BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Everybody Is Addicted

This definition of addiction was just sent to me by a friend who was watching the Dr. Phil Show. He's just got to provide an answer for everything. "Addictions are simply fast falls down the "down gradient". Everything in the universe is running down or being pushed up by that which is running down. The universe is like a shaken bottle of water. The water represents energy; the air, probability; the bottle itself, the limitation of impossibilities; and, the bubbles represent information. Matter is called "alpha code information". All information is trying to undifferentiate back into nonexistence. It's all laws of the universe; and, pursuit of the down gradient is the true will." Also, he sent me the analogue of that which shakes the bottle that there wasn't room for in his answer space. It has been printed in here several times, but, now is the time to repeat it. "The infinitesimal point nothingness, . , is rastered by time into timespace, U , which exerts its oneness in one direction, / , stirs closed circuitry, O , that all going the same way, vO^XvO^, clashes, a Big Bang, X , forcing confluency, = , of the differentiated back into nonexistence." Critics have criticized that the exertion of the oneness is equal on both sides. The answer to that is that as this manifestation happens the value of pi is going from zero to higher values, thereby leaving one side of each circuit more pressured than the other, thus, the circuit circulates. Also, the friction of the circuitry is from the Planck's volumes that compose everything. Nothing can be smaller than Planck's volume. Without this friction there would be no consciousness. Differentiation causes consciousness. That which is differentiated enough is fully conscious; and, that from which things are differentiated is thereby differentiated, and thus energy is eternally conscious. This process of creation occurs in the infinite dimensions of the universe every Planck's time, causing energy to be eternally conscious. If we were energy we would never sleep. We are only information, and thus we are capable of losing consciousness, and even becoming nonexistent. These facts are consequences of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Everybody Is Addicted

Wouldn't work. My heart was stopped for an hour (the world's record is three hours; probably another Cro Magnon like me), and my brain regenerated. And, it would leave me with tell tale witch marks. Some people think a wooden stake through the heart would work; others a silver bullet; but, it would take nothing less that a 38. My brains would have to be totally scattered apart in smithereens. But, we have no Second Amendment. Many are going to wish we had.
Resolved: The death penalty should be legalized.

"The torture is inhumane and also performed while concious." Murderers are inhumane towards victims and perform torture while their victims are awake, so what's the difference? Prison makes them suffer longer in a poor environment. "Innocence Argument" To apply a death penalty, the crime must be investigated throughly. There have only been a few cases of wrong death penalty. I do not agree with death penalty myself, I just wanted to debate it.
Resolved: The death penalty should be legalized.

The Death Penalty should be legalized as it lowers criminal rate, increases national security, and protects citizens. It lowers criminal rate, and murder rate. Each execution stops 5 murders. (3) Criminal are afraid of committing the crimes punishable by death penalty (rape murder, murder, kidnap murder, genocide, terrorism, etc) so it will lower the overall crime rate as there are many crimes eligible for punishment by death. Murderers can be executed, so it's safer for travel or public. Executions, although not a good thing overall, can protect our country and people from getting killed or hurt. It protects citizens from possible murder, rape, terrorism attack, genocide, etc. Executions are not common and only used for crimes that have been stated to be punishable by execution. Those are my reasons of why death penalty should be legal.
IS THERE NEED TO REVITALIZE UNITED NATIONS

If the US feels that the United Nations is a burden for them, they must clearly tell the world. Fortunately many nations are capable of hosting and funding the United Nations today, compared to the time when the United Nations was established. Merely because the US is the major fund contributor, if the Americans expect the UN to tow their line and become another US department of State, they are sadly wrong. UN represents the aspirations of different nations and its aims are far wider than any single nation's global perspective. Nations vote on the basis of policies adopted by the US and not on the basis of funding given by US to the UN. American foreign policies often supported dictatorships, and plunged the world into tensions is well known. The Vietnam War, the Iraqi war and many other wars stand as examples of the American blunders that led to the loss lives of millions of people in those nations. The recent Iraqi war and the Middle East tensions led to the spiraling oil prices that affected poor and developing countries more than the United States. America preaches something and practices some other thing is the biggest problem why the nations are voting against the US in the UN. We must realize that US is as dependent on other nations as other nations depend on the US. Why not US give notice to the UN to quit the US shores and relocate? There is a need to reorganize the UN based on current realities and make it an effective in resolving disputes and making the world safer.
IS THERE NEED TO REVITALIZE UNITED NATIONS

