BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Superior Photographer

The bright blue fountain is striking, but I think that overall the photo lacks interest. A good way to add interest to a photo is to include a cute girl in bikini. Unfortunately that's not always possible. In this case, a compromise would be to put the water on in the fountain. The stream would break the horizon line and give the fountain more of an "inviting oasis" aura.The halo to the left of the fountain is distracting. The fountain color could be adjusted while avoiding that by using the magic wand tool in Photoshop, then using enhance > Lighting > Levels.My next photo is a panorama of Monterey Bay, CA http://quickshotartist.com... The photo has an angle of view of about 150 degrees, accomplished using a rotating lens camera that scans film wrapped around a drum. This technology is rapidly going out of style in favor of digital technology. Film is wretched stuff overall, not only expensive and grainy but a magnet for dust. However, film does have a good dynamic range and the single image scan neatly captures motion like that of the soaring bird. There is a limitation of cylindrical projection panoramas. The only way to make the horizon straight is to put in dead center, which in turn is a problem for composition. It helps to have something of interest going on in the sky. I have put in birds (or moving them) with Photoshop, but this one was natural. The details in panoramas are small, so the photo is best viewed large.
The Superior Photographer

There was something bothering me about it and after rotating it, the photo was so much better. As for your photo of a night queen, the photo is excellent. I can't really find anything wrong with it other than it being slightly underexposed. But I am not sure that raising the brightness will fix that. Other than that I really like the colors and the composition of your last photo. Link for my next photo: . http://www.debate.org... This is a fountain at one of the beaches I usually go to in New York. I really wanted to make the bold blue stand out and become isolated which I believe was accomplished here. It shows the summer feel of New York beaches and I made it none-busy by just focusing on the fountain and blurring out the whole background. I used a few filters in photoshop to make that dominate blue stand out more.
The Superior Photographer

City folks are not aware that cows have an evil eye. My opponent's last photo proves they do -- a clever shot. Notice the line of vertical barn structures in the background. The one on the right edge is nearly vertical, and they tilt more and more across the image to the left. That's mostly a function of the wide angle producing perspective distortion. I'm inclined in such case to make sure the one in the middle is vertical by rotating the image and using the "correct camera distortion" filter in Photoshop. As it is, the tilt is distracting from the subject, the cow. Stepping back or not cropping so tightly would put the cow at the one-third one-third point for better composition.Many good photos are the result of (a) being in the right place at the right time, (b) having a camera, and (c) not screwing up the opportunity. Here is an example of how that works: http://www.flickr.com... This is a night blooming cereus a.k.a a night queen. The flowers all bloom on the same night and whither by noon. At least they are supposed to all bloom at the same night, although, possibly due to management problems, it takes a few nights to get them all. The photo was taken at around 9 or 10 AM on an October day. They were wilted by noon. I usually strive to also show the plant, which is like a leafy cactus hedge in this case, and to provide some scale to show the size of the flower. In this case I gave up on that. The flower is intricate enough to sustain interest on its own. The flower is large, perhaps six inches across. Backlight works well for light-colored flowers. The photo was taken on the Big Island of Hawaii, on the side of Ali'i Drive in Kailua-Kona. They grow like weeds around there.
CookyFuzzy is better than Blastphamous HD.

First off, I would like to say that CookyFuzzy shouldn't be compared to the likes of Blastphamous HD. CookyFuzzy should be compared to people like Charmx. Blastphamous should be compared to Jinx, Tyrone Magnus or CJ SO COOL. On the views, who in the right of mind thinks family-friendly content is more popular? PewDiePie swears, heck, I think most of YouTube swears. Also, all of them are reaction channels. REACTION CHANNELS. Most reaction channels are usually unfunny and add no reaction. Like, you don't go to the reaction video to see the actual video. I obviously want to see the "reactions". Conclusion: They both suck.
CookyFuzzy is better than Blastphamous HD.

