BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Zealotry is the single biggest threat to the planet and to mankind

Recently my daughter came home to inform me that some neighbors called her wicked and not a child of God and that she was going to burn in Hell for eternity. Some days later, another neighbor was overheard telling my daughter that President Obama is a terrorist and is possessed by the Devil. My daughter was 7 years old, the neighbors making the comments were young girls of about the same age and were from devout families of some religion. That's why I'm striking up this debate. We are a nation of extreme zelotry, raising our children to be the same, and when the programming starts at such a young age i cant help but think its impossible to undo. And this zelotry, this unwaivering fanatical certainty in ones belief and position, breeds some of the worst events on this planet and to mankind. The world will never fully heal from George Bush's "certainty" and "steadfastness" in invading Iraq and the Middle East to do "God's will" against the "evildoers." Bush was unwaivering in his certainty, and is to this day despite what actually occurred and was found. Unwaivering zelotry causes our political and corporate leaders to act out of their narrow perception of reality and beliefs , and the consequences effect millions of people, current and future generations. And as my opening example demonstrates, were teaching our children to do the same. And it worries me. I want a discussion amongst open minded individuals about ideas on how to wrestle control of society from the ruling political, religious, and corporate zealots and how to prevent our children from being programmed and how to deprogram them before it's too late for them. I don't have hard figures, but I would guess roughly 50% of the U.S. population can be written off from any meaningful discussion right off the bat. These are the devoutly religious whom are certain in their beliefs and the Truth. This also includes many of the angry and bitter political zealots that are extreme right or left. They have no desire to think other than what they have always thought or have been programmed to think and believe. In my view they are not part of the debate, so if you are one of them don't take the challenge or I will simply bail on pointless arguing about who is right. And by the way these are not all "bad" people (bad and good are zealot terminology) and in fact many contribute much to society and to the world. Its just that the have been brainwashed from such an early age that if they did want to see and think about things differently they simply wouldn't know where to start. Another 25-30% of people are more open minded but will sit on the sidelines and be spectators to others debating. That leaves about maybe 20% that are willing to put it out there and get involved and perhaps make a difference. Again, this isn't a religious debate and I won't debate on that premise. I will discuss with those with strong political views but if you belong to a political party then don't bother. Let the fun begin...
barefoot running is more beneficial than running with shoes

The benefits of running barefoot have long been supported by scientific research." First I would like to start off by saying this is a widely un-supported claim. While they're may be some research (obviously not provided by the pro) about how running may be better for some without shoes, this isn't always the case. Maybe for someone who is running a long distance in a grassy area, but for most runners, limitations defeat the purpose of running. Cross country runners enjoy the freedom of being able to run anywhere they please, including rocky areas, where gravel can potentially tear a foot to shreds, and even on soppy wet surfaces where only certain shoes can prevent a disastrous slip. Shoes provide the option of bigger and better availability for running. For example, even the scientific study my opponent talks about, doesn't say anything about rocky or bumpy surfaces. "I mean, I think we have to be really, really careful about what we do and don't know. We have not done any injury studies; this is not an injury study," he (Lieberman) says. That's next. http://www.npr.org... Also: ""Unfortunately, the available surfaces in developed countries such as the United States aren't always suited for this kind of training. "Most runners are out there running on the side of the road or on pavement, under conditions where they really run the risk of stepping on broken glass or nails," Sharkey warned."" http://www.physorg.com... Through the use of shoes, we have developed the ability to maintain the same benefits of running barefoot, with the increased protection under the foot, dis-abling the high rate of injury. "Nike has developed a lightweight shoe called Free, which is purported to mimic the barefoot experience while still providing a layer of protection. Proponents suggest that the shoe can increase running performance by stimulating the foot's natural strength and flexibility." http://nikerunning.nike.com... We need the technology shoes bring us in order to do certain things. Especially since most Americans and people in other countries have already adapted to the use of shoes. Simply doing away with them for some people wouldn't work, as it would for some people who live in Kenya, where they have adapted to running without shoes their whole lives. "Humans may be well adapted to running barefoot, but most of us have worn shoes for so long that we've lost some of the ability to run barefoot. I think doing some barefoot running on grass fields can be a great supplement to our training, but for most of us it would require a lot of callousing before we were ready to head out on the trails with no shoes!" http://blog.ianandjulia.com... It is for all these reason I urge you to vote in favor of shoes. Thankyou.
No E's Allowed