I am not going to make an argument to not revitalize the UN. Rather my argument is to disband it altogether and kick it out of the United States. The UN has proved itself to be completely and utterly anti-American. It doesn't matter what the issue is, the UN works against the interests of America every chance it gets, even when it would be better for the third world country that they are trying to help for the UN to get out of the way. In this debate I'll show that the United Nations, up to and including the office of the Secretary General are corrupt, inefficient, inept and not worth the billions of dollars that the United States has given it. I'll show that the United States and the world would be much better off without this ineffectual organization. Thank you.
IS THERE NEED TO REVITALIZE UNITED NATIONS

UN as the global platform for nations to resolve issues and move together in the path of peace and progress has achieved little. Everyone must agree that United Nations is the best bet for world peace and progress. It has the dispute resolution mechanism in place but it is not effective because the permanent members made it ineffective. It is the funding part that makes the UN heavily rely on the US and such other countries. Why not each county allocate a percentage of their budget for the maintenance of world peace. A 1% budget allocation for United Nations across all the member nations makes it strong and effective. It is a price all the countries must pay whether poor or rich. All the disputes must be resolved only in the United Nations. Super powers must surrender all the Nuclear Weapons to the control of United Nations. The Security Council must be replaced by a governing council where all the major countries must be represented. UK,France, must be replaced by India and a country chosen by the Islamic world. Veto power must be replaced by majority. No member state can be permitted to join a dispute on either side and all the nations must adhere to the decisions that are binding. Where unrest exists such nations must be brought under the UN control till the situation returns to normal. Then only we can avoid Iraq or middle east like situations.
Barry Bonds is the greatest baseball player of all time

Barry Bonds is the greatest home run hitter of all time!! Yes there are people that will say he cheated, that he should have an asterisks beside his name in the home run record. So let me clarify those doubters. First of all steroids will not make you a better hitter, sure you might have more power and be able to drive the ball deeper for more homeruns but you still need to make contact with a ball coming in at 95+ MPH. Bonds is a career .298 hitter. he batted over .300 eleven times in his career. How many ball players can even bat .280 today? He is a 7 time MVP, nobody is even close to that. People will argue that he used steroids so he cheated, but how can you cheat when steroids were not illegal at the time in MLB?? Everybody was using them to perform better, yet out of all players that used them, he was the greatest. He crushed Mark McGwire's record of 70 home runs in a season and he set the record for most walk in a season. Pitchers were trembling at the fact of facing Bonds. Bonds holds the home run record at 73, thirteen more then Babe Ruth and twelve more then Maris. And no asterisks is needed as he belongs in the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown!!! Bonds is the greatest home run hitter and player in baseball.
are we currently living under the reign of what will be known in the future as the american empire

You bring up a lot of good points, but there are a few factors that you have overlooked. You have only focused on the military aspect of an empire and yet military is important, there are factor that are more important, which industry, trade and economy. The U.S. was once the world leader in industry, but it is obvious to say, that they are no longer. China now accounts for more global trade than anyone else, including the United States. China is also now the number one importer of oil in the world. China is even importing more oil from Saudi Arabia than the United States is. China now has an enormous amount of economic power globally. The .U.S accumulates $56,133.09. $2.42 billion debt per day. China owns more than 40% of all of our debt. This is causing the U.S. dollar to loose its value and the rest of the world knows it. China has already made a major currency agreement with the European Central Bank which will allow more trade and investment between the regions to be conducted in euros and yuan, without having to convert into another currency such as the U.S. dollar. Very similar agreements like this have been made: China and Germany China and Russia China and Brazil China and Australia China and Japan India and Japan Iran and Russia China and Chile China and the United Arab Emirates China, Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa This will not only lead to end .U,S dollar being the world currency, but it will cause the .U,S dollar to become worthless. This will cause the United State to go into economic collapse. No matter how many countries your military is deployed in or how powerful it is, it cant protect you from its own economic collapse. To sum everything up, the way it looks right now, it isn't the great American Empire that will be talked about in the future, but rater the Chinese Economic Empire.
Soccer is one of the most physically exerting sports that is currently being played.

