BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
With a few exceptions, spousal support should not be required as a result of divorce.

"Spousal support is typically ordered when one spouse has been making more money than the other for the last few years leading up to the divorce." This is true. Let's say for example, in this marriage, there is one spouse who was leading a mediocre life, making a fair amount of money, not rich or poor, but just plain old middle class. Then they marry someone who has had a better job than them and then the marriage went on for a few years or even decades, and then all of the sudden, the divorce happens. Bam, the one spouse is back to the old life, whereas they were used to all that luxury for years, then all of the sudden it was taken from them in amost an instant. "Here in California and in many states it is simply the norm. The law provides that each spouse is entitled to approximately 50% of the total household income as is was reported in the two years prior to divorce-- regardless of who earned the greater percentage." Good example. Take for example like my above argument. Say not even middle class, but if the person was lower class. They have been in the marriage for a few years and that is the only life they know about how to live seeing as that is how they have been living for so long. I ask you as the pro to please explain to me this. What if the circumstances were that the person from the lower class really could not survive because they have been used to the life they have been leading, and therefore struggle even more after the divorce to live. Even if for example they were just a little bit better off than when they started. Yes, maybe they are entitled to 50% of everything, in the marriage, but what if that would not be enough? "Great. I have no problem with that. But were either made up couples who were equal contributors, or occurred in sates where the law did not required spousal support." Could you please elaborate more on this statement? I'm sorry, but I am not completely clear as to what your point is on this statement. "That reason in my state is simply because the law says so. That's it. And I believe it is the same in many other state. The law itself was no doubt based on some sort of faulty reasoning if you are searching for 'some reason behind the law.' " OK, this may be so. But how exactly do you know that they did not simply start saying that was the law because of so many cases previously of divorces gone bad and it turned out to be more often than not that in that instance, one person was left off worse than what they started because the other spouse decided to be a total butt-head and not give the other fair share of what they were supposed to have. Every law have a reasoning behind it, or else it would have not been made.
With a few exceptions, spousal support should not be required as a result of divorce.

Spousal support is typically ordered when one spouse has been making more money than the other for the last few years leading up to the divorce. "courts would not order one spouse to pay the other for no reason at all, unless you get a judge that is either biast, sexest, or is just crazy" Here in California and in many states it is simply the norm. The law provides that each spouse is entitled to approximately 50% of the total household income as is was reported in the two years prior to divorce-- regardless of who earned the greater percentage. "I know for a fact about 5 divorced couples that do not have to pay any money except for their children involved." Great. I have no problem with that. But were either made up couples who were equal contributors, or occured in sates where the law did not required spousal support. "So basically what I am saying here is that there is some reason behind the money being exchanged to the ex spouse." That reason in my state is simply because the law says so. That's it. And I believe it is the same in many other state. The law itself was no doubt based on some sort of faulty reasoning if you are searching for "some reason behind the law."
With a few exceptions, spousal support should not be required as a result of divorce.

One thing I think you have to think about is that the courts would not order one spouse to pay the other for no reason at all, unless you get a judge that is either biast, sexest, or is just crazy. But how do you specifically know the circumstances as to why this is going on? Not every divorced couple has to pay it though. I know for a fact about 5 divorced couples that do not have to pay any money except for their children involved. But as it were, not every aspect of someone's life is known, so you do not know the reason most divorced couples are having to pay this extra money. Some of the money involved is payed to actually go through the divorce because as we all know, nothing in this world is free. There is money involved to have a divorce, but like I said, the courts do not say anything to the effect of, "Well, you were married and now you are divorced so you have to pay money to your ex spouse simply because I said so." So basically what I am saying here is that there is some reason behind the money being exchanged to the ex spouse. They are not exchanging money just for the heck of it, but for a reason that you do not know.
With a few exceptions, spousal support should not be required as a result of divorce.

When a man and woman divorce many states require the primary income earner to continue to fork over monthly payments to the ex spouse above and beyond what is required for child support. This is wrong and should not be allowed to continue accept under very specific circumstances. When a couple gets divorced, it is time for each party to begin taking care of him/her self. If anything, a thank you is in order from the spouse who has been been the fortunate enough to receive a free ride over the course of a marriage-- not a demand for more money. I realize there are some cases where a spouse sacrificed his/her time, money and personal career development to allow the other spouse to further his/her career, and those situations should warrant a commensurate amount of spousal support for a calculated length of time. There may also be other situations I have not considered which would warrant spousal support. But having been married to someone should not be cause alone for requiring spousal support when the relationship is over.
The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian.

