not finite.
God most likely does NOT exist (Copy)

I simply do NOT hold the belief that a monotheistic, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God exists until proportional evidence is presented. For instance, there is a box. We haven't opened the box yet. So we have no sufficient justification to prove the claim that it contains anything. REMEMBER: 1) Presentations 2) Rebuttals He definitely exists in the faith of individuals, though. Nonetheless, it is possible. It is just most unlikely. Also: 1) "Christians believe their God is omniscient and knows everything, including everything that has happened and will happen, as well as every thought your mind creates before you think it. If that's the case, there is no "free will."" 2) "They also believe their God is omnipotent, and can do anything. Problem is, if their God can do anything but doesn't lift a finger to stop all the disasters, massacres and wars that have happened, are happening now and will happen in the future, their God is also a psychopath who enjoys watching our misery." I have derived these from my Atheist friend. He is no longer a Deist (Belief in a God who does not intervene).
God most likely does NOT exist (Copy)

In the Standard Model of particle physics and General Relativity there are about 23 "constants of nature." These are numbers, often measured to high precision, that are put in "by hand" into the equations of physics to get them to describe our universe. Physicists claim that these 23 constants of nature must be finely tuned to nearly exactly the values they have in order for our universe to be complex. Were the values very different we would not get stars, galaxies, complex atoms, chemistry, or life. We might get a universe that flashed into existence for an instant then disappeared. Or we might get a universe that expanded so rapidly that all that would exist would be hydrogen in a starless empty space. I want to make two initial points in this first blog on the subject: First, and critically to the subject of these blogs, the fine tuning of the constants of nature are at best a necessary condition for the universe to be complex. They are absolutely not yet a sufficient account of "why the universe is complex," the main purpose of these efforts. Second, we face the profound issue of "why" the constants of nature are so finely tuned. Since we have, at present, no THEORY for the values of these constants, put in by hand, physics has the following choices: God tuned the constants of nature. If the values of the constants were very different, life would not have evolved, so physicists would not have evolved to wonder why the constants of nature are what they are. This idea has led to the postulate that we live in just one of vastly many universes, a "megaverse", the constants of nature have different values in different universes, and we happen to be lucky enough to be in a universe with the "right" values of the constants of nature. This view is called "The Weak Anthropic Princiiple." The term, "Anthropic" stands for the fact that we live in a universe where life and physicists could evolve. A fine discussion of this view is in Leonard Susskind"s The Cosmic Landscape. Our one universe somehow evolved the values of its constants, and perhaps its very laws, such that the universe we live in is the only universe and is complex. I want this view to be true. For it to be true, there must be processes by which the laws and the values can both evolve. I hope to discuss this in later blogs. I return to the primary question of these blogs: Why and how did the universe become complex? And I make a final point in this short blog. Eric Chaisson, a Tufts University physicist, in Cosmic Evolution has shown convincingly that the energy density per gram tissue per second increases in cosmic evolution, for example in stars, in the evolution of life and in the evolution of or cultures. The data look convincing. Now energy per unit time is power, so Chaisson is talking about a power density per gram increasing in cosmic evolution. I take Chaisson"s data, and ask: How in the world might that increase in power density have occurred? We"ll start trying to answer this in subsequent blogs.