BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Deforestation is a Bad Thing

Yes, sorry. Round 1 was acceptance. Now for Round 2. I want to thank Debatefox for accepting this debate. Here's what I have to say about deforestation: If you've ever played Minecraft, you would know that wood is probably the most important resource you can find. You need wood to build tools like axes and swords. You need wood to build a chest to store your materials. Wood is a necessity in Minecraft. Now, Minecraft is hardly realistic to real life (there are zombies and skeletons) but it proves that wood is actually very useful and very important. I imagine that people find wood to be so useful (even in the real world) because it's so malleable; it can be cut and glued and ground but is still very sturdy. Back in the caveman days, wood started fires that became necessary to keep people warm and cook food. Without cooked food, we humans would have to spend over 9 hours a day eating (!) due to our brains' neuron capacity, according to neuroscientist Suzana Herculano-Houzel. So it's clear that wood is important. In fact, because of the high demand for wood, our society appears to be excessively cutting down trees and not taking into concern how much we are destroying. However, this is not entirely the case. There are organizations like Rainforest Trust, and in fact, many store-bought items today have a "Rainforest Alliance Certified" seal on them. Because of this, we can assume that deforestation IS accounted for (at least somewhat) and that it is not an entirely bad thing. Also, we now know that the human race actually DOES care that trees are getting cut down and that ecosystems ARE disappearing. And we're taking care of it. All of that should take the guilt off of cutting down so many trees. And if it doesn't, then this will: One tree can provide many resources. Some of these resources are necessary for an ecosystem, and taking them away would make the ecosystem crumble. Unfortunately, we can't do anything about that. Fortunately, though, we can take just that one tree and squeeze all the resources we can out of it. Take the wood it has, take the apples it produces, and take the leaves it grew, and you have just made that one tree a lot more valuable. By doing this - by cutting down trees "Native American" style - we can reduce the number of trees we cut down. A good example of this is a business my dad started called "Caja Del Campeon." He creates cigar boxes out of wood that came from old rubber trees. The rubber trees no longer produced sap and would be considered useless if he didn't use them to build his cigar boxes. IN CONCLUSION, deforestation may damage ecosystems, BUT wood is a vital resource in today's society and we can limit the number of trees we cut down by squeezing the resources out of every one. On top of that, there are organizations like Rainforest Trust and the Rainforest Alliance that help repair the damage deforestation creates. And we all get our supply of wood in the end! Now I'm curious of what could possibly be negative about deforestation.
Deforestation is a Bad Thing

I see my opponent has not learned to specify his argument. you stated that "deforestation is good (at least to human)" but you see the argument is not "is deforestation bad for humans" it is just is deforestation is bad. so lets look at the facts shall we. economical: deforestation causes the us to lose 5 million dollars a year while it losses other country's up to up to 10 million dollars a year. environmental: as I Stated above in my previous argument deforestation is killing these animals. although I do admit deforestation is not the only cause it is defiantly the biggest. in the recent decade brazil has lost 9.4% of it's rain forrest due to deforestation. that is almost 1/10 of it. The need for wood does not change the fact that deforestation is bad even to humans. humans need oxygen and without trees supplying that oxygen we will die. and on to the last part of my argument. their are other ways to get wood then deforestation. such as selective cutting or creating new forms of wood like substance.
Deforestation is a Bad Thing

My opponent states that the fact that wood is a necessity does not change the fact that deforestation is bad. I disagree; I claim that our need for wood makes deforestation a GOOD thing (at least to the human race). He also claims that over 10 million species of living organisms will die in just 100 years due to the destruction of rainforests. But to be fair, human DEFORESTATION does not have to be the only thing that kills rainforests. I want to make it clear that mankind is not a rainforest's only enemy; in fact, a typhoon ruined a Japanese rainforest in 1996 and in 1883 a volcano killed everyone living in an area now known as Ujung Kulong National Park. You can read more about nature's impacts on rainforests here: http://rainforests.mongabay.com... These natural disasters are not typically considered deforestation. . . . They're the result of a natural event that humans did not interfere with. I also want to say that while deforestation is good, an dead forest full of tree stumps is bad. What I mean is, deforestation is okay, but without recovering the damage done, a person has done something bad. If you deforest an area and leave it that way, that's immoral, but if you deforest an area and plant new trees in its place, that's good. Either way, the deforestation itself is not cruel in any way. That's all I have left to say. Thanks for debating!
Deforestation is a Bad Thing

