BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Everything occurs for a reason; science discovers these reasons

Everything in the universe happens for a reason, and science is man's way of explaining why these things happen. Science is based on fact, rather than religion, which is based on belief, and many scientific theories can actually be proved. If they cannot be proved, then evidence for them can be suggested. For example, there are many sources of evidence for the 'big bang' (the beginning of the universe) - such as the abundance of Hydrogen and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (just to name a few), yet we cannot actually prove that this was the beginning of the universe, as obviously, we cannot rewind time. This means that science can only take educated guesses, supplying proof, in regards to some things. While science cannot PROVE everything, it CAN make educated theories, based on similar scientific studies, as to why things occur. This is why a large majority of science is purely theoretical - because our equipment is not yet advanced enough to allow us to prove everything. However, technology (and therefore science) is rapidly improving and expanding each year; it is only a matter of time.
The whole point of science is to explain exerything

The very purpose of the term “science” is an explanation for everything. If a perfect knowledge could somehow be obtained then the universe and everything in it could be explained by the holder of that knowledge. This whole debate seems, to me, to be futile as it is like asking the question “Can an explanation for everything explain everything?” the answer to which is unquestionably and obviously: Yes it can. The question we should be asking ourselves is “Can such a knowledge be obtained?” my answer to which would be “No, absolutely not” but that’s another debate altogether.
Science is man made - man is not perfect therefore Science cannot answer everything

I would say that your argument is irrelevant as what you are actually telling your audience (by saying that the imperfection of mankind makes perfect understanding impossible) is that mankind cannot explain everything. The ultimate goal of scientific studies is to obtain a perfected knowledge of the universe and everything in it. The very purpose of the term “science” is an explanation for everything. If a perfect knowledge could somehow be obtained then the universe and everything in it could be explained by the holder of that knowledge. This whole debate seems, to me, to be futile as it is like asking the question “Can an explanation for everything explain everything?” the answer to which is unquestionably and obviously: Yes it can. The question we should be asking ourselves is “Can such a knowledge be obtained?” my answer to which would be “No, absolutely not” but that’s another debate altogether. Science and religion CANNOT work as a pair. Of course dependent on the specific religion one defines it's compatibility with scientific explanations may vary. But in the modern day when we speak of religion people generally refer to the most widespread beliefs - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism etc. Monotheistic and polytheistic religions ARE NOT compatible with science. The scriptures these religions are based upon contain "facts" that come directly in conflict with scientific observations, for example the age of the Earth, the origin of life or even the solar-terran relationship.
The Falkland Islanders do not speak Spanish and WANT to be part of the UK

These islands belong to Argentina. No question about it. UK has and always will be a colonialist nation looking to take lands from anyone and anywhere they feel they can get away with it. Hence, why they've staked a claim to the Malvinas, albeit a false claim. So why is the UN not doing anything about this? Why? Because the UN is a puppet entity of the rich and powerful white man, a tool used to make it easier and LEGAL to STEAL that of which is owned by others with no chance of repercussion. That's just wrong on all levels. Don't believe me? Look at how the UN is quick to fire shots into the Middle East whilst not even blowing a whistle when European corruption is the talk of the day. The UN is useless, and until they force the UK to return the Maldives to Argentina I just can't see what the UN is good for other than being a guard dog for the highest bidder.
UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

1. All people do have the right of self-determination. No question about it. But when you steal land from other people and bring in your English speaking citizens from the UK to squat on the land and call it their own, therein lies a serious problem. Sure we can fuss about how the people living in the Maldivas want to be ruled by the UK, but hell, they are originally from the UK to begin with. The issue is not the people in the Maldivas but the land itself. If people from the UK want to live in the Maldivas then so be it, but you will be under the rule Argentine laws and regulations. Just because you lay claim to a land and bring your English speaking squatters to build on that stolen land doesn't make it rightfully yours. UK has and always will be a country of thieves and scoundrels. But please, don't let me be the one to tell you about this, read your history. And trust, the UK has history of stealing, pillaging, raping, murdering and finally laying claim on lands that were never theirs to begin with. The UN should take action, otherwise we can all see the UN for what it really is. A puppet of the white man. And for you who think I am Argentinian or live in South America. Think again, I am from the United States. And I am ashamed our country didn't back up the Argentinians on this conflict. It's actually quite infuriating.
The Islands are British

The Islands look and feel British so must be British is a rather circular argument - if they were Argentine presumably they would look and feel Argentine! There is no reason why a country cannot fairly rule over a people that is not like the majority in a country - if the Falklands were handed over to Argentina presumably they would remain autonomous, would still be able to use English and would still be 'Kelpers'. Argentina does not want the Falklands to throw the islanders off.
Simply put, the Islanders strongly wish to remain British.