Soccer, as most know is one of the most popular international sports in the world. It is vied as a lifestyle in many countries no matter the economic level. Soccer requires extreme amounts of conditioning. The large amounts of conditioning can at some points lead to injury, especially for younger people. When large amounts of conditioning, specifically running is required, injuries are more possible to happen. At the age of 14, I acquired a severe stress fracture while conditioning for the upcoming High School Season. I put off making a visit to the doctor until i could literally no longer walk. My heel was x rayed and we found that i had a severe case of severs disease. The is where the bone in your heel eventually turns to cartilage when you go through a major growth spurt. We saw large amounts of bone fracture across the heel and i had to wear a medical boot consistently from december through the end of march. All of this conditioning had been basically thrown away because I had injured my foot so badly. By the time I was out of the boot, the season was almost halfway through and there was no way i could return because i was again in horrible condition. These things occur quite frequently in younger people, especially when they are playing for a club or school. There are few, if any sports that are any more physically taxing than this, unless they are specifically running. I believe that people are fairly ignorant to the fact that soccer is an extremely hard sport to be in condition for. For all of the reasons above I believe that soccer is one of the most physically exerting sports that is currently being played. The format is constructive speech, rebuddle, and final focus. This speech is the constructive. Please give a serious reply and god examples. Thank you and good luck.
gangs

Thank you, bloodin, and the viewers for making this unusual debate possible. Unless my opponent clarifies, I will assume this is the proposition that I will be discrediting: "Gangs: why not?" What is even more bizarre than the proposition is my opponent's willingness to debate himself. Before I get to that, however, I will refute whatever fragments of argumentation I can find in his opening statements. REFUTATIONS I. "it shows the week and the strong". My opponent makes the claim that gang activity is an accurate measure of who is "weak" and who is "strong". He does not, however, provide any meaning to these words, nor evidence to support this claim, nor any reason at all to think this is a positive and practical thing in modern society. II. "you can have as much power as you need in your hands as long as you hustle and work for it" While I am all in favor of an honest day's work, I must object that having "as much power as you need" is anything to be venerated in this debate. Having immense power can, and will (as history as shown), lead to terrible human atrocities, such as genocide and war. III. "when a homie calls get strapped and get ready to roll!!" I urge my opponent to define "homie" and "roll" in the above statement. Otherwise, while I can provide no counter-argument, the argument itself is without substance and therefore should be dismissed. COUNTER-ARGUMENTS I. "when you join the game theres no going back when you join" As my opponent so articulately states, when you join the game, there is no going back (when you join). This must undeniably be seen as a negative consequence of gang activity, as it disallows members from ever returning to any normal or safe domestic life. II. The Question of Leagality Is gang activity illegal? Yes. Gang activity accounts for a large percentage of crimes in the US; In 2006, 56 percent of all murders in Los Angeles were found to be gang-related [1]. How the perpetuation of violent crimes can ever be seen in a positive light has not been disclosed to us in my opponent's arguments, certainly not on the unsubstantiated basis of "why not". In conclusion, I find my reasoning to fully support my position "why not gangs". I wish my opponent the absolute best of luck the merciful gods can bestow upon him for the duration of the debate. Not that he needs it, of course. Source: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
gangs

why not have gangs it shows the week and the strong. it shows respect and power. you can be treated like a god if you treat your learder right. you can have as much power as you need in your hands as long as you hustle and work for it. yes there is a down side to it tho. there is a life limit when you join the game theres no going back when you join only going back is in a ditch or cut up. you have to rep your color no matter what.! so when a homie calls get strapped and get ready to roll!!
The individual does not have free will, everything is pre-determined.

"In terms of force in the psychological realm this depends on the individual. The information he gathered throughout his entire life has been given measure in force. Such things as habits, will power, emotions and the strength it holds are created by external means. For example, his DNA, how/where he has been raised."In your scenerio, that may be the case that the individual is only acting on what is stronger. However, I would call things like that an extreme case. When one is for example in no extreme situations, such as watching TV or outside playing, things are up to there will to do anything. It is completely up to whatever they want to do, like bounce a ball or throw it somewhere. Also I would say that would you are describing about nuture and nature in psychology is mostly influence on ones own freewill as opposed to determining factors. "This idea is strongly fought because in everyday life it feels so real the concept of free will. Accepting this will not affect your life in a negative way, at least not with me. It can only give you a wider understanding in why people to the things they do without realising it."Even though I agree here for the most part, just because accepting it has no negative effects or even has positive. I should have no baring on whether it is correct or not. Atomic bombs have a huge negative effect, but that doesn't mean the science is wrong.
The individual does not have free will, everything is pre-determined.

