BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tom Brady has never won a Super Bowl only off of his arm and needs a kicker to win for him.

Tom Brady has scored 1 or more touchdowns in all of the Superbowls he went to. Vinateiri connected with three critical field goals, but it was only because Tom Brady drove them down the field each time so that Vinateiri had a good shot at it. In Tom Brady's 2nd Superbowl, Tom Brady threw for 354 yards and 3 touchdowns in a 32-28 win. Tom Brady's arm scored more than half of the points in that superbowl victory. They only needed a Field goal to win, so the play calling on the coaching side just called plays that would kill the clock and drive down the field to Vinateiri's range. If they needed a touchdown than the play calling would have been done differently. Win by 1 or win by 100 what is the difference? Vinateiri did not drive down that field and set himself up Tom Brady did that. The 3rd Superbowl Tom Brady scored more than half the team's points again in a 24-21 win with 2 critical touchdowns. This Superbowl did not end with a game winning field goal like the last 2 Superbowls. Tom Brady threw a critical touchdown late in the game after the Eagles came back in the 3rd quarter. What ended this game was Mcnabb's failure to drive down the field to set up his very own Field Goal attempt. I don't understand how my opponent can make this claim, when two out of three of Tom Brady's superbowl victories, Tom Brady's arm scored more than half of the team's total points. Last time I checked Vinateiri only made 1 FG in every game, Tom Brady had to score Touchdowns. As for the argument against Brady for Super Bowl 42... Tom Brady left Eli Manning with 2 and somewhat minutes to drive down the field for a touchdown... as we all know Eli Manning did do that, leaving Tom Brady with 39 seconds to score a FG or Touchdown. I am sorry PRO, but asking any Quarterback to drive 50+ yards in 39 seconds is nearly impossible, considering the fact that in 2007 the NY giants had the number 1 ranked defense in the NFL, and with the Giants constantly running a Prevent defense for the last 39 seconds, Tom Brady had no chance. No Quarterback is dependent on a kicker to win games for them, kickers are dependent on the QB to make sure they are not kicking way past their means, for example a 50+ yarder. In the game against the Eagles, Vinateiri had to kick a 37 yard FG, which is not difficult, or very far for any professional kicker. Tom Brady was the one who drove the patriots all the way down to the 20 to set up Vinateiri.
If you believe in the god of the bible, Then you have no free will, None

"Making mincemeat of you is sooooo dimwitted dullard snot meat" dude u don't even know how to make insults "neon blood on your apron" Lol "stupid, Ignorant, Dumpster trash, Unknowing, Beef baby barbecue blundering big black blank boy, Imbecilic as they come. " Okay and youre the most ignorant simple minded f*ck i've ever had the misfortune of coming into contact on this site "toxic meow mix cow chirp but that cabbage batbrain that you have is far too much of a groin pull to figure it out. " shut up already dumb a*ss don't act like u never said what the hell before No i don't know everything and i never said i know everything i do my research and i call out the facts when i see them My insults suck? You're one to talk "They are not as fallen down and stripped of everything as you. " no hun i have my stuff together my ducks are in a row im gucci over here so don't worry about me how about you worry about you """That"s precisely why you are extremely unintelligent and uneducated. " says you" and others. Duh. " - SAYS YOU. I bet others say you're dumb as a box of rocks So just because i merely make typos, That means i don't have any genuine friends or loved ones? Do u know how stupid you sound. Everybody makes mistakes, We are all humans we are not perfect. "You are also a compulsive liar. Unless you do one thing. I bet I know what that one thing is IF YOU ARE TRUTHFUL. Go on tell me whsat it is. " You can think im lying all u want to. Who am i to give a fat flying f*ck what the hell you think, You think im gonna bend over backwards to prove anything to you? I don't have to prove sh-t to you "Such as existing in constant horrific pain that you would not be able to stand under ANY circumstance. " thats with any human being no one should ever go through that. If u were using that as in insult, Thats pretty dumb. I'm sorry for all of those things that happened to you. Must explain why you're such a rude sarcastic a*sshole on here, But i have gone through things as well such as losing family members, Losing best friend and things like that, You aren't the only one.
If you believe in the god of the bible, Then you have no free will, None

how is god a terrorist? "I believe in god because he exists. " That"s even worse! - Noim not contradicting myself"You should be proud of yourself like garlic onion beer deodorant beer belly relaxant golden turkey awards. " What the hell? If you don't believe god exists why waste your time reading the whole bible"Humanity, Care, Love, Kindness, Peace, Harmony etc etc etc has NOTHING to do with YOUR god. " but it does. FAITH = EVIDENCE"Indeed that"s clearly why you have no genuine friends or loved ones" - Yes I do. Clearly YOU don't. Ur a weird old decrepit old man making youtube videos in a dark room. You look extremely disturbing. So by that, Looks like ur gonna die before i do with your stupid ego "That"s precisely why you are extremely unintelligent and uneducated. " says youdon't act like you've never made typos in your life. Everyone makes mistakes. This is debate. Org not school/collegeYou still didnt answer my question: I have a doctoral degree and graduated from College and im an Executive making over $150, 000 a year. What about you? Do you do the same thing? I'll wait. I have free will to say this to you: Fvck you, A sshole
If you believe in the god of the bible, Then you have no free will, None