The Islanders have never been, nor be Argentine. 1765 Captain John Byron claimed the islands for Britain. The British government has always tried to use diplomacy regarding the Falklands. Diplomacy went out the window when Argentina illegally invaded. The people on the islands do not want to be part of Argentina. The Falklands government has always been respectful and diplomatic when dealing with Argentina. Argentina however, doesn't seem to know how to be diplomatic and respectful. The Falkland Isles are inhabited by British citizens who hold British passports, they wish to remain British. Argentina has no claim to the Falklands. The Falklands government is holding a referendum to show the international community its wishes. This resulted in a 99.8% vote to stay British.
Geographically closer to Argentina than the UK

The Falkland Islands lie 184 miles away from the Argentinian mainland as opposed to being thousands of miles away from the United Kingdom. Also they are not on the same continental shelf as the UK despite having other islands arond them. [[ "Wikipedia" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#cite_note-53%5D%5D Further more they are also part of the same area that has flora and fauna from Argentina. Given these geographical factors isn't it right that the Falklands should come under Argentine rule than the British. I did not realize tha statements were allowed.Some 3140 inhabitants cannot all agree . Also wat language is spoken in the Islas Malvines (Falklands) ? First off, the biggest argument the UK continues to push on the Malvinas question is the fact that less than 5000 people live on the islands, all of which speak English. Of course they all speak English, for the UK put up a flag on the islands and claimed them, which in turn led to the population of the islands by UK citizens. If you ask me, and if you look back in History, the UK has and always will be a colonialist type nation. The UK don't care about who was there first or who rightly owns the land, if they feel they can out muscle whoever is in their way of gaining new land, they will do it with no shame or guilt. The Malvinas belong to Argentina, anyone who doesn't agree with this fact has their own 'racially' motivated reasons why to back the UK on this issue. This really shouldn't even be an issue, the UK is squatting on lands that have never belonged to them, and no matter how many English speaking squatters there are on the land, it will never make it UK property. This is why I do not believe in the UN. If the UN was truly for the people of the world they would force the UK out of the Malvinas.
There are many international oddities.

Just because the Falkland islands are close to Argentina should make no difference. Are Iceland and Canada demanding that Denmark give up Greenland? The UK does not claim the Faroe's, France does not claim the Channel Islands, Canada and Russia dont claim Alaska etc. Equally their are odd small states who we do not deny statehood; Luxembourg, Vatican city, various pacific islands etc. Just because the jigsaw is a bit complicated does not mean that it is worth keeping. Furthermore, Spain never actually occupied the islands. As to statehood, the Falklands WANT to remain part of the UK, forcing them to do something else would deny them their right of self-determination.
Argentina only wants it back now that it has valuable resources

The only reason Argentina wants the island back in the first place is because numerous oil deposits have been found in and around the Falkland Islands. <<<< You do realise that Queen Elizabeth the 1st ruled in the 1500s, 300 years before Argentina was even a country, in a time when the first Spanish explorers were brutally massacring the native inhabitants of the area in a horrific act of ethnic cleansing. At the very end of Elizabeth's reign, in 1600, the islands were first sighted by a Dutch explorer, and 90 years later a British man became the first human to ever go there when his ship was swept off course to the islands, again, centuries before Argentina was a country, and the area was still largely under native rule. I think that this pretty much refutes your astoundingly ill-thought out comment.
The Falkland Islanders do not speak Spanish and WANT to be part of the UK