I hope this is a good argument and we both have a little fun. I will start by saying although you have mentioned a few of the losses caused by deforestation you have lacked to mention the severity of each situation. According to http://www.conserve-energy-future.com... in one hundred years all the rain forrests will be gone. now destroying the rainforests will cause. over 10 million species of living organisms live in the rain forest. that means if deforestation is continued to be thought as being a good thing or at least something that is not bad these living organisms will all die out in only 100 years. the fact that wood is a necessity it does not change the fact that deforestation is bad.
For Branded ADDERALL || MEDISUPPIES. COM

It is a medication used to treat Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy. It is a central nervous system stimulant made up of amphetamine and dextroamphetamine. BUy Adderall online @ www. Medisuppies. Com made available Adderall medication worldwide within your means- This medication was developed in the 1980's and initially used for treating diet control and weight loss. It also fluctuates the brain chemistry and assistneurotransmittersdirect messages between nerve cells and the brain. Buy Adderall online without prescription @ www. Medisuppies. Com and facilitate yourself by accelerating your ability to pay attention and also manages behaviour problems. It improves your listening skills and manages your tasks. . You can buy Adderall online @ www. Medisuppies. Com and be cured of any of the mentioned diseases. It does so by changing specific natural substances that are present in the brain. <<< >>">www. Medisuppies. Com>>>
Official Beginners Tournament: God Exists.

One of tha top billin challenges ta tha human intellect, over tha centuries, has been ta explain how tha fvck tha complex, improbable appearizzle of design up in tha universe arises.Da natural temptation is ta attribute tha appearizzle of design ta actual design itself. In tha case of a man-made artefact like fuckin a watch, tha designa straight-up was a intelligent engineer. It is temptin ta apply tha same stupid-a$s logic ta a eye and a wing, a spider and a person.Da temptation be a gangbangin' false one, cuz tha designa hypothesis immediately raises tha larger problem of whoz a$s designed tha designer. Da whole problem our crazy-a$s asses started up wit was tha problem of explainin statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution ta postulate somethang even mo' improbable. Our thugged-out as$es need a "crane," not a "skyhook;" fo' only a cold-a$s lil crane can do tha bidnizz of hittin dat shizzle up gradually n' plausibly from simplicitizzle ta otherwise improbable complexity.Da most ingenious n' bangin crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. I aint talkin' bout chicken n' gravy biatch. Darwin n' his successors gotz shown how tha fvck livin creatures, wit they spectacular statistical improbabilitizzle n' appearizzle of design, gotz evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. Our thugged-out asses can now safely say dat tha illusion of design up in livin creatures is just that-an illusion.Our thugged-out asses don't yet gotz a equivalent crane fo' physics. Right back up in yo muthafuckin a$s. Some kind of multiverse theory could up in principle do fo' physics tha same stupid-a$s explanatory work as Darwinizzle do fo' biologizzle. This kind of explanation is supaficially less satisfyin than tha biological version of Darwinism, cuz it makes heavier demandz on luck. But tha anthropic principle entitlez our asses ta postulate far mo' luck than our limited human intuizzle is laid back with.Our thugged-out asses should not give up hope of a funky-a$s mo' betta crane arisin up in physics, somethang as bangin as Darwinizzle is fo' biologizzle. But even up in tha absence of a straight fVckin satisfyin crane ta match tha biological one, tha relatively weak cranes our crazy-a$s asses gotz at present are, when abetted by tha anthropic principle, self-evidently mo' betta than tha self-defeatin skyhook hypothesiz of a intelligent designer.
Official Beginners Tournament: God Exists.

