BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Existence of God

The pyramids: How do you know modern science methods of dating such as carbon dating works? It does not work. This has been proved time and time again. Where does John's gospel claim that Y'shua was born in Galilee? Please explain how The gospel of Luke disagrees with the historical records of today about the census. The familiar features of "Jesus legend": I believe you are talking about the Egyptian Horus, no? The information that the poet and amateur Egyptologist Gerald Massey (the one that made the "Jesus" and horus connection) Is very faulty using unsure evidence and HIGHLY assumed ideas based on pictures, hieroglyphics, and bits and parts of information from different books of the dead. He was specifically trying to make the connection because of his bias opinion. Joseph being the husband of Mary in the genealogy was a translation error. In Aramaic the word used means guardian, and can mean father or husband. This Joseph included in the genealogy was Mary's father, not husband. The name Joseph was very common and it would be no strange thing for both her father and husband to be named Joseph. I haven't read the "gospel of Thomas." "nothing is not really nothing" ?? really. If space is really something than I am not talking about space as nothing. I mean nothing; the absence of all space and matter as we know it. This kind of nothing can't turn into something. Quantum physics and mechanics is full of unproven theories, not facts. they are just a bunch of fun ideas. Don't use quantum to try to prove anything cause it isn't fact. The universe is expanding because as the Scriptures say, God is stretching out the heavens. God did not wait 4 billion years to create anything, he did it in six days. And according to the Scriptures, the universe takes the geocentric model, which places the earth at the center of the universe. Trees and plants are not living by the definition I gave using animate. Toughing on the big bang.... When a spinning object breaks apart in a friction-less environment, the particles all spin in the same direction. This is called the conservation of angular momentum. Explain to me why Venus, Uranus, and possibly Pluto spin backwards? Also, 6 of the 63 moons spin backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. Why? Notice how I have used simple laws of science and observed facts to support my claims, while you have had to revert to theories, ideas, and scientific "possibilities" to support your claims. Do you think you could come up with a good argument using laws of science and factual evidence rather than quantum mechanic theories, ideas, and "possibilities?"
Foreign Languages Should Be Taught To Kids In Elementary School

Your argument is completely off topic and irrelevant. The debate topic was whether it SHOULD be required not if it could be required. And I do believe there are many government imposed things on state regulations for schools. The government comes up with what they want in all schools ( common core, NCLB, "healthier" lunches, etc.) and then they offer the state money. Yeah, some states refuse the money so that they can dictate what is to be taught in their schools, but most are desperate for the money and take it at any cost. So your argument had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand but hopefully next round you can come up with something relative to the topic.
Foreign Languages Should Be Taught To Kids In Elementary School

http://imgur.com... This is where my opponent messes up. First of all, education is a province of the state, not the government. The state dictates what we learn; so having the US government require all schools in the US to teach a foreign language would be a violation of the constitution. Proof, if you happen to want any: According to amendment 10 of the bill of rights: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Nowhere on the constitution does it state education is within the federal government's power boundaries. This is therefore a right of the state.
Foreign Languages Should Be Taught To Kids In Elementary School

1. I don't completely understand your first question so if you could rephrase it that would be much appreciated. 2. Yes it is America. The reason it is America is because in America we don't really prioritize foreign language learning because we speak English and many Americans believe that everyone else in the world speaks English or will learn it so that they can speak with them. At school we've even been told that other countries require English in their schools so us "English speaking Americans" have no need to learn another language. 3. Elementary school is just the age that it should start. Around pre-k through Grade 1 should be the required starting times. But foreign language should be a required subject throughout every year of a person's schooling. 4. I briefly addressed your last question in my prior answer but if you have any more questions or anything you can message me.
Foreign Languages Should Be Taught To Kids In Elementary School

May I ask a few questions first, to clarify? -Since you are arguing foreign languages should be taught to kids in elementary school, are you saying it should be changed for everyone, or only some schools and not others? -Is it safe to assume the nation is america, and english is not considered a foreign language? -Is Elementary School K-5 or K-6? -What grade would kids start learning? 6/7 years is quite a difference.
Foreign Languages Should Be Taught To Kids In Elementary School

Why is foreign language learning only available starting in middle school? Sometimes it's only available at high school! And even then it's considered a "privilege". Students should be exposed to a new language as young as possible! Younger children are able to pick up on languages quicker and with more ease than older students. And learning another language makes it easier to learn even more languages. Therefore I wish to argue pro on making foreign language part of the elementary school curriculum.
Gravity is good