Quite simply, they do not speak Spanish. Don't you agree that this would be problematic? The people of the Falklands also want to be part of the UK and not Argentina. Even if we didn't want the Falklands and if the Argentinan claim was historically acceptable, it is our duty to do what the people wish. The Falklands were only Argentinian for a year; The British had originally colonized them in 1765 and the Argentinians had colonized it in 1832 despite protests by Britain. Britain then reasserted its sovereignty over the Falklands in 1833. There is nothing to RETURN, the Falklands are not, and were not Argentinian.
UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1 All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. 2 All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence. [[http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html]] So it should be up to the islanders themselves. Looking at various news articles I am assured many times that the islanders want to remain British, but cant find the actual poll results so who knows! In response to your point about "stealing land" well, Britain had occupied the land in 1765, before Argentina existed, and Argentina colonized it for a brief period of time (One Year) in 1832-33, after which the British reasserted their control over the Falklands. So you see, the British did not steal the land; the Argentinian's were the ones to occupy another countries territory.
The Islands are British

The islands are British. Anyone who has ever actually been there (including Argentine nationals) agrees with this. The Argentines were not 'the original inhabitants' that they like to style themselves as. The Falklands were first settled by France on West Falkland and Britain on East Falkland centuries before Argentina even existed. Britain's claim has never been renounced. The Argentines themselves are squatters on land to which they have no right - they stole it from the local American tribes upon whom they subsequently enacted widespread ethnic cleansing. The Kelpers, as the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands are called, are the first people to have lived on the islands for longer than a generation. The islands are their home; they and they alone have the right to decide who rules their home. They have repeatedly stated their wish to remain British, and the islands themselves have little in common with Argentina. Many Argentine nationals, having been indoctrinated from birth that the people on the Falklands are Argentine, and that they are a part of Argentina, have come back with a totally changed opinion, having seen that the Falklands are nothing like Argentina and therefore cannot belong to them. The Argentine claim is nothing more than a folly based on lies and deceit in order to distract the voters from the country's free falling economy. It is time everyone here realised that.
Geographically closer to Argentina than the UK

That argument would work if the Falkland islands were unihabited... but they're not. There is a small but significant population of 3140 people including might I add civilians who's wish to remain with the UK must be respected. Also they do not speak Spanish and this would prove problematic [[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fk.html]] As to the UK being colonialist, how is what Argentina wants to do any different? The population wants to remain with the UK, how is forcing them to join Argentina against their will anti-colonialist? If you force someone to join a country against their will it stifles their right of self determination and forcing the Falklands to join Argentina against their will would be exactly the opposite of what the UN stands for (self determination). Also, any point you make about racism is simply irrelevant as you cannot just say someone is racist because they don't agree with your ideas.
The right of self determination

Lets be honest, any significant group of people living in a place have the right to decide what country the place they live in should be in. If the UK was colonialist it would not be allowing a vote on Scottish indepencance. Besides, the UK were there first anyway so the yes argument is stupid and even if the British had taken it off the natives, we cannot blame modern Germany for the atrocities of the Nazis, neither can we blame the British for that. The past is gone the fact is that the people who live there now and have been born and lived there for hundreds of years want to be British, if they had only been there for 20 years it would be different but now time has passed it is and hopefully forever will be a bastion of freedom and away from the hellhole of injustice and intolerance that is Argentina. A country that was founded by immigrants from Spain who killed MILLIONS of the local people. If we were to follow your theory then give Argentica back to the Natives. The right of self determination rules.
Of course all the current UK squatters on the Islas Maldivas speak English, since the original inhabitants who did not speak English were outright murdered by the UK.

This is a complete propaganda. Irrespective of the rights or wrongs, the British take over was relatively benign. In truth, the French were the first settler followed less than a year by the British who left their settlement after the American War of Independence but not their claim. Luis Vernet then set up a venture there to claim it for Argentina When the British arrived at Vernet's commerical settlement to establish their claim over the islands , the small garrison surrrendered without fighting. This was most likely due to the number of British mecenaries working for them who would not have fired on their own countrymen and the numerical superiority of the British force. The initial intention was to allow Vernet's venture to remain, but under British rather than Argentine authority. When internal conflict with a group of outlaws led by Rivero living in the interior of the Islands caused Vernet and the other leaders to flee the settlement to Turf island he, Vernet was recued by the British and not allowed to return. Reviero was captured but realeased due to legal arguments andf returned to Argentina. Bizarrrely he is now revered as an Argentine folk hero when it was his actions that sealed the fate of the Argentine settlement! The confusion about fighting the British possibly comes from the earlier raid by the the American ship the USS Lexington over seal hunting interests and the incidences during the Napoleonic Wars when present day Argentina was a Spanish colony and the subject of a British Campiagn.
There are many international oddities.