You said "yet" do I smell some doubt? You may actually believe god exists? I will rephrase myself, I believe in god because he exists. "Awe the poor poopy doll thinks I"m going to a fictitious hell if I do not believe in a fake jesus? " Oh please. Keep your same mind frame and god will never forgive your transgressions. You're the one with the shallow mind here. I am ignoring this utter nonsense you are spewing in the name of jesus. Don't talk crap about my holy bible. ll. God does have something to do with the debate if you hate him so much then say why? How can you hate something that (according to you) doesnt exist? lll. I can read im just disputing your utter nonsense. By reading everything you are saying I am losing all hope in humanity. How DARE you talk about Gods name in vain Now for your questions. 1. God exists. 2. I believe because he exists. 3. Those are the reasons, God did create everything. 4. That is precisely how it has something to do with free will since he creates the masses. i do have evidence. Faith is the truth all you have to do is take a few deep breaths and look deep within and you shall find your faith 1. Faith = evidence 2. These quotes? Oh please God does not love conflict could you say such a thing "Our universe contains too much order for our existence to have been created out of chaos. " - look into your faith i say we are complex beyond out imaginations i say we because aren't you a human as well? Oh trust me honey ive looked at myself numerous of times i know myself perhaps you need to take a good long look in the mirror because thee things you are saying right now is unforgivable. God is a hideous terror? Oh please. We are not all born as atheists how the hell are u going to tell someone else how they were born? Yes god is love/created everything IS valid. i am not contradicting myself im merely explaning the things that yes appear to be opposite but are linked theres good and evil things that do happen. And no i do have intelligence and education thank you, I have a doctoral degree and graduated from College and im an Executive making over $150, 000 a year. What about you? Do you do the same thing? I'll wait. So yea u better be real careful how u speak about me because im the wrong b-tch to disrespect. Yea i don't give a F if this debate is over because im getting about sick of you too with your misguided beliefs. Jesus DID exist. Im not watching those videos because they all are wrong
obama promotes socialism

Well. I hadn't heard that Senator Biden said that, but it seems like, in the best case scenaro a gaffe, or in the worst case scenario, the Obama people have lowered the ceiling from $250,000 to $150,000. I guess the only claim I can make is that we haven't seen anything saying he would actually raise taxes for those people in the $150,000 dollar to $250,000 dollar range. This could be his way of adapting to the decline of the economy. Instead of not giving them a tax cut, he's just not giving them anything (but no tax increase either). Also, I understand your disagreement with Adam Smith but you realize he wrote The Wealth of Nations? He is the philosophical godfather of capitalism and is certifiably not a socialist. Your comment on welfare is heard a lot, indeed we could have a whole debate about the alleged abuses of welfare. Without diving into it, I think that it isn't abused enough to warrant hardcore cuts, at least for that reason. I suppose my conclusion and overall philosophy is one of anti ideology. Obviously no one is ideology-less, but we have to examine ideas in the context of the overall discussion, the economics of them, statistics, histories, and how it will affect people. Everyone has driving principals. I imagine you think we should make the American society better. Using these principals as a guiding force and not converting them to an ideology, I think is the best way to go about policy. By merely calling Senator Obama a socialist, we haven't really accomplished anything in the way of discourse or policy advancement.
obama promotes socialism

All I can tell you is how i feel at this point, I have no factual evidence to back it up You clearly address that point about people using their ideological view on how things should work when trying to make policies, and I guess that's the way I think. Ill claim ignorance, I'm a stubborn German and proud of it, I stick to what I believe/emotions lol. Having that said I do not agree with Adam Smith, if I understand him right, the rich should pay more for simply being successful, because the way one acquires a lavish home (luxury) is by working hard day in and day out. That should not be punished with hire taxes, one could be better off cutting profit, by any means possible, to avoid this increase in tax if he/she owns a small business or one should not purchase luxury items. I truly fear that people will take advantage of this, much as welfare is taken advantage of. I must also add that I'm not opposed to welfare, it is an ingenious safety net for people who do not abuse it, unlike I see in the city I live in. Before this debate is over I would like to know what your take is on Joe Biden's comment he made on local television, that is $150,000 and up will be taxed. If you don't know what I am referring to go to http://news.aol.com..., I don't know what to make of it, because $150,000 is not an above average salary in places like California or Pennsylvania, like it is here in Texas. If this tax were to be enacted, then the states should be able to set the salary or profit bar on what profit minimum is going to be taxed. Well thank you for this debate, I'm going to my girlfriends now, maybe she can console me on my defeat..lol I'm just kidding, thank you though for the and effort you obviously put into this debate. P.S. go in to politics if your not already lol
obama promotes socialism