"1. Droughts could happen because water can't hit the soil or crops" If we built containers to hold the water and the soil/crops together, we wouldn't have such a problem. Besides, why do you assume that the water would immediately fly away upon a removal of gravity? Also, tsunamis already occur because of gravity. An absence of gravity would result in no destructive tsunamis, which is a GOOD thing. "2. Air will go into space" If we build a dome around the Earth, we solve that problem, too. "3. Who would go into a jungle and fall into a hole? " Jungle explorers who want to find new things. "4. Why do you say 'Sweet! '? If water will be floating, it will be hard to drink" Floating water is cool. Also, if water is floating, we can just poke a straw into the air and drink. Happy days! My opponent has not responded to any of my scenarios, with the exception of a partial questioning of the first one, and has thus conceded the other three cases where gravity is bad. Something that is bad isn't good, by definition, so gravity isn't good.
Gravity is good

Gravity - the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth, the moon, or a planet for bodies at or near its surface (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) My opponent claims that gravity is good. However, there are many situations in which gravity is bad. SITUATION 1: You're trekking through the jungle, when you fall into a hole. It is ten feet deep, and you are only five feet tall. The walls of the hole are horribly slimy. The only thing that is actually keeping you from escaping is... gravity! A few minutes later, it starts to rain, making the walls even more slimy, and making you feel miserable, and making the ground soften, so that you are sinking even further into the ground. What is to blame for rain? Gravity! SITUATION 2: Two thugs kidnap you, and throw you into a jail cell. The ceiling is open. One could fairly easily get out if there wasn't a very powerful force pulling them to the ground. SITUATION 3: You're flying in an airplane, when a guy grabs you and throws you out the door. Gravity pulls you straight down. You die. "There is a direct relationship between gravitational acceleration and the downwards weight force experienced by objects on Earth (see Conversion between weight and mass). However, other factors such as the rotation of the Earth also contribute to the net acceleration and are usually considered part of Earth's gravity." http://en.wikipedia.org... SITUATION 4: You're walking along in your merry way, when a guy who was thrown out of a plane collides into you. The force is so strong that it kills you. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Now to counter your arguments: "1. Without gravity, you would be floating in the air" That is not a bad thing. "2. Water will be floating" Sweet! "3. You can not touch the ground" Who even wants to touch the ground? "4. It will be hard to eat" Humans have adapted to use gravity to eat. If there was no gravity, humans would have a digestive system that did not even require gravity to eat. Besides, astronauts have been able to eat in space, no problem. In conclusion, none of the things that my opponent has pointed out actually make a lack of gravity bad. If a lack of gravity is not bad, one can conclude that gravity is not good.
Gravity is good

"1. How are you even going to build a dome without gravity?" You do it the same way you did it with gravity, except in a cooler fashion. "2. You would be in a faraway galaxy because the sun's gravity can't pull you near the sun." You give no reason for a faraway galaxy to be bad. Last I checked, "Star Wars" was pretty good. "3. Tsunamis can make more jobs by hiring people to rebuild the building." Tsunamis destroy more jobs--and lives--than they fix. "4. Water is H2O, which maybe can desolve in air." Maybe, maybe not. I'll guess not. "5. I have now responded to more than 1 questioning." And yet, you have failed to respond to ALL of my "questionings." "Gravity is good" Because there are many situations in which a lack of gravity is preferable to gravity, and my opponent has failed to fully support any reasons as to why gravity would be good, gravity is bad. Vote CON. Thank you for this humorous debate.
Milk should be poured before cereal.

I strongly disagree with your argument, sparing the fact that milk splashes everywhere. Which leads me to my next point, if you pour the cereal in after the milk, the cereal will bounce on the milk and the milk will splash as a result. Also, it's a cereal BOWL, not a cup, bowls are respectively for solids over liquids, therefore solids have the honor of going first. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day, you mustn't treat it like a trivial matter.
Milk should be poured before cereal.

That's where you're wrong. Castration is defined as the removal of the penis. But as everyone knows milk is stored in the balls! And so Thy ox still could produce milk! On your "Jesus never walked on milk" argument, well milk is 85-95% water! As mentioned on this site; https://thestir.cafemom.com... Meaning therefor Jesus really did walk on 85-95% of milk!
Milk should be poured before cereal.