Space is already such a big issue in food production, that meat production accounts for 70% of all Amazon deforestation." Yes meat production takes up a lot of space, but so would plant crop. To form a complete diet you would need to eat ( besides nutritional supplements ) a large amount of vegetables, fruits, and other plant crops. The shear space needed would be equivalent if not higher than animal crop. "I find it very hard to believe that there would be any difference in the amount of staff needed for growing crops compared with cattle. The meat production industry could be re-modeled to produce plant based foods over hundreds of years, meaning no jobs would be lost." From experience on farms, plant crop requires less man power than animal crop to harvest and maintain. During the time it took to treat the soil, and change production we would lose the harvest time and some ranch hand jobs. Also during this time we would also lose the food the farms provided us. "Iron and protein are actually very easy to find in a vegetarian diet, and its hardly likely that an all-controlling supplements industry would spring up since their products wouldn't really be needed any more than they already are." How can you say they wouldn't be needed more? You said, "As far as I know any nutrients needed by the human body to function properly can be found in a vegetarian diet, and any harder to find vitamins or minerals can be bought as supplements." If you need supplements for "hard to find vitamins and minerals" then the sales would go up. These companies would have the power of controlling a product people required for a healthy life. "it doesn't seem like a better world, it just doesn't seem very likely." It seems more likely than a perfect world where we didn't eat meat, we didn't need added supplements, and corporations didn't abuse a products demand to make money.
The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian.

"I agree that the population is growing, but eating meat would adapt if the population got " Too " big for the current food market" Yes, the market will adapt as the population increases, but there's only so much a market can adapt before it starts to run out of raw material. Space is already such a big issue in food production, that meat production accounts for 70% of all amazon deforestation. Whats more, land cleared for intensive cattle farming uses up vast amounts of water every day, far more water than if the same space of land was used for arable farming. Food manufacture is one of the most water intensive activities in the world and it takes far less water to produce plants than meat. "I understand you don't mean a change overnight but even if the idea caught on it would harm the economy through job-loss and closing meat production facilities." I find it very hard to believe that there would be any difference in the amount of staff needed for growing crops compared with cattle. The meat production industry could be re-modelled to produce plant based foods over hundreds of years, meaning no jobs would be lost. "Iron and protein tablets would become like oil" Iron and protein are actually very easy to find in a vegetarian diet, and its hardly likely that an all-controlling supplements industry would spring up since their products wouldn't really be needed any more than they already are. So, in answer to your question; no, it doesn't seem like a better world, it just doesn't seem very likely.
The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian.

I agree that the population is growing, but eating meat would adapt if the population got " Too " big for the current food market. We would do what humans do whenever they can't make enough of a product for the demand. Improve the different aspects in that products life cycle so it meets the demand. A total meat industry reform is much more sensible than changing not only the way the whole world eats but our culture. I understand you don't mean a change overnight but even if the idea caught on it would harm the economy through job-loss and closing meat production facilities. If somehow the world did change over to vegetarianism it would lead to an over dependence on nutritional supplements. Iron and protein tablets would become like oil. Pharmaceutical companies would become large empires who charge people ridiculous amounts of money for something they need to survive. Does that seem like a better world to you?
The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian.

I accept that eating meat may have been a necessary part of our evolution as a species, but I think that as time passes we will have to stop eating meat. It is far more efficient to use land to grow plants to eat, rather than growing plants to feed to animals who then go to slaughter after months/years of rearing. The earths population is increasing at a rate faster than ever, and soon there won't be enough land left to rear animals on. I am not a vegetarian personally, but I have my own personal rules on what I will and won't eat, which are another story and unrelated to this debate! I don't believe eating vegetables will make people smarter or stronger, but I definitely don't think it can make you any weaker or less intelligent. As far as I know any nutrients needed by the human body to function properly can be found in a vegetarian diet, and any harder to find vitamins or minerals can be bought as supplements. Therefore I can't see any negative effects of vegetarianism, and I can see a couple of positives. I'm not saying people should just give up meat overnight, people have favourite meals they wouldn't want to give up. I am saying I find it hard to imagine a future, 1000 years from now, where people still eat meat on the scale they do today. I think meat will eventually be at best a hard to come by rarity, seen by most as a bizarre barbarism of the past.
The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian.