First i would like to say that I have never done this before, sorry if I'm not up to par. The main topic to be focused on is the taxation of the rich ($250,00 and higher) that Senator Obama has proposed. The "spreading of the wealth" idea he proposed to Joe the plumber is not only unjust but wrong, to tax the ones that have worked hard to achieve their place in society and give the "poor" which has not received a definition yet. Now even more disturbing Joe Biden, on a local news channel, state that any one making over $150,00 will receive a tax increase. That 14% tax would go to the lower income families thus decreasing the size of the middle class. If this is not socialism (ownership over the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole), the redistribution of capital, then one would wonder what is.
obama promotes socialism

My opponent only made the claim that Senator Obama promotes socialism. Generally it is my understanding that people making a claim would lay out a set of premises for an opposer to, well, oppose. Without a firm set of premises to refute, I guess I will preempt one of your presumed premises and attempt to refute that. You may be talking about the progressive income tax. For some reason, some on the far right believe that when people making more money pay a higher income tax percentage than people who make less money. There are two refutations to this policy being socialist. The first, and weaker one, is that the United States has had a progressive tax for over four decades. That would mean that the Congressional majorities that authorized it over the years (including several Republican Senates and over a decade of Republican Houses) are also socialist. The stronger argument is the philosophical argument that a progressive tax was outlined by Adam Smith himself. As we can see here; "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." Secondly, the inverse of a progressive tax, a flat tax, would be regressive. Let's use an example here. We have a family of four who has an adjusted gross income of $30,000 a year and another family that makes $250,000 a year. If we assign a 14% flat income tax on both of them, the $4,200 that the lower income family would lose has a larger effect on the economic stability than the $35,000 the wealthier family would lose. Both families would have less money, but the wealthy would already have more money to spend than the poorer family, and thus, the flat tax would have a regressive effect on the poorer family. I'm not sure if I did a good enough job understanding what my opponent's argument will be, but at the very least I attempted to show that a progressive tax is hardly a socialist policy.
King Solomon had an ring with a seal and resisted harmful spirits.

Seal of Solomon:The idea of Solomon owning a seal ring is based of Islamic Medieval tradition. It also became a form of occult practice in the West. The Star has been know to be in the shape of a hexagon or pentagram sometimes as well. As you can see here down below. How the Legend of Solomon's Ring Developed: the Seal of Solomon was developed primarily by medieval Arabic writers that thought the ring or seal was given by God to King Solomon. The tale developed from Greek Mythology, Primarly from Herodatus and Polycartes. The legend had been circulating around since the early 1st century in the Talmud and from Josephus.First Conclusion: There is not enough good evidence or reasons for thinking Solomon had a seal. A ring? Maybe Sources: [1] BaiL93;awi, ii. 187; M88;abri, "Annales," ed. De Goeje, i. 592 et seq.). [2] Jump up^ Lane, "Arabian Nights" (1859; 1883), note 93 to chapter 20.
King Solomon had an ring with a seal and resisted harmful spirits.

The program Legendquest reported an adventure of an explorer who looked for King Solomon's legendary ring. * The program delved into the legends surrounding King Solomon, his ring, and the spiritual forces he dealt with. Yet nowhere in the Bible does it say Solomon even wore a ring, or that he cast out demons. * Solomon's Ring, . http://www.syfy.com...Rules1. In this debate I will support the proposition in the title that Solomon had a signet ring and resisted dark forces or demons. 2. The contender will argue against the claim.3.
King Solomon had an ring with a seal and resisted harmful spirits.

It is interesting my opponent brought up the “Testament of Solomon”. The Testament of Solomon is a pseudepigrapha or forgery. Most, if not all of the manuscripts in which the text now exists all date from the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. Some of the later accretions are written in late Byzantine Greek, and can be identified with relative ease. There is at least one early assertion in this forgery from the 4th century A.D. [1]While I do agree with my opponent’s use of 1st Samuel, 2nd Chronicles, I disagree with my opponent’s use of the Wisdom of Solomon. The Wisdom of Solomon or Book of Wisdom, is a deuterocanonical book and forgery. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia says: "at the present day, it is freely admitted that Solomon is not the writer of the Book of Wisdom, which has been ascribed to him because its author, through a literary fiction, speaks as if he were the Son of David." Scholars believe that the book represents the most literary post-classical Greek language found in the Septuagint, having been written during the Jewish Hellenistic period (the 2nd or 1st century BC).[2].Conclusion:Did Solomon have a ring? Yes, Did Solomon have a ring and seal to cast out demons? Probably not. Did Solomon battle demons? As we can see, there are no good reasons for thinking that to be true since most of it is from legend and fictional material that was forged. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate with me, and remember to vote fairly:DSources:[1]http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk... [2] The Catholic Encyclopedia
A Robot Uprising would be more disasterous to humanity than a Zombie Apocalypse