War isnt fought for glory, it's fought to kill anybody in your path, to finish a mission, to kill anybody who is unluckily standing in your way. D-Day would go down in history as a bloodbath, but as long as I kill a Nazi or two, I will go out a victor should I die. I will go out as a man who did his part in a war. I spy two nazis scouting from a pillbox, my bazooka will work its magic. As I try to carry out my mission, I find that I cant shoot. Im stuck and dont know why, what is going on? Why cant I shoot? I look down to my right, it turns out my body is lying in the sand with blood all around, and my arms 30 yards away.... A tank had found my hiding spot, and that was my last song. Now as I drift up and away, I look down on the bloodbath and im glad im not a part of it now. On my way to God's kingdom, only now do I know my flaw. Thou shalt not kill is a holy law, but only now did it truly sink in. What honor can be won from killing? War isnt fought for glory, it's fought for infamy
No E's Allowed

"Attack!!!" My sibling and I abruptly ran, racing down towards a solitary black bird. Brandishing only multi color pool toys to stop what would from now on act as warnings to any young child on our farm that bad plans usually stop with poor payoffs, and that farm animals usually will win a fight fought with pool toys. Naturally as big bro it was my job to quickly withdraw from this situation, my young buddy did not contain as much luck. With a war cry his fight was afoot. As I watch from asylum atop a hill I gawk at what is only shown as a fury of pool toys and black wings. Quickly victory did not look as though it was an option. As an adult of this situation at a manly infancy of four I could stop this atrocity in a way that all youth know how, I got Mom. Running in with a broomstick and war cry of a "OFF MY SON YOU SIX PART LUNCH BASTARD!" my mom could grab my thirty six month old sibling from his tomb of childhood bawling and bust pool toy. Tomorrow my sibling and I fight again.
No E's Allowed

Both sides of this debate must write cohesive 1000 character stories without a single use of the letter E. If either side uses the letter E they lose and should be voted against in such a manner. For example: "Mary had a little lamb." would be grounds for disqualification due to the E in little. "Mary had a small lamb" is acceptable. Also, misspellings cannot be used to circumvent the rule. "Mary had a littl lamb" would also be grounds for disqualification since the E is implied. Quite obviously these rules do not apply to first round. Should both stories not be disqualified voters will vote for their favorite story in the following categories: Plot: Sources Vote (2 point) Grammar: Grammar Vote (1 point) Style: Conduct Vote (1 Point) Overall Story: Argument Vote (3 points) Stories can be about any topic of your choosing. First round should simply be acceptance, second round is for story writing. Also, plagiarism is not acceptable. If you have questions ask them in the comments.
Russia has right to Crimea

My point is you say we should stand solely on the fact that you think you deserve to be free, yet you wont lift finger to help anyone else in your situation. In all your time as an independent nation you werent out defending independence as a value outside of your boarders, and now that yours is threatened and the enemy is on your doorstep youre asking for aid. Scratch that, not even ASKING, trying to GUILT the west into helping you like we owe you something. I suppose too that all f your citizens that want to go back to being unified with Russia were all planted there too right? Half the population has just been secret sleeper cell families put there by Russia so they could take you guys over from the inside? Your people don't want to be free from Russia. They want to join them. The few of you holding out are the only ones whining about it. Ukraine existing as a country was always living on borrowed time. Russia only ever gave you up to appease western ideals in the first place. They didnt want to look like the oppressive nation that wouldnt let territories try it on their own. You guys remind me a lot of Scotland-England right now ... with slightly more infighting. England's gonna let Scotland go, and they welcome it because Scotland is mostly poor and is more of a burden on their governments programs than it helps. They wanna try freedom out ... they live in poverty and are considered a 3rd world state not long after because their economy crumbles when they're alone. Then they come crawling back. If anyone reading this would take a drive through Ukraine theyd find that it would be indistinguishable from a third world country by now. Eastern Europe has always had a bad image because of broken bankrupt territories like yours. People fear even going there on vacation as a whole. But you know ... its good to see you have the time to spend messing around on the internet instead of picking up a gun and helping defend your nation against invaders. Youre really making a case for yourself that you do not in anyway "deserve" to be free, you wont even fight for it. If your best effort is to try and coax other nations into fighting your civil wars for you ... then i stand by my first argument and say youre barking up the wrong tree. Our people have been strung up enough trying to do that very thing for other oppressed persons and we get the label of "Satan Nation" for it. You must be awfully desperate to be trying to make a deal with the "Devil" like us.
Russia has right to Crimea

Well Peter Well, sir, I must say that your view is unfounded. Year 1982 no more "Mr. Reagan", and I have to say, why would we like to help you in Middle East when all you're country doing is fought that war to secure oil control. Your president was an absolute farce and you dragged your feet behind you like lame dog. You say that we are backing the Russian "options", but we have a choice? Our "President" to the revolution was, but only Russian puppet of the vile oppressors. Second, a leader who can not take initiative no leader at all. You can not blame the people for your problems when there is still time to help. You say that the reason why we do not get help because we criticize you, but you will be able to help these countries as Iraq and Iran, which literally call you nation Satan. Therefore, your argument does not stand Your hypocrisy is absolutely deafening Thank you much very, Ukraine is best country Petro P
Russia has right to Crimea

