BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mathematics is not better than English.

Thank you ProI will proceed with my reasons and rebuttal. May I just say mathematics is not just about theorems and formulas, I repeat, you use inductive and deductive reasoning everyday, and that is under mathematics, whether you are rich or poor. I believe you never comprehended this point, and I use deductive reasoning as I think you can't comprehend my reason because you consistently say something to go against what is now proved as a fact.And speaking enables thoughts that are not decoded to occur... the medium for advancement, is thoughts, and when people have thoughts, to express them, they have to decode them, and be able to communicate, yes, using English, though mathematics is the root for thinking, when you think, not everything is maths, though most of it is, such as deductivfe and inductive reasoing, to science, to everything. We think then we communicate, and when we communicate we merely use English. Thus proving mathematics is better as it is the root, not English.I agree speaking English gives you a high standard... like it used to ten years ago. Nowadays, in the first world, this is an expectation. Why is it that mathematics in public is considering more important English, because English is an expectation, and mathematics is a must. "To express ourselves in an impressive way..." you need to have something to express, the root, known as mathematics, you would have to use math in some point, some point, or else, it isn't really factual. And that is a fact.Thank you.Apologies, again for the mistakes, and the small work, as I have rushed through this debate.
Mathematics is not better than English.

Interesting last argument, Con. " the medium for advancement, is thoughts, and when people have thoughts, to express them, they have to decode them, and be able to communicate, yes, using English, though mathematics is the root for thinking,"Maths is the root of thinking? I am sorry to say that Con has not read all of my arguments. Do great thoughts of "democarcy" or the making of facebook have root in maths? In fact simple thoughts like " I want to buy this car" or "I think Lionel Messi is awesome!" never require mathematics...I see we do use a lot of inductive and deductive logic...think about it, do we require maths to do so? My granpa is a wise and logical man...He writes detective stories and that requires a lot of deductive skills. He easily answers riddles but to guess...he is illiterate...never went to school and does that mean he does mathematics a lot? no. He never touches that subject! He knows 1+1 =2 fine but maths is not his cup of tea..proving that 12 years of serious mathematics in one's life does not make a guy genious and increase his deductive skills...Maths is not the root of thinking...and decoding thoughts do not require maths! "Why is it that mathematics in public is considering more important English, because English is an expectation, and mathematics is a must. "Mathematics is very important in one's life but english is so too. Think about it, A pilot may require those digits that show the height or speed of the plane but what will he require for all of his life...during the admission test, during training, during talks with the radio controller? Urdu? No! English is the right answer. Maths is the elementary while englsih is the Prime! The expectation is what makes english a subject equally important in this world of todays..I will repeat...Maths might be important and help us to survive but as the proverb in the previous argument says...english is what will always be the subject to help us not only to survive but LIVE! Thank you,Vote fairly...(sarcasm):-P
It is plausible that Rey defeated Kylo Ren in The Force Awakens

Alright so first of all Kylo Ren could've escaped the Starkiller planet. It didn't show that he died, he was just lying on the snow injured and Rey watching him on the other side of the cliff. Plus, there will be more Star Wars to come so Kylo Ren would probably add more to the story. Its just like how Anakin was burning in lava, injured, and lying down. Then Emperor Palpatine came along to rescue him. The same thing probably happened to Kylo Ren because he only appeared in one episode and died in the same episode. Im pretty sure he would still be alive, who else could be the villain?
It is plausible that Rey defeated Kylo Ren in The Force Awakens

Disclaimer: Spoilers will be discussed. (Seriously, the movie has been out for nearly a month. If you are so worried about being spoiled, you should have seen it by now)Star Wars: The Force Awakens was a good movie, of course not without some flaws. However, there are multiple people complaining about the fact that Rey defeated Kylo Ren on the Starkiller planet because of the fact that it "appears" that she has not had any Jedi training. However, in this debate I will prove that the senario was plausible from what we do know about the Star Wars Universe.For this debate, only Episodes I-VII can be discussed not including any Star Wars cartoons or expanded lore. Definitons:plausible - seemingly worthy of approvalor acceptance; credible; believable:http://dictionary.reference.com...Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: Pro refutes Con's arguments in Round 2 and vice versa
Atheism