I will define a zombie as, "a creature whose mental capacity has been destroyed. or who's body has been re-animated after death" My basic stance, is that a "Zombie (Apocalypse)" would be more disastrous to (Humanity) than a "Robot (Uprising)" as the framer my opponent has the right to set the rules, so i will end my greeting and definitions here.
A Robot Uprising would be more disasterous to humanity than a Zombie Apocalypse

This is the second round of Freeman's debate tournament. Since my opponent is busy for a while, we decided to do a less serious debate and go with this. First I thank Darth_Grievous_42, who did this debate before and was the inspiration for this round. Obviously I also thank Hello-Orange for accepting and wish him luck. First some clarifications before we get started. 1. I defend humanoid, generally intelligent robots. The justification is that in order to rebel, robots have to realize they should destroy the human race (for whatever reason) and that rebelling is in their best interest . In other words, I defend the kind similar to those shown in I Robot, shown here. . http://theshaywest.com... 2. Going off I Robot, my bots are susceptible to damage. Guns can destroy limbs rather easily, but hand-to-hand is not viable unless its with a blunt object. 3. My opponent can use his own interpretation of zombies as long as they fit the general stereotype (like, don't give them super speed. ) Some of these main attributes are that they turn victims into more zombies rather than killing them, don't feel pain, and only "die" from their head being destroyed. 4. No mention of nuclear weapons, as this takes out both our forces rather easily. 5. We both have equal BoP. Con muct give arguments for zombies and against bots, and vice versa for me. 6. Round 1 is for intros, etc. I don't think anything else needs to be cleared up. I'm sure that neither myself nor Hello-Orange plan on using unfair interpretations to win.
True artificial intelligence is improbable.

=Knowledge And Skills Are Acquired In Humans Because of Programmed Rules(DNA, Brain Chemistry)= The opponent says computers can not be programmed to acquire knowledge and skills, but only to apply a preprogrammed set of rules and calculations. However, he ignores that even in humans acquiring knowledge and skills does follow a preprogrammed set of rules and calculations. Everything that exists has a scientific explanation, even if not yet discovered. As human acquisition of knowledge and skills exists it must have a scientific explanation. Scientists have already gone to work mapping this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NMDA_Receptor This receptor is used in learning and memory. Humans use this among other systems to acquire knowledge and skills. How these receptors and the chemicals that bind to them work depends on the physics of these molecules, which were manufactured and put in place by the body according to the genetic code in the DNA, which is analogous to the programming in artificial intelligence. Since we know that the process of acquiring knowledge and skills in humans is ultimately based on a set of rules and programming there's no reason to think that when programming becomes sophisticated enough that we would be unable to recreate that same process in artificial intelligence. Furthermore science is already showing promise in progressing towards the creation of "Self-improving machines". See this interesting YouTube video featuring Steve Omohundro at Stanford University. http://www.youtube.com... =The Chinese Room Argument= The Chinese Room is interestingly parallel to those subconscious things people do that are simply embedded in our DNA. Think about "hunches" we have about people or our reflexes. We never had to learn how to do these things. Our "programming" tells us to when we respond to certain stimuli, just like a robot's programming tells it to do things when we put in stimuli. Animals in turn make more some would argue all their decisions on instinct, on their internal programming. We evolved to where we were programmed to understand how to acquire new knowledge and skills on our own. The same can happen to artificial intelligence as we become smarter in how to design their programming.
True artificial intelligence is improbable.

Hello DDO!OPENINGI will of course be arguing that 'true artificial intelligence' is improbable.To avoid semantics, I will try to describe exactly what I mean by true artificial intelligence:I agree with the definition of AI as provided by Google..."The theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages."However, I am of the belief that computers cannot be programmed to acquire knowledge and skills, but only apply a pre-programmed set of rules and calculations, however vast that code may be. That is not true intelligence, which allows new ideas to evolve from previously known information.To begin, let me explain the Chinese Room argument; Suppose a man is in a room, secretly being given English instructions on how to manipulate Chinese characters. To anyone outside the room, it would appear the man can understand these characters, but it is only a deception.AI works in much the same way. When we play a modern video game, it would appear that the computer 'knows' what to do; a computer program might easily outclass you in a game of Chess. However, that same program could not simply be put into a robotic claw and expected to apply. New code would have to be written to operate the claw, translate a camera image into data and apply that chess program. There is no reason to believe a computer can be programmed to create new and logical code to apply to new operations.