A few things here ... You speak of the west not coming to aid and help liberate? where was Ukraine when we were looking for allies to liberate other oppressed nations like the ones in the middle east? They were backing euro and Russian opinions about us being a tyrannical police state that can't keep to themselves. Then events like this happen and, after being bashed for operating outside our own nation too much, our people change their minds on how they view freedom and whether or not we should even aid countries like you. It was your criticisms and those of other nations that keep us from intervening. Everyone's scared to do anything but sanction over here now, and you're partially to blame.
Russia has right to Crimea

This whole trial began with gross violations of human rights and freedoms of the people of Ukraine. Russia totally ignores the fact that Ukraine is a separate nation, and they made an unprecedented aggression and a large Ukrainian people. The simple fact is that just because Russia was once the Soviet Union, Ukraine really cover, it does not give them any right to invade and only attempt at independent territory. If we follow this logic train, we want to give Germany the right to territory conquered during the Second World War, we would like to give Japan the right half of China, and we want to give Mexico the right to unite state Texas. We can not go on such a flawed concept. Russia must be taught that they can not act like spoiled child when they want, and they just can not invade a country without punishment. We are not only a great country Ukraine, but the whole world must stand for freedom of an independent state, which finds itself crushed by the heel of Russian oppressors. The simple fact is that Ukraine is an independent state and that Russia has done, is to invade my mother country Ukraine. Invasion independent state would be considered an act of war, but the West looks of abject ignorance. Our calls for help went unanswered ,our people are dying in streets, fighting for his brothers in war unleashed by greedy and disgusting Putin. If it was not Ukraine invaded, but California, would be much different answer. The fact that must understand, that only the differences between the people of Ukraine and the United States cultural and size, both states are as independent, and therefore, should be treated with same respects. Thank you much very, Ukraine is best country -Petro P
Adam, of the Old Testament, was most likely a hermaphrodite.

There probably was no need for genitalia and if there was a need for genitalia there was definitely not a need for vaginas since vaginas only exist to have penises in them and babies come out of them. Supposedly part of the design when a rib was ripped out of the chest and covered in dirt and dust until a woman was born. To be fair odds are that women were crafted around men so vaginas were made around the concept of phallasusus.
Scariest animatronic in the Fnaf games

My opponent has forfeited the 1st round, immediately sending his/her argument down the drain. I must now provide definitions for my argument: Scary-causing fright :alarming Startling-causing momentary fright, surprise, or astonishment Since I have no argument to refute, I shall propose one of my own: Golden Freddy from Five Nights at Freddy's 2 is the scariest animatronic for various reasons: -He only has one ear, which makes for a creepy and disturbing appearance. -He is unpredictable, so the audience will automatically be startled, causing a scare factor. -He is a hallucination, and therefore, he is able to manipulate your vision and possibly scare you to the point where you would get a heart attack or faint. Assuming he IS a hallucination, he is *scary* enough to cause heart attacks or the process of brief deoxygenation and passing out. If he isn't, then he would have to be a poltergeist. In this case, he is a reality warper that can change his appearance to a giant head at will and can cause death. -He has no eyes in the 2nd game. This makes him look soulless and intimidating. On the other hand, Springtrap is NOT scary because: -He is a hopeless soul who cried out "help me" or "forgive me" in the hallways. And judging from the fact that there is no death screen, who even KNOWS if he kills you. -He is obviously ready to jumpscare you when he looks at you through the hallway entrance. -He isn't a hallucination and can't and can't warp reality, he is just a realistic human in a worn out suit. -He has eyes, so he looks realistic and serious rather than creepy and intimidating. Sources: 1] http://i.word.com... 2] http://i.word.com...
God's existence

God is omnipotent. God is also omnipresent. God is omnipresent which means God lacks the ability to leave a room. If God lacks the ability to leave a room then God doesn't have all powers (omnipotent) and if God is not omnipotent then God, isn't God. Let's say for a second that God isn't omnipresent, and God is omnipotent then that'd make sense. Right? No, because if God has every power, God would be able to create an object that cannot be lifted up, then God cannot lift it. Therefore God cannot be omnipotent, therefore God is not God. But okay, lets say God can lift this object, because God can do anything and everything, then God cannot create an object that cannot be lifted because God can lift it. Therefore God is not omnipotent and if God isn't omnipotent, then God isn't God. Now lets say God isn't omnipotent but God is omnipresent then, other than the fact that God cannot be God without being omnipotent, God would be a proton, a neutron, an electron, God would be a quark and a gluon. God would be all these things. But being all those things just makes God everything. God would have no ability to change what happens, God would lack the ability to see, smell, hear and sense, but, God would affect everyone's lives without being able to do anything, Being moved by others, but God would be everywhere. However, saying that God is what makes up an atom doesn't cover it. If God is everywhere, God should be in a vacuum, but there is nothing in a vacuum and without being omnipotent God cannot be in a vacuum. Therefore God cannot be omnipresent and if God is not omnipresent, then God is not God.
God's existence