And you still didn't answer my question on who caused the big bang to appear? Your question on why god stopped sending prophets and miracles. Simply because it's written in the holy quraan that the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) is the last prophet. And about the miracles, if you've read the Qura'an you will know that many things that were mentioned in the quraan over 1400 years ago are happening now, which is a miracle itself . Which also answers your question on who wrote the quraan. And for your knowledge many arabs tried to write something similar to the quraan but they couldn't because no one can ever write something like the holy Qura'an. And by the phrase "he couldn't read or write" it means he wasn't educated how come a person who isn't educated write a book as great as the quraan? And how come he can discribe the development of human embryo and many other things that are so precise , please don't tell me that it's a coincidence. And since it's the last round I advise you to read the Quraan, trust me you will find out that it is waaaaaay different than any other book you've read. And I apologize for providing you a link without the summary. Best regards, Aicha
Atheism

You say Quraan is full of symbolism to show beauty. I say it's written by men to cover up their asses. Instead of writing "Hitler died on 1984", it's better to write "As the sun set, the despicable men who killed many died as (Insert some symbolism stuff here)" Instead of using accurate details, men used symbolism to make something subjective, able to cover its tracks next time against science. Instead of saying "361 bones", isn't it just safer to say "many bones?" Let us go on to why God would go through so much trouble. If he is so great, why not just create humans without free choice? Ok, maybe God wants us to love him on our own accord, but why? If he is so great, why would he want pettiness such as us meer mortals worshipping him? What does he benefit from it? Nothing! Anyways, going out on a tangent here, why free- will? If God is all powerful, able to perceive time as a single entity, seeing the past, present, and future, all-knowing, he'd know humans would be messed up. Why did he continue with this act? God created the world in 6 days. Before we proceed, please tell me your take on the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, before I proceed on my case. For now, I'll refrain from speaking of these theories before hearing your stand on it. Through geographical evidence, the earth has been 4.3 billion years. How they measure this is they drill down the earth, and pull out earth sample. This way, one can see the different layers of soil, each layer showing a different era.
Atheism

Actually Islam, Christianity and Judaism are considered one religion as they all call for worshipping one god all mighty. But god's "chosen race" as jewish call themselves is nothing but a myth. And the prophet (PBUH) said: "O people, your Lord is one and your father Adam is one. There is no virtue of an Arab over a foreigner nor a foreigner over an Arab, and neither white skin over black skin nor black skin over white skin, except by righteousness. Have I not delivered the message?" And Allah (SWT) said: "O people, We have created you male and female and made you nations"and tribes that you may know one another. Verily, the most noble of you to Allah is the most righteous of you. Verily, Allah is knowing and aware." Why Did God Create Everything? Allah says in His Quran He did not create all of this for any foolish purpose. Allah Says: "And I did not Create the jinn and humans except they should worship Me". [Noble Quran 51:56] -He created us for the purpose of worshiping Him, Alone and without any partners. "And He it is Who has created the heavens and the earth in six Days and His Throne was on the water, that He might try you, which of you is the best in deeds. But if you were to say to them: "You shall indeed be raised up after death," those who disbelieve would be sure to say, "This is nothing but obvious magic." [Noble Quran 11:7] -Allah has created all we call the universe as a test for us. This is not our final destination. What we might consider to be "bad" or "good" could actually be quite the opposite. For more info. check out this link : http://www.godallah.com... And about why does Allah all mighty refers to himself as we? a feature of literary style in Arabic that a person may refer to himself by the pronoun nahnu (we) for respect or glorification. He may also use the word ana (I), indicating one person, or the third person huwa (he). All three styles are used in the Qur"an, where Allaah addresses the Arabs in their own tongue. (Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa"imah, 4/143). I do agree that Quraan is full of symbolisms and this shows the beauty of quraan and ability of Allah to create such an awesome book without any mistakes. But have you ever wondered why do we have a prophet? It is simply to clarify what's written in the holy book.
Atheism