Everything in life can be measured. Whereas the discovery in science prove cause and effect is not random, but calculated. For the reason I can't hit through walls is because my force isn't strong enough to overcome that wall. Within this physical realm is where also the idea is created for the psychological realm. Beyond that the same principal arrives that if the force is not strong enough you can't breakthrough it. Back to the shared example stated by me is that the wall representing anger and the punch is reason (for example). In the end it comes down to which is stronger. In terms of force in the psychological realm this depends on the individual. The information he gathered throughout his entire life has been given measure in force. Such things as habits, will power, emotions and the strength it holds are created by external means. For example, his DNA, how/where he has been raised. Within the subconscious this battle is fought where the situation is providing the information and the path that's the strongest/fittest will be the one the individual follows. There is no choice just the path of enforced direction. This idea is strongly fought because in everyday life it feels so real the concept of free will. Accepting this will not affect your life in a negative way, at least not with me. It can only give you a wider understanding in why people to the things they do without realising it. Don't misinterpret that you can't change yourself because everything is pre-determined. The change is also a force and if it's strong enough you can break though and change yourself.
The individual does not have free will, everything is pre-determined.

Individual has free willEverything is not determine beforehand Free will as I understand it, is property of acting at ones own discretion, not out of necessity, or what has already been destined.This goes along with predetermination. Within psychology the subconcious is the area of an individuals consciousness that is not focally active.In your example of enforced ideas, the individual is conciously aware that a female is pushing his buttons and his moral code tells him not to hit her, but his anger instinct would ultimately tell him to hit her. In this situation I think this shows freewill because the individual can choose to either follow moral information he has found or his anger. Predetermination:The problem I have with predetermination is that it requires that some sort of force that doesn't seem to be demonstrated has determined all actions that all time has been set out and no other routes are possible.
The individual does not have free will, everything is pre-determined.

I will start by saying that in the everyday routine or the non-extreme cases by your definition are still an act of enforcement. Being able to do certain things like watching television is possible because it exists. Were it not then you wouldn't be able to enter that path of watching TV. So by that there are limited possibilities and in that sense you are already being forced to go certain routes. Now wouldn't it exist it would have been replaced with another activity, but also one from the possibilities present. Now comes the question which one do you pick? Do you think that it is done at random or is it also the same as the extreme cases. You go that certain path of watching television because it is a habit. Also, a force as I stated for the entering of the path of enforced direction. It's called a patron that is created over time and the trigger is for example boredom and the response is watching television (depending on the whereabouts of your location). For example, you are at home and you are the type of person that is lazy and by that is confounded to that space. Your options have just become even more limited to television or laptop. There could be more, but let's keep it at those two options. At that moment which one would you pick? You know that at two o'clock in the afternoon certain Tv channels aren't fun to watch, so you go and fill your time on the laptop. As you see that you do not do things at random, but according to at that moment the information you possess and how you are structure as a person to think. Other people might first go and watch television to find out that there is nothing fun to watch and then go on their laptop. So even in the non extreme cases the information you possess is enforcing you. I state my apology it is not what I meant. I stated it to give reason to the enforcement you might feel and disbelieve. It is the idea that is feels so real that you entered the path of enforced direction to debate this topic.
The Existence of God is Possible

Allow me to elaborate on what I previously meant. "However, I am arguing that God, under the broadly accepted Christian conception of God, could in theory use his omnipotence to alter the outcome of events that can occur." That was exactly what I argued against in my rebuttal. The Christian does not believe that God even could in theory use his omnipotence to change the outcome of events (future). As I elaborate below, this is because (On an A-theory of time) changing the future entails a logical contradiction. Thus, the ability to change the future is the ability to actualize a contradiction, a pseudotask that is not a power delegated under omnipotence. "The future is comprised of any possible future events. Given this understanding, altering what may happen does not entail any sort of a logical contradiction. For example, a freefalling apple will hit the ground unless someone catches it. And if it could be known that the apple would in fact hit the ground any other outcomes would be impossible. This is why my opponent's argument breaks down. A logical contradiction only occurs when God is claimed to be both omnipotent and omniscient." This simply begs the question by presupposing a scenario that is valid only given God's non-existence. My opponent defines the future as indeterminate, which is simply false given the Christian conception of God. In order for his reductio to work, therefore, my opponent must presuppose a determinate future. Once we see that the future is determinate given the existence of God, any alleged contradiction between the divine attributes vanishes. If the future were determinate (Which must be assumed as part of his reductio), then it is logically impossible to change it. [1] ______ [1]. Given thus understanding of the future, changing the future entails that a future event that is not a future event (P & ~P) which breaks the law of non-contradiction ~(P & ~P)