Unlike BHD, CookyFuzzy barely has any reference to derogatory or sexual terms on his channel and unlike BHD, CookyFuzzy is not sexist. He does not joke about a woman's breasts, anus, or vaginal area, or a man's penis or anus, making it suitable for the whole family. CookyFuzzy should have more subscribers than BHD. BHD has 2 million subscribers while CookyFuzzy only has 2,000. It also shows you how sexist our society is.
Noah's flood of genesis is a historic event

I have no further "new" evidence, just a few clarifications and ending statements to make. The time frame in which this event took/did not take place is when civilization started to emerge. What was there before civilization? People just roamed the Earth looking for food, just like normal animals, so until civilization emerged, homo sapiens-sapiens where just another mammal senselessly roaming the Earth. Until we had power over ourselves and could understand the relationship between each other and the relationship between ourselves and a superior force (God), we were still animals. With that being said the agricultural world of Mesopotamia was the only world in which humans existed, in a human state. Sure, homo sapiens-sapiens could have inhabited other parts of the world when this flood hit, but that doesn't change anything. If you actually read the Bible passage, the whole moral of the story was that God was punishing the "HUMANS" for disobeying him. Because the "HUMANS" disobeyed God, He wiped them out and destroyed their entire "HUMAN" world (except Noah). If you are saying there are people who survived the flood living in some other continent, all you are showing is that they had not yet evolved in to "HUMANS". If God where a doctor and the Earth was a patient with cancer, then it would only be logical to remove the cancer, why would you amputate all their limbs when there is nothing wrong? The only evidence you are showing is that Mesopotamia is the only place that "HUMANS" have developed during the distinguished time period. If you were hoping someone could show you some "scientific" evidence that the whole world, pole to pole, was covered with water at one point, then I am sorry to disappoint you. When being literal you have to not allow yourself to be blind to some obvious things. If this was a local flood, isn't God breaking his promise by the local floods? I'm not talking about just some little agricultural village being flooded, I'm talking about all of Mesopotamia and possibly parts of Asia Minor, that's a little bigger than "local". Why did Noah have to build an ark and gather two of every land creature? Again, that whole area of Mesopotamia is a little larger than a few square miles. Look at where Kish and Ur where, then look at where Modern day Iran is, that's a bit of distance to swim, no less carry a pair of each animal living in the region. Throughout this debate you have provided no evidence, except the lack there of. All the evidence you used to try to disprove the fact of the flood was either saying something doesn't add up, or completely irrelevant. You have shown no evidence or a reason (assuming there was no flood) that people would decide to tell a story of a flood that wiped out all humans other than Noah. All you have stated is your personal opinion on this subject. If people decide to believe my side, that the agricultural world of Mesopotamia was wiped out, I have evidence supporting the theory. Your only rebuttal are questions that I have answered multiple times.
Noah's flood of genesis is a historic event

Thank you yet again for your opening arguments. My opponent has still failed to provide any evidence that a world-wide flood was a historical event. Remember, the Burden of Proof is shared. Since this is the last round, I'm just going to summarize and give a few breif statements.I understand the world--most of it, was undiscovered. However, there are some serious question beggings: If this was a local flood, isn't God breaking his promise by the local floods? Why did Noah have to build an ark and gather two of every land creature? " It might be scientifically impossible for a world wide flood,..."It seems like my opponent has conceded the fact that it is impossible for a world wide flood thus I have won this debate. Remember that I am debating a literal world-wide flood. That was my definition and that is how I am arguing. Sure it is possible for a local flood, but that is not super natural. I would like to thank you for this debate and urge a CON vote. My opponent shown no support or evidence for a literal world-wide flood (as I defined such) and I have thus won this debate.
Noah's flood of genesis is a historic event

I was hoping you would provide evidence of a global flood. C1) The Flood is Scientifically ImpossibleMy opponent has not quite refuted anything I have stated other than stating the fact that the world has gone through many phases. "The world has gone through change and was different during the time of the flood. .. " This begs the question, "How was the world different? " My opponent has not given any evidence that the flood is scientifically possible, rather he is just supporting my claims. I have provided many reasons why the flood is impossible. I would like for my opponent to rebute it. Here is a summary: Scientific impossibilities. Tree ring dating Tree rings have been factored long before and after the flood without any interruption of a catastrophe of the flood's magnitude. The flood did not leave traces on the sea floor. The polar caps are impossible if a global flood really did occur C2) The flood is historically impossible. This, I feel, is my strongest assertion of the two claims. Remember that we are reading a literal account of Genesis thus puting the time frame of the flood in a time frame of 100 years or so. The Pentetuch was certainly not written by Moses [1]. "The passage states that it lasted 40 days and 40 nights. " Actually, there is another verse that states that the waters "rose for another 150 days" and the ark landed on the "mountains of Ararat" more than a year later. ""The term 'World wide flood' is an exaggeration. ' I believe that this is impossible. Allow me to ask you these questions; If it was just a local flood, why did Noah have to relocate into the ark and bring two of every creature? Wouldn't God be breaking his promise each time there is a local flood? Remember: This is a LITERAL interpretation and the historical evidence does not add up, thus I extend those arguments. My opponent not only needs to refute my arguments, but also show how it is possible and give EVIDENCE for a world wide flood being a historical event. ___________________________________________________________________________________[1] For information of this, please see the book Rejection of Pascal's Wager available online at www. rejectionofpascalswager. net
Noah's flood of genesis is a historic event