Note that there are two forms of “exist” in this debate. The “exist” in the evidentialist approach is “Be found, esp. in a particular place or situation.”My opponent has not refuted this approach. Extend Arguments. My opponent tries to refute the KCA argument by postulating that God needed a beginning. Note that what is spiritual is not bound by physical laws. It thus is eternal. Most of what I said has not been addressed. Extend Arguments.My opponent’s attack on God center around the notion that He is bound by the dimension of time. That which is eternal and spiritual cannot be bound by time at all. My opponent’s attacks does not work.SInce my opponent has not responded to most of what I wrote, this reply needs be short. In conclusion, Extend Arguments!
Official Beginners Tournament: God Exists.

I. The Evidentialist ApproachLet us take a look at the physical evidence for a real god. Let us take the Greek god Zeus. We can find many writings, descriptions, even models of this clearly supernaturally attributed deity. Not evidence....This means that it fulfills the first definition of Ã¢â‚¬Å"exist.Ã¢â‚¬Â As such, it is clear from this that the resolution is affirmed strongly.No it doesn't. What you think is not reality. If I think of a Pink Horse with wings and rockets on its side, It doesn't mean it exists. Its not found in a place. The mind is not a place nor anything of the sort. Stop trolling.P1: Everything that has a beginning must have a sufficient cause. P2: The Universe had a beginning.C: It has a sufficient cause.This cause had to be eternal, spiritual, and of absolute power. How do we know that?Well, P1 I doubt will be disputed. In fact, it can not be disputed.Okay? I think the KCA is bad for proving God. I show later. There are several candidates, deities, worshipped by humans, all of which points to the existence of a god. However, what if the universe indeed did not have a causal beginning, but is part of a multiverse or an oscillating universe.Well, this only delays the problem. It does not at all explain how the first universe formed in either.It doesn't have to. In fact, Creationist/God did it-ist have the same problem. The only difference is that God depends on being created. "God created himself!"How so? If God created himself surely the universe could do the same. What about a random beginning? This idea is brought about by the fact of quantum dynamics. Well, quite simply, that would mean there is matter already there, because the laws of QM only controls matter. It does not explain how matter got there in the first place!Maybe matter was there already? Please tell me how God avoids these problems.AttacksBear in mind it is Muted to prove God doesn't exist.The know all paradox. Can a God who whos the future change his future mind?What this mean is that God cant change the future and is therefore not all powerful or all seeing.If God changes his mind, he would see that he would change his mind, and if he wants to again, He would see that, the cycles keeps going.
Official Beginners Tournament: God Exists.

I hope we both have an informative debate. In this debate, there are two approaches, the first is the evidential approach, and the second is the philosophical approach. I. The Evidentialist ApproachLet us take a look at the physical evidence for a real god. Let us take the Greek god Zeus. We can find many writings, descriptions, even models of this clearly supernaturally attributed deity. [1] Within the wikipedia article alone, there are six likenesses of this deity. These are physical objects, we can go to museums to see them, most of the time we can’t touch them, due to museum rules. It can be seen that these physical objects are real, and by logical extension, since it was a deity much worshipped, it must have been real in the minds of the worshippers as well. This means that it fulfills the first definition of “exist. ” As such, it is clear from this that the resolution is affirmed strongly. II. The Philosophical ApproachThis approach fulfills the second portion of the definition for “exist. ”Let us use the well-worn and still living argument known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. P1: Everything that has a beginning must have a sufficient cause. P2: The Universe had a beginning. C: It has a sufficient cause. This cause had to be eternal, spiritual, and of absolute power. How do we know that? Well, P1 I doubt will be disputed. In fact, it can not be disputed. P2 is observationally verified. We know that the total entropy of the Universe is increasing and will one day cause the universe to die. It is easy to see from this that the Universe cannot have had an infinite past, otherwise it would have to have an infinite future. As such, the cause has to be eternal and spiritual, so as to not be constrained by physical principles, and it has to be of absolute power, given the vast amount of power already present in the universe. There are several candidates, deities, worshipped by humans, all of which points to the existence of a god. However, what if the universe indeed did not have a causal beginning, but is part of a multiverse or an oscillating universe. Well, this only delays the problem. It does not at all explain how the first universe formed in either. What about a random beginning? This idea is brought about by the fact of quantum dynamics. Well, quite simply, that would mean there is matter already there, because the laws of QM only controls matter. It does not explain how matter got there in the first place! With this, I pass it over to you. This is my small opening.1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Official Beginners Tournament: God Exists.