The difference is that Argentina has foundation in its claim on the Falklands - during the reign of Queen Elizabeth 1st a treaty designated that the islands would be Spanish territory. She defied this. On independence, Argentina retained its claim on the land and has maintained this ever since. We (UK) do not claim the Faroe islands because we RECOGNISE it as Danish territory. As you have said proximity is no reason to lay foundation for a claim and Argentina has other reasons as I have said. Also I am not sure why you would deny a state statehood just because it is small. That is illogical. In my opinion: smaller is better!
Fatties cost too much.

The fat folk are having to have larger ambulances,hospital beds,morgue freezers,lifts and hoists,operations,bigger doorways etc etc all paid for by the taxpayer plus stronger nurses and carers to maul them about and subsequent bad backs in doing so which costs more sick pay and liability insurances. It is never ending the extra burden they are to the system. They are costing the system about 90% more than the smoker or drinker which is another self inflicted injury,but the smoker and drinker are paying a fantastic amount more tax than the fatties.
Obesity can be a psychological problem and should be treated as such

It is self inflicted. I eat a lot but I work or excercise. Obesity is called a terrible desease. It is only terrible because of idilitis and the amount of money folk have to gorge themselves.Ask your parents or grandparents how many fat folk there were years ago,rare.So it is not an illness,there were more depressed folk years ago so that is no excuse. Rubbish food is no excuse,we all eat it. Smokers pay a lot of extra tax but the obese are costing the nhs(tax payer) far more with larger ambulances,inhouse lifts and stairlifts,more paramedics to lift them,hospital beds and refrigerators in the morgues. And its down to being idle and a glutton, one cannot do both. A girlfriend of mine who weighs 8 stone has to pay excess if her bags are a bit over at the airport, then a 20 st person climbs aboard at no extra charge, where is the justification in that ?. She bought her teams rugby shirt,child size. She paid the same price as the person buying an xxl, where's the justification in that ? triple the amount of cloth. Its the same in all clothes shops, its not right. If you purchase material they charge per mtr. Yes charge them more,they are not paying extra tax, it will go towards the forthcoming gastric band they may require because they have no will power. Having worked with depressed people for many years it was rarely an excuse for obesity,its a new thing because they can. If we returned to stateing they are FAT instead of obese this would help.
its wrong

Yes they should pay higher taxes,and air fares,and more for their clothes,they cost the health service(tax payer) enormous amounts on ops,bigger and stronger beds,ambulances,freezers in the morgues,more nurses to lift and move them etc etc. If my baggage is overweight I pay the excess then sit next to a lardy who is 4 times heavier than me,and paid the same flight price. I buy my wife a size 10 dress and it costs the same as lardy's size 28, where is the logic in this. I buy cloth for curtains and pay for the amount I need, they don't give me twice as much for the same price. No, the OBESE appear to have more rights than those who don't sit about gorging.
Address people’s grievances and you will win the war

C.I.A veteren Michael Scheuer, of 22 years begs to differ. He in his book `Ìmperial Hubris` says that the Bush administration has done so much damage on the issue that a war on terror is un-winnable. First off, the public has been consistently misinformed & dis-informed about the issue. secondly when your postulates/assumptions/ideas/notions /axioms are wrong how you act on them is wrong also. If you`re addressing grievances that do not exist(based on the skewed perspective that the mass media has given you on reality) and ignoring ones that do; you can only go wrong. reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Hubris
This is a battle/war of ideologies and should be 'fought' on a verbal debate platform or through subliminal brainwashing and not with guns,chemicals and bombs

the more people die, the more they(both sides) would want revenge and in the