Contention 1: The Flood is Scientifically Impossible A world wide flood is scientifically possible, The world has gone through many phases, one phases was Pangiea, when all of the world's land mass was connected together. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only change forms, that's exactly what happened between the Earth's earliest phase and our current phase of having 7 different contents. The point being, it is certain that the land was lower than it is currently, the Rocky and Himalaya mountain ranges did not always exist, when where formed over thousands and thousands of years. With the land being lower, it was more venerable to flooding, of any scale. The world has gone through change and was different during the time of the flood then it in its current state. Contention 2: A World-wide food is historically impossible. The old testament of the bible is not a first person account of what happened. Most of the stories in the old testament where written by Moses, who was told them by people who head it from the ancestors who passed it down generation to generation. It was more than a few generations from the time of Moses and the time of Noah. The dates that where told, along with many other details, have been skewed due to the lack of written records. We also are not completely sure of the procurement of time they used, they could be talking about a year as something different than 365 days, most people where farmers and kept track of time by knowing the differences between harvest and planting season. In the passage with the description of the arch, they use the measurement, "quibit", whats a quibit? Also, you said that the flood lasted about a year, the passage states that it lasted 40 days and 40 nights. The term "world wide flood" is also a possible exaggeration or misconception, North America was founded long after the times of the old testament, point being, it is likely that Noah did not know of a world much further that of the Mesopotamian region, where is is likely from. Even if the dates are correct and Egypt was established, it was isolated from most of the world, so not many civilizations where not aware of it, as they did not come in contact until later. When old testament was written, they Jews had just left Egypt and where wondering the desert for the Holy Land, They, Moses and the Jews, well knew that Egypt existed, but again, Noah's persaption of the world is being looked at through the eyes of someone living in the modern world, and not someone who lived in the time of early agriculture development, which is most likely the time Noah was living in. Most of the "facts" in the bible are not up-to-date with modern standers, because it took place in a time when knowledge and intellectual studies did not happen, day to day life was getting enough food to survive.
Noah's flood of genesis is a historic event

Remember we are using a literal reading of Genesis. Contention 1: The Flood is Scientifically Impossible C1.1) Tree ring dating Since we are getting a literal reading of the texts, we know for a fact that the fllood would have occured 2500-2300 BCE [1]. However, this produces a major problem. It is a fact that there are tree ring datings that go well beyond 10,000 years and have produced 0 evidence of a catastrophie of that time [2]. C1.2) The flood did not leave traces on the sea floor. According to Genesis, the flood lasted for about 1 year. This should be reconizable in the sea floor due to the following: 1. An uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detrius; 2. Different grain size distribution in the sediment; 3. Shif in oxygen isotope ratios; 4. Massive extinction; and 5. Many other characteristics. The problem, of course, is that none of those things that are predicted in a global flood have shown up [2]. C1.3) The polar caps are impossible if a global flood really did occur. Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to fload the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, Greenland would not regrow under modern climatic conditions [2]. Contention 2: A World-wide food is historically impossible. Since we are taking a literal reading of Genesis, we are also taking a literal reading of the genealogies. Therefore, if we can prove that cultures existed before and after 2500-2300 BCE uninterrupted, we can prove that Noah's flood is a myth. The Egyptian Pyramids were built about 2560 BCE [6], apparently, the Egyptians were not affected by this "global" flood. Neither was Assyria [4], China [5], or Sumer. Just a sidebar note, here is an interesting quote from Answers In Genesis: "The placing of a catastrophic global flood in the year 2304 BC means that all civilizations discovered by archaeology must fit into the last 4,285 years. " [8] Obviously all civilizations do not fit into the last 4,285 years; nor do scientific evidence. | CONCLUSION | My opponent has agreed that we are taking a literal reading. Therefore, the historical and scientific evidence is sufficent to prove that a "world-wide" flood never occurd. I could go into math details, but honestly do not feel like it. I await my opponent's opening arguments as to why Noah's flood is a world-wide is a historical event. ___________ Sources 1. . http://www.creationtips.com...... 2. . http://www.talkorigins.org...... 3. . http://ga.water.usgs.gov......; 4. . http://tinyurl.com......; 5. . http://tinyurl.com......; 6. . http://www.authenticwonders.com......;(Egyptian Pyramid Source) 7. . http://ancienthistory.about.com......; 8. . http://tinyurl.com......;
Noah's flood of genesis is a historic event