Progressive? How would abstaining from eating meat improve our race. Vegetarianism doesn't improve positive traits that make a race strong. It doesn't make people smarter, or stronger, more sympathetic. Nor does it decrease negative traits such as illiteracy, poor judgment, or disease like cancer. Eating meat is actually considered a reason why we evolved the way we did. The hunt gave us cunning and the nutrients allowed our mothers to wean us sooner, which lead to population growth. I not only disagree with this statement but agree to the contrary. Vegetarianism would be a negative on our race and it's evolution. This is one of my sources http://www.sciencedaily.com...
History is the best temporal thing to learn of

Maybe I just didn't see your definition of temporal, but my understanding was that the thing you are learning is somehow abstract like math, or ancient history, or in my case geography. I've been applying it in the sense that if you knew abstract concepts of geography it would be far more beneficial than knowing abstract history.In this round, you are just talking about memories. According to your argument, If you remember what you did five minutes ago, you are learning history. But I say that people are inventive, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they're hungry and come up with a new way to resolve that hunger. I'll hope that you have watched 50 first dates and can see where I'm going with this. The girl woke up every morning repeated the same actions over and over in new and inventive ways. The video that was made for her outlined where she was, and why she was there, so that even with a blank memory, she could survive with minimal disorientation.In this round you equate knowing history to having memory, which is something entirely different altogether. We can't even to begin to learn anything temporally if we don't have memory of our own actions. Having a memory is a necessity for learning temporally. Even animals have memories, but we weren't originally talking about how important it is for us to remember. We are talking about learning new things; maybe even learning things that we haven't experienced. Learning is the keyword in this debate. Without memory, learning is impossible. Whether it is history, or geography, having a memory is key factor that indicates the ability to learn. I agree that we must learn. I just believe as you agree that abstract geography is a far better temporal thing to learn than abstract history.
History is the best temporal thing to learn of

In what way can we advance through history? Time is moving forward. We must advance through the future. If you know anything and everything that happened in the past, can you be sure of where it happened without geography.Time is linear, geography is multidimensional. Anything that is multidimensional must be created through geography. (the knee bone is connected to the shin bone)Knowing history as told by our third grade teachers is to have knowledge without wisdom. If we continue to do the things that we know are successful, we will not be considered insane, but we will be considered cultured.The human understanding of Geo-spatial relationships is what allowed Columbus to discover the Americas. It is what allowed men to land on the moon. It is what will allow men to walk on mars.Knowing geography is what keeps us from crapping on ourselves. Otherwise you wouldn't know your a44 from a hole in the ground. The first thing a baby learns is their ability to manipulate their environment. Geography is obviously a better temporal thing to learn because it matters to survival of our species.
History is the best temporal thing to learn of

History- the best temporal thing to learn of.This is because of several reasons- first, the fact that without history we cannot advance.For me to advance this point, I must define what i mean by history.Definition in question: History-everything and anything that happened in the past. As told by our third grade teachers, we must learn from our mistakes. That is the only way we (as in the human race) gain any moral knowledge, or most knowledge of any value anywise. Is we do not learn that hitting one's self with a concrete block, will hurt, we will do it over and over again, expecting a different result.Ah. And that brings me to my next point, for which I need to define Insanity.Insanity- doing the same action over and over again, expecting a different result. Because we cannot learn from mistakes (or for that manner, succeses) we will repeat our mistakes, expecting to advance.In that case, it will mean we are insane. In fact, we fit the definition perfectly.In the case that we do succeed, we would not be able to replicate it. We could never learn from our succeses and perform the process again, because it would not be in our minds. It would simply be something that we did, like take a crap or read a book. Except, we gained nothing but what the action produced.I urge you to vote that history is the most important temporal thing one can learn of.
History is the best temporal thing to learn of

What a neat topic. I'll take Geography as the best temporal thing to learn of for the win. History sounds very important, but the nature of where things are and where we are in relation to the things around means a great deal more to the day to day functionings of life. Imagine that you are hungry and you don't know where the store is to buy food, or you don't know the migration patterns of the buffalo, what happens then? Do you wait for history to repeat itself, because if you do, you'll die of starvation.If you've learned enough geography and you walk into a new town, you can likely find your way to the town center and find assistance, probably even a job if you are really good at knowing where things are. God specifically warns us against moving things without the knowledge of others. He doesn't warn us about history. being able to manipulate the world around us is a kind of like a super power. Knowing and expecting to know where things are gives us comfort and security. Obviously we would still progress with out knowing history. Look at animals. What history do they know? They know where to find feeding grounds and watering holes. Geography is obviously a better temporal subject to learn.
morality=right+intent