This is part of ObiWan"s Beginners Tournament. The definitions shall be as following God shall be defined as "a supernatural deity worshipped by humans" Exist shall be defined as "Be found, esp. in a particular place or situation. Is real, has objective reality." (Google dictionary) The BoP will be shared. 8000 characters, 72 hours to argue, 1 week voting period, and 4 rounds, first for acceptance. The last round shall not contain any new arguments. The rules shall be as following D.R.1. No trolling. D.R.2. No Forfeiting. A forfeit equates to an auto loss. Full seven points goes to the opponent. D.R.3. No plagiarism. D.R.4. No vulgarities. If Con has any changes he wishes to make, shout it out in the comments section.
God Debate Switch-a-roo 2

"I define God/Gods as an entity/entities with knowledge and power enough to create the rules which govern our universe. I won't take part in any particular religion, but the concept of God itself." That's my modified definition, can't you argue against the existence of God? I still haven't read any kind of counter-argument from you. Defend the idea of a Christian God is impossible, since the premise is false from the beginning. Trying to defend the existence of God as christians think of him it's like making the statement: 1+1 = 5 using the real number axioms and common number notation. Can't you open your mind to the existence of God as a general idea? Instead do you need to be closed minded about the existence of your christian God only? I'll try by asking you directly, since you've been avoiding my arguments.
God Debate Switch-a-roo 2

I stated in round 1 I wouldn't take any part in any religion. It is almost a trivial task to disproof a God as christians define it. You haven't made any argument against mine, I stated God as a possible solution to the problem of the Universe's creation and you didn't even try to disprove that. So I'll make a stronger argument and state God (or a set of Gods) as the most probable creators or entities who created the rules which govern our Universe. I stated this because Universe and its rules allow for a lot of complexity (like humans) with a very simple set of rules. It's not the rules of the Universe the one that are really complex but instead their combination the ones that can fabricate such a beautiful complexity like the one we find on this planet.
God Debate Switch-a-roo 2

Quite a poor argument, but since you believe God does exists this was expected. As I said I'll defend the existence of an entity with enough power to create the set of rules which govern our universe. So according to this statement, evidence of God is the Universe itself. He could have created the Universe and then leave to do more important God stuff, to give a fun example, he/she could have "programmed" this Universe and then leave Universe.exe running while he/she went to do something else. You would think you have free will but you wouldn't actually, since all of your actions are determined (not in a 100% deterministic way, but maybe "determined" by a probability distribution) by the set of rules he/she set in this Universe. You can't prove the existence of something without evidence, that's true. However you can propose the existence of something without any kind of evidence, then see if this proposition you made contradicts with anything already established and if it doesn't then you can not disprove its existence neither. In fact if everything works just fine with this proposition of yours you could assume it is a possible solution to your problem. Here our problem would be for example, how was the Universe created and why does it have the set of rules it has. One possible solution is "some kind of entity with power and knowledge created it". This is a very common method used in solving differential equations, you propose a solution and if that solution solves your differential equation you take it as one possible solution from all of the possible solutions.
God Debate Switch-a-roo 2