I have some actually have some FACTUAL... REAL WORLD... EVIDENCE! A study in Ethiopia was conducted in 2017 to see the effects on people who poured their milk in before their cereal, as oppose to their cereal before their millk. The Results were... Inconclusive...?! Oh wait the study cite's a quote on quote "lack of food" in Ethiopia for the reason they were unable to complete the study. Huh. But the math behind the argument still cheks out, as Jesus prophesised in Al Quran 21:33 "He who shaltif pour thy milk of thy ox before thy wheat thou shalt of sowed, SHALL BE STONED!!!
Public humiliation in town square

My opponent states that my opening argument infers that all public humiliation is bodily harm. My argument doesn't mention this at all, so this attack is a matter of opinion and it falls. He also states that public humiliation that does not inflict bodily harm is against the law. However, I clearly stated that this falls under cruel and unusual punishment.' My opponent failed to address this so therefore it is dropped. The affirmative points out that the tabloid and the news outlets publicly humiliate people every day. This point is irreverent and invalid because they person being humiliated has not necessarily done anything wrong. The affirmative also gives evidence for his case: -Jail cells: This article is irrelevant to the resolution because it has absolutely nothing to do with public humiliation. Even if it were, "...in a remote area of Arizona." doesn't sound very public to me. -Texas judge: This point is invalid because it is a matter of opinion of one judge. It even says so right in the title: "...Several jurists think public humiliation...is a more effective punishment." Highlight the word THINK. -Criminal fees: My opponent has not answered my argument here; which is "can we really compare economics and convenience to justice and due process?" The answer is that we simply cannot compare these two. As for his evidence, it shows how a criminal must pay a fine in addition to jail time. A quote from the article: "The imposition of mandatory surcharges, like mandatory sentencing, erodes judicial independence by tying the judges' hands even when they think that justice requires a different result." This sure sounds like a contradiction to me. On top of that, let's be realistic: Can you borrow money from a firm? Yes, you can. There are special firms out there for criminals. Well, it appears that my opponent has not responded to my other attacks: "My opponent gives 'his opinion' on how our nations legal system ought to work, but provides no facts or evidence (unless you you count your last sentence as evidence, well then, yes I would like to see an example other than what is in my evidence). Due to lack of support or statistical data, this point falls as well. My opponent also states that they often resort to stealing to meet the cost of being a criminal, but no facts or statistics were provided so this point falls. The affirmative also points out that public humiliation leaves a lasting impression on them. Answer me this: if you are permanently scarred by being publicly humiliated. are you more likely to hate the government or submit wholly to it?" You should vote negative because I have successfully proved how the resolution is best negated, I answered all attacks on my case, and I responded to all my opponent's points. Thanks for reading my arguments and thank you to my opponent. *NOTE I also had 100% correct grammar and spelling. My true age revealed: I am 15 years old!!!
Public humiliation in town square

M. O'Donnell: 15 october 2008 In recent times, judicial use of public humiliation punishment has largely fallen out of favor since the practice is now considered cruel and unusual punishment, which is outlawed in the United States Constitution. According to sptimes.com, published Feb. 18, 2007, "Times have changed since George led our country. Mail is no longer delivered by horseback, and white wigs are no longer in fashion. Back then, adultery was illegal and Hester was made to wear her scarlet A in public. Public drunkenness was forbidden, and those who broke the law were made to stand in the town square in a wooden contraption with their heads and hands unable to move. Other crimes were punished the same way. It was not only humiliating but also painful. Today, lawbreakers could not be treated this way. We would be taking away their civil rights. Public humiliation would not be allowed. The American Civil Liberties Union would bring lawsuits against the law enforcement agencies." (http://www.sptimes.com...) Now to attack my opponents case: My opponent states that counseling and probation are a waste of time and resources, but can we really compare economics and convenience to justice and due process? This argument clearly falls. My opponent gives 'his opinion' on how our nations legal system ought to work, but provides no facts or evidence (unless you you count your last sentence as evidence, well then, yes I would like to see an example other than what is in my evidence). Due to lack of support or statistical data, this point falls as well. My opponent also states that they often resort to stealing to meet the cost of being a criminal, but no facts or statistics were provided so this point falls. The affirmative also points out that public humiliation leaves a lasting impression on them. Answer me this: if you are permanently scarred by being publicly humiliated. are you more likely to hate the government or submit wholly to it?
Public humiliation in town square