DEFINITIONNoah's Flood: An "event" in history that was a world wide flood. This flood covered the entire earth in water. This debate is through a literal reading of Genesis. Historical event: An event that actually happened.BURDEN OF PROOFIt is my burden to show how a world wide flood like Noah would be impossible and historically unlikely. My opponent needs to prove it happened and it occurred.8000 characters1 month voting period3 days to argueRound 1 is just for acceptance.
Affirmative Action

True, people are obligated to preserve their rights otherwise they don't have a right to complain that they don't have them, and no one is going to go fill up said morons ditch because its not safe, they would leave that to him. Though if it is something beyond their capability, they should receive help as this would be the case in any other situation, such as someone falling into a ditch not because of himself, but because some other buffoon dug a ditch. And though issue would get fixed by themselves in a free market system, who's going to ensure that the free market remains free? The government ob course, because the government is there to protect the rights of the people, which includes property and liberty, as ell as the pursuit of property, i.e. a free market is a human right, which the government must preserve.
Affirmative Action

Yes, but f someone digs a huge ditch in their backyard and falls in and dies, the police don't investigate why no one was there to stop it, they just file a report that some buffoon died of falling in ditch because he was so dumb. And though you may help your neighbor get out of his house, you wouldn't bother if he could get out himself would you not? And this is true, most poverty in America is caused by government, but in a free market system most of these issues will just fix themselves.
Affirmative Action

Someone arguing for affirmative action would say that its no skin of their back that they don' have any stuff, but dying is a little different. Also, if my neighbor was locked in his house I would call the locksmith and try to get him out. I personally believe that most poverty in America is because of government idiocy and overreaching, so, if their poverty is a result of government, it is only fair that the government should clean up their own mess and provide for these people until they can get jobs.
Affirmative Action

Yes, everyone is entitled to life, but they are required to maintain it, not us, it's like saying everyone is entitled to property, but because they can't take care of their stuff we should have to pay for them to get new stuff. The right to life, liberty, and property establishes that these rights shall not be infringed, not that we have to give it to them, if someone locks them self in their house, thus they do not have liberty at that moment, up to them to get out, not us, we are only required not to lock them in our house.
Affirmative Action

Last I checked I am against affirmative action but I will argue for it just for the sake of covering the topic. Anyway, one of the biggest arguments for affirmative action is that we need programs to help the poor because everyone is entitled to life, which means food, water, and shelter, and saying "you have the right to live but not food or water" is contradictory. Thus we should give them money to take care of themselves.
9/11 is a conspiracy.

"Immediately after the attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation started PENTTBOM, the largest criminal inquiry in the history of the United States. At its height, more than half of the FBI's agents worked on the investigation and followed a half-million leads.[1] The FBI concluded that there was "clear and irrefutable" evidence linking al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks.[2]"[3] [1] http://www.fbi.gov... [2] http://web.archive.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
9/11 is a conspiracy.

My opponent has yet to provide an understandable position. He believes that there is a conspiracy. However, all he has done thus far is attack my point. Again, there is no clear position from my opponent. I have provided a valid and credible source. My opponent wants to prove that the FBI is unreliable. I would respectfully point out that the law enforcement agencies are generally the most reliable, especially in matters of national security. Go to the airport. Any airport. Respect is due to the men and women with the badge. For my side, the evidence points to a through investigation by law enforcement regarding the September 11th attacks.