I have not had room to say this before, but I also feel that everyone is entitled to their own belief. The way I meant to phrase what I said on math is that it isn't that God can't change the laws of math, it's that He won't. He never strays from His perfection. Again, God is like a third person omnipresent narrator that intervenes in the book, that book being us. Therefore, God is both inside AND outside of said hypothetical room, not one or the other. And before you say that violates the laws of physics, God is spiritual and divine, not physical. I do, in fact, believe that the universe is around 6,000 years old. The biblical evidence is clear in this, and when you do the math, it comes out to 6,000 years. However, my beliefs do not reflect the beliefs of the entire Christian church. Once again, I worded something wrong when talking about natural disasters. What I was trying to say is that disasters are not God punishing sins, they are a result of sin entering the world during the Fall. During Adam and Eve's time in the Garden of Eden, natural disasters didn't exist. When sin entered the world, that is when natural disasters began occurring. God would never destroy his Creation, as He promised Noah after the Flood. Actually, no. In Revelation, the same thing happens that you describe. When that happens in the Bible, it says that MORE people turn away from God, not LESS. Satin is able to convince people to worship him when that stuff happens. Besides, God has always spread His Word through servants, all the way back to biblical times. If He knew that just telling everyone He exists would work, He would have done it by now, instead of waiting over 5,000 years. Once again, I am trying to use the general consensus of the whole Christian faith to back up my argument, not my own views and beliefs.
God's existence

If God cannot change the laws of maths, surely that means God is not omnipotent. If God is not omnipotent doesn't that mean God is not God? Diverting for a second. I read the comment saying that if something is omnipresent then it is already outside of the room. Me saying it cannot leave a room was just an example. What I meant was that if something is omnipresent it cannot not be in the room. For instance if God exists, then God is in my room right now, but what I'm saying is that God can't leave my room, God will always be there, even if God left the room instantly God would be replaced by God's self. Therefore God can never not be in a place Back to the argument. Do you believe that the Earth (and possibly the universe) was created in 4000BC, even though scientists can date rocks back millions of years?You say that natural disasters are God punishing sins, but so many innocent people die, surely the new born children who die haven't committed sins. Have they? If God wanted to punish those who sin, wouldn't he judge them individually? Wouldn't he kill individuals for sinning supposed to whole countries? Starvation in Africa is affecting children who haven't sinned. Those affected are innocent people drinking poisonous water because they don't have access to clean water.I feel like if a booming voice announced it's self in a pool of clouds, cars started floating and buildings disintegrated and rebuilt themselves without anyone being injured would prove that God exists, I'd certainly believe that. If this happened all over the world simultaneously people would have to believe that God exists. I think if that happened everyone would convert to be a Christian and no one would sin again.Again, I don't mean to offend anyone with my comments and I believe everyone is entitled to their own belief
God's existence

So on the topic of you bringing up math (or maths in the UK). God cannot change the laws of math. God is the originator of mathematics, but he does not change them. He never errs from his Creation. Now, onto your questions, which are very good and us Christians have asked ourselves, might I add: 1) God does not intervene with human life before 4000 BC because according to our beliefs the world did not exist then. He does in fact intervene in life after 400 AD, these instances are just not documented in the Bible. Jesus also said in the Great Commission that he would return one day, in a Second Coming of Christ. There are multiple stories of miracles that could only have happened with divine intervention, including cases of tumors simply disappearing. 2) God is actually neither male nor female. God created gender, therefore God does not have a gender. The reason we call God our "Father" and use the pronoun "He" is because that is the way the Bible was translate by King James. Also, Jesus was male. There are cases in the Bible where God exhibits motherly qualities as well, which I won't list because lack of room in this page. 3) Interesting point you brought up. If a booming voice were to come out of the sky saying, "Hey everyone I still exist," would you believe it? I wouldn't either. Thus, he has his servants spread his Word instead. Much easier to have us tell it rather than have half of humanity go crazy. Then again, He (or She) has a plan, so we really don't know why. 4) What God was saying there was that he would not send a mass flood to destroy his Creation again. Floods do happen still, but not any on the massive scale that occurred in Noah's time. Thus, the Flood is the only one God would ever send. 5) Here's a good answer from http://www.gotquestions.org... . Basically, natural disasters are the result of sin. Natural disasters occur because sin entered the world during the Fall of Man. I'm out of space now, I'll be back next round!