Con-- Me, I am christian and will argue that god DOESN'T exist. Pro-- You, you must be atheist and will argue that god DOES exist. The purpose is that after I calmed my christian bloodlust against atheism in my first month here i got bored of the god debates that take up about one-fifth to one-seventh of our beloved site. So i want to spice it up a bit. And the christian god as described in the bible (for standard lets use the KJV) is the god we are arguing about existing. I have a url for you: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...... //////////// VOOOOOOOTERS!!! VOTERS! Hey voters! Please read the rules below as they must be enforced. Thank you! //////////// Modified Definitions & Rules (MD&R) --Rules-- 1). Con must be christian and argue against god's existence. 2). Pro must be atheist and argue for god's existence. 3). Exception for pro: If you are agnostic i will let you argue pro. 4). When pro or con unless specified uses a word for which i have provided a modified definition for its definition is always the modified definition i have provided. 5). Pro may also create these "modified definitions" but cannot change or make another modified definition for a word i already have done so for. Mine are universal and necessary to be specified for the debate to go smoothly. 6). All modified definitions must be created in the first round. 7). If rules 1, 2, or 3 are not followed it is an automatic loss for the offender. 8). If rules 4, 5, or 6 are not followed the offender is to be voted by all voters as having bad conduct. If BOTH of us break any of them then voters are to vote that we had equal conduct. 9). Disobeying the round specifications is to be punished by the voters by awarding the opponent "convincing arguments". --Modified Definitions-- God- The christian god as described in the KJV Bible. Is an entity that is thought to possibly exist. Entity- Something capable of thought. Thought- The creation of ideas and opinions. For all definitions not modified refer to here: http://www.merriam-webster.com...... //////////// --Rounds-- Round 1 -- Acceptance/Introduction Round 2 -- Arguments/Rebuttals Round 3 -- Arguments/Rebuttals Round 4 -- Arguments/Rebuttals Round 5 -- Conclusion/No new arguments or rebuttals //////////// --For pro:-- You hold BOP. You must be atheist or agnostic. You are arguing for god's existence. Good luck. //////////// Hello, i am The Holy Macrel. I will be arguing against god's existence.
God Debate Switch-a-roo 2

And I conclude you're a closed minded person unable to conceive the possibility of the existence of a God unless it is the Christian God, I find that not only boring but also dull. I took the debate in order to argue for the existence of a God in a bigger panorama than yours. You're giving quite a poor reputation to those who are Christian by being so closed minded, but I'm not someone who judge a group of people based on one subject only. You haven't answer any of my question, and you haven't counter any of my arguments so I would consider that you're the one who's forfeiting as you're unable to go beyond a set of rules you established even when I told you I'd be pro for the existence of God without being specific to any religion.
God Debate Switch-a-roo 2

Why did you accept this if you didn't like my rules and regulations? I said it must be the christian god for this debate. And you cannot change a modified definition as stated by rule 5. Changing it is punishable by rule 8, you recieve bad conduct. I will let it slide once. If it is impossible then why did you accept my debate? You sholdn't have. You can't just change specifics, especially what we are even arguing about. Conclude as specified in my rules. Failure to do so is punishable by rule 9. I conclude that Pro suffers a forefeit for not reading the rules and specifications clearly set out in round one.
Adidas Is better than Nike

Adidas is more popular now, Meaning that the shoes are preferred by most people at the moment. on complex. Com, It lists some facts about Adidas and how they have changed shoe technology, Here a some of them just to name a few; The Micro pacer was the first sneaker to have computer technology. Adidas is the parent company to Reebok, Rock port, And Taylor Made. The Superstar isn't just an iconic part of hip-hop, But it was also a first in basketball, Too. As you can tell, Adidas has had a big effect on sports, And also, They were some of the first too. While Nike has celebrities and starred in movies, Adidas has also achieved that with other celebrities.