It is an honor to debate you. The biggest problem with these unsubstantiated assertions is the fact that you are *completely* ignoring the possibility of a middle ground. There can be neutral sides of morality. To comprehend my argument better I must substantially provide definitions. Good-"Possessing or displaying moral virtue" Bad-"Morally depraved; wicked" Neutral-"Having no strongly marked or positive characteristics or features" Now that you are aware of these definitions, I will get to my argument. Take for example someone who is uncommitted to a moral act. What if someone is just standing there and doing nothing. He isn't doing the right thing, because standing there is not beneficial in most situations. But he is most likely not doing any "wrong" either. So his morally neutral behavior isn't "doing the wrong thing", but is technically "not doing the wrong thing". You are assuming that *everything* that isn't morally wrong is morally right, which as I have shown, is false. Your argument is that morality is "not doing the wrong thing", when actually morality is "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. " Morality is a subjective measurement on your behavior. Not all morality is "good", as your claim suggests. This is the equivalent of saying that the word height translates to tall, when it is really a measurement (this time it's objective) of how tall or short you are. And as for your last claim. If there were no more morally good acts to be committed, the neutral side would become the "good". You could easily compare morally bad acts to morally neutral acts. Being neutral would be considered "good" since a) it would be the only thing to compare "bad" to. b) People would believe that the absence of bad behavior is better than bad behavior. I have refuted all of your claims, and I rest my case.
The Claim "Something Cannot Come From Nothing" is Sufficiently Supported

"t is okay but what I am saying is that no matter what you will keep thinking nothing is something..."How so? If nothing exists, then I think nothing exists. Not something. "...when in reality it's all an illusion because nothing and everything are just states of being."If nothing exists, then no states exist. "Just understand the truth of Nihilism and you will know it. trust me.Peace."This doesn't sufficiently address the issue.
The Claim "Something Cannot Come From Nothing" is Sufficiently Supported

"If you go from state A to state B (B being existent and A being non-existent) it would still require A to be something."I agree, because a "state" is something. However, this is a straw-man argument on my opponent's behalf because I'm not talking about a "state", I'm talking about "nothing". Ayway, if "nothing" exists, then this means no logical and metaphysical laws exist. Either way, we are left with no reason for why "nothing" would adhere to any logical or metaphysical principles. To say "something cannot come from nothing" is to put a restriction on "nothing". However, there is no reason why "nothing" must adhere to any restrictions. There is no garantee that any restrictions can exist if "nothing" does, because if "nothing" exists, then neither do "restrictions". For these reasons, I think it's clear that the claim "something cannot come from nothing" is not sufficiently supported.
The Claim "Something Cannot Come From Nothing" is Sufficiently Supported

I will be arguing against my opponent's notion that the metaphysical principle ex nihilo nihil fit is sufficiently supported. Ex nihilo nihil fit is the metaphysical principle, or position, that something cannot come from nothing. Note, how I will not be arguing in favor of the notion that something can come nothing, I will just be arguing against the notion that ex nihilo nihil fit has been justified by my opponent, as I believe that nobody can properly justify it (but that's a different story). "Nothing" in this sense, is not a quantum vaccum, a simple a void, or empty space, but aboslutely nothing. In this round (Round 1), my opponent will present his/ her case for why ex nihilo nihil fit is justified, while I am forced to waste this round explaing all of this. However, in the last round (round 4), my opponent sill simply put :"No argument will be posted here, as agreed"While I get the last word.I believe the burden of proof is on the one making the claim that ex nihilo nihil fit necessarily holds, and is justified. It is my burden, to show my opponent's claims to do not hold up. Good luck :)
Trucks

It may be true that Mercede's quality is superior to Ram's, but the cummins engine is more energy efieceint, it produces more energy per gallon of fuel used. That being said it does have worse fuel economy, around 16 MPG. The newer 6.7 liter Cummins engines are more refined than the 5.9 liter one so they are quiet. Also, the modern Cummins are clean, they use diesel exhaust fluid to reduce emmisions of green house gases.
Autocorrect

Faster? You want faster? I think we should have better typing and spelling education so we can actually type without mistakes. No need for autocorrect. Imagine that you never learn addition and every time you guess and get the wrong answer a robot replaces it with a different wrong answer. I think there is a connection to autocorrect. If you really want an autocorrect system, That's okay. What you need for it is preferences where you can tell it not to correct certain things and also not correct things to something that you know would be offensive to someone.