So you'll agree that it's Islamic faith vs. Atheism, right? Very well, let us start from human beings! Let me start by saying this; If the Islamic faith is indeed the true faith, why isn't it considered the earliest religion? Islamic faith boast of a singular all-powerful deity, but why the usage of the word "We"? We is a plural pronoun. If God is all-powerful, why go through the trouble of creating human beings? What is his motive? Furthermore, why is God biased for "His People", His "Chosen Race"? If he likes them only, why go creating other races? Why allow those races to continue living? If all he's gonna care is his chosen people, then why don't he just keep his people? About the verse you brought up, it could be a coincidence. To quote for Vsauce: "If you look at the KJV Bible, Psalms 46, the 46th word is "Shake", and 46th word from the back is "Spear", and also, William Shakespeare was 46th years old when the KJV Bible was completed. Was this planned? No. Given enough searching, enough words, enough data, you can eventually find and should expect all types of neat coincidence. This is, probability." Furthermore, from the word, you found that symbolism, because you WANT to find it. To others, they may perceive it as God rolling a joint from clay, or chewing on a tobacco. Your brain is programmed to find symbolism in anything, and if you have the mindset to look for clues regarding creation, you will surely be able to find it. Symbolism is never a great thing. If I say something like, "The darkness shrouded me. I walked and walked, and a light shone. Raced forward, and I see, a shining, bright stone fall from the sky, taking away a third of the world." and it is written, 2000 years later, someone might just say "Omg, prophet FieryNyan predicted the atomic bombs. The darkness symbolizes the despair, and hopelessness of the war against the Japanese. The Americans tried, and tried, but they couldn't do anything, until the atomic bomb, the small slither of hope, appeared and killed many. Prophet FieryNyan is amazing." Or, it could just mean I was walking in a cave, and as I walked out of the cave, I saw a spear, with an iron tip come out of the sky, and killed my best friend, which meant the world to me. Or, it could mean anything else. The point is, symbolism should never be used to dictate historical fact. It's better used in fictions.
Atheism

As you wish, to prove that god is real we will start from the human being it self and the creation of it. 1400 years ago it the human embryo development was mentioned in the holy Quraan ((We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed-like substance))... [Noble Quran 23:12-14] for more details check out this link http://scienceislam.com... . And this was all mentioned way before any devices were discovered obviously, which is a strong reason that god is real.
Atheism

Don't worry, I will respect your comments, and refrain from being hateful. If you indeed would like to write why you believe in God, wouldn't it be better if our stand change to : You: God does exist. Me: God doesn't exist. If you'd like, you can change the argument to you arguing for the Islamic faith, and I argue against it. I'm a Deist, but I'll just debate here for the sake of a challenge.
Atheism

I started this debate not willing to hear hateful comments, I just want write why do I believe in God all mighty. First of all I just want to state that I follow the islamic faith and I believe in all the prophets peace be upon them and I do believe in mericles as well and I believe that there is a one and only god SWT. State what do you believe in, in the first round and we will state the reasons in the second round.
The US's decision to cease funding the UN's Unesco organization is fundamentally unjust.

I will argue my assent towards the Topic statement. Round 1 is for acceptance only.Definitions/Clarifications: • Unesco = United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; which aims to "contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and the human rights along with fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the UN Charter". (http://en.wikipedia.org...).•Unjust = Not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.•Funding = refers to the money due next month ($60m (£37m))
Sedevacantism

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her[...](1) [T]hat meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.(2) The following decree from the Second Vatican Council contradicts the previous decrees; thus, it is heretical: The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.(3) Specifically, the phrase “Christ has not refrained from using [separated churches] as a means of salvation” is in direct conflict with the Council of Florence decree. The Council of Florence said that “none of those existing outside the Catholic Church[...] can have a share in life eternal”, yet the Second Vatican Council calls separated churches a “means of salvation.” Put another way: Premise 1: Something that cannot achieve it's own end is not a means (e.g. If separated churches lead to damnation, they cannot be used as means of salvation). Premise 2: The Council of Florence said that no salvation exists outside of the Catholic Church, but The Second Vatican Council called separated churches a means of salvation. Conclusion: The Second Vatican Council contradicts the Council of Florence. According to the Council of Trent: [I]f at any time it will be found that[...] a Roman Pontiff had deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen away into some heresy, before his promotion or assumption as Cardinal or as Roman Pontiff, that promotion or assumption concerning him, even if made in concord and from the unanimous assent of all the cardinals, is null and void and worthless[...](4) Now it has been estalished that any so-called 'Pope' who had become a heretic (e.g. by promoting heresy) before his election, is actually not a true pope. I will assume that both Con and I agree that all so-called 'popes' since 1958 have promoted the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, even before their supposed election as pope. Premise 1: All so-called popes since 1958 have promoted the decrees of the Second Vatican Council before they were elected. (Con, let me know if you accept or deny this) Premise 2: The Second Vatican Council was heretical. Conclusion: All so-called popes since 1958 were heretics even before they were elected; thus, none of them are or ever were popes. (1) Council of Florence (2) First Vatican Council (3) Second Vatican Council (4) Council of Trent
Climate Change Exists