I would like to debate bringing back public humiliation as a form of punishment for misdemeanor repeat offenders. Putting people on probation and sending them to councilors is a complete waste of time in my opinion. These forms of so called punishment almost always cause the person to violate their probation and get them caught up in the legal system for ever. The cost of probation and these classes are astronomical and the people who run them are nothing more than money collectors for the state and offer little or nothing in the way of reforming the criminal. Most often people who are put on probation and sent to crime specific classes or councilors can't afford it and resort to stealing in order to pay for them. Public humiliation leaves a lasting impression as no one wants this to happen to them. I will give examples of public humiliation if my opponent needs them in order to make his case against it.
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea

Pro has misinterpreted my argument. I am refuting the point Pro has made regarding these two objects. My position is: Pro has not made a sufficient argument to claim "the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea" The only proof Pro has tried to make is in Round 1 is two opposing similar forces cannot exist at the same time. However neither of those forces can exist in an unlimited reality. You cannot argue the "unlimited" by using two forces that clearly state having a limit. The unlimited is not proven false, at least not by the arguments made by Pro.
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea

con is taking the position 'the unlimited can limit itself'. he takes the position because he dutifully notes that according to our reality, even if those forces could exist, tehy couldn't exist at the same time. the problem, though, is that this shows that the unlimited is limited by teh fact it can't create two forces like that. or say make an immovable force for ten seconds, would prevent the unstoppable force from being existed for at least ten seconds. the unlimited then would have limits. so, con takes the position 'the unimited can limit itself' which shows the unlimited is limited, really. and i take the position of 'it's not fair to say the unlimited can limited itself... the unlimited can't limit itself'. but that only again goes to show that it's still not unlimited
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea

the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea weakest point. the unlimited paradox states that an immovable object cannot exist at the same time as an unstoppable force. the fact that it cannot exist at the same time, shows that the unlimited truly doesn't exist. better point. an immovable rock cannot be created that can be lifted by an unstoppable force.
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea

Pro has agreed to my point in this debate of the unlimited paradox. This is not a debate about the god paradox. unlimited means without limit. "immovable object" - you are placing a limit on this object by saying it cannot move. This does not fall into the realm of the unlimited. (the god paradox is similar - but it is stating the power of god to create these two opposing forces. not whether or not they exist in an unlimited reality)Thank you for the debate.
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea

well, i see your point. it's the same arguments i made during the 'god paradox' debates. i would say that if con's arguments are legit here, they should be legit in the god paradox debate. it could still be said that there is in fact a limit on the unlimitd, god, in that it can't make to infinitely opposoing forces logically interact as they are suppose to. but this is merely a restraint as a result of logic, reality. so while it could be said to be limiting the unlimited, i'm not sure it's the best argument.
U.S. Aid to Pakistan should be continued

The United States has provided more than $20 billion in aid to Pakistan in recent years. Recently a move was made in the Senate to terminate aid, but the cut off was blocked. [1. http://india.nydailynews.com...] It's an issue that cuts across Party lines, with prominent Republicans and prominent Democrats on both sides.The resolution for this debate is that aid should not be terminated in the near future unless entirely new and unforeseen events occur. Some reduction of aid is permitted within the scope of the resolution, but not a complete termination nor a reduction to significant as to amount to a cut off.This debate is part of the second round of MIG's Tournament. My opponent and I are in agreement on 80% of the Big Issues, so finding a suitable topic was difficult. Thanks to Con for persisting in working out the topic and accepting this debate.RulesThe burden of proof in this debate is shared, meaning that the better case should prevail. In legal terms, it is the preponderance of evidence that determines the outcome. The Pro position in this debate is essentially to continue preset policy, with some variation allowed. That's somewhat unusual for a debate, where Pro is usually the side that favors changing the status quo.This opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. The Pro case will be given at the start of the second round.Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. The definitions given in the challenge stand as a condition of acceptance.DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Arguments and evidence may be presented in R4 in rebuttal to any previous argument, but no new arguments.DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.DR 6. Dropped arguments are not counted as concessions. They may be taken up again or left to be judged as part of the case.
Social Networking Companies Should be Prevented from Censoring Opposing Ideals

The US constitution protects our property rights. The US constitution considers our personally owned businesses to be our private property. Facebook and other social media sites are privately owned businesses. Facebook and other social media sites are private property and are protected by the constitution. Facebook and other social media sites are not publicly owned, therefore the public has no say in how these social media sites are run. If you, the reader have any qualms with Facebook or other privately owned social media sites, you are free to start your own site.