Climate change clearly does not exist, here are reasons why: (1) Exhaling Carbon Dioxide is no clear threat to our climate, we just breathe it out, our cars do it too (2) It is a conspiracy (3) There are no sources to back your statement up Here are my sources on how "Climate Change" doesn't exist: (1) http://www.globalclimatescam.com... (2) http://www.newsmax.com... (3) https://en.wikipedia.org... These 3 sources tell you that climate change is fake, first one tells you the top 10 reasons why climate change does not exist, the second, facts about this "global warming" hoax; And finally, The third source tells you the entire conspiracy that "Climate Change exists"
People should vote on who has a better argument; NOT whose argument you actually agree with

I'd love to debate you, but this may be the one and only thing on which we agree. What I meant was that if you make a "good" argument, you should be able to have most people, not only vote for you, but agree with you as well. That is, unless your opponent failed to raise some obvious points that could have undermined your argument. I have no problem voting for a winner based on debating skills alone. But keep in mind, the purpose of a debate is ultimately to sway minds (or hearts if your a liberal). We're not here merely to see who's best at slinging syllogisms.
People should vote on who has a better argument; NOT whose argument you actually agree with

I am making this argument in response to handsoff's comments in another debate, in regards to the fact that people can vote simply on who they agree with on the topic and forget how well the topic is actually argued. Handsoff claims that there is no crucial difference between how well a topic is argued and which side of the fence you stand on. I believe otherwise: that you are obliged to read the argument fully and vote for the opposing argument to your personal stance on an issue, even if you don't want to, if the opposing argument makes better points and is more organized, persuasive etc.
Fascism and communism should be regarded as forms of statism, not political opposites

According to traditional modeling of the left-right political spectrum, communism is aimed on the far left and fascism is aimed on the far right. I will aim to prove that the two should not be regarded so much as political opposites, but rather as two forms of the ideology of statism.One major aspect of fascism is it's opposition to communism and capitalism. Most fascists claim to be in the center, but commentators call it far-right due to its radical social conservatism and opposition to wealth redistribution; however, part of fascist economics is a resolution of conflict between the rich and poor.[3] Communism opposes both fascism and capitalism, and is on the far left due to its vision of a society with no private property.[4] However, in practice both communism and fascism result in one thing - death.Many of the worst dictatorships in history occurred under communist rule. The Soviet Union, along with its satellite states in Eastern Europe and allies worldwide. By 1988, nearly one-third of the world lived under communist dictatorships.[1] After the Soviet Union dissolved, most of those became free countries - today, there are only five communist countries left - China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam.[2] Fascism's reach was much small, existing essentially in Germany, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Spain and Portugal's dictatorships lasted until the 1970s, but Italy and Germany's fell during WWII. All of these regimes targeted political dissidents, killed people who disagreed with them, and instituted massive military buildups. These are clear signs that communism and fascism are not enemies, but rather two different forms of authoritarian statism. References:1: http://web.ku.edu...2: http://geography.about.com...3: http://en.wikipedia.org...4: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Fascism and communism should be regarded as forms of statism, not political opposites

This debate is on whether or not fascism and communism should be treated as forms of statism rather than as opposites on the left-right spectrum. Burden of proof is on Pro (myself). Definitions:Fascism - A radical authoritarian nationatlist ideology, espoused by leaders such as Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and Francisco FrancoCommunsim - A radical revolutionary socialist ideology, espoused by leaders such as Vladmir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Mao ZedongStatism - An ideology advocating strict government control of economic and social policy. Left-right spectrum - A single-axis political grid, with the left on one side and the right on the other; the farthest left is communism, while the farthest right is fascismRules:*This is not a troll debate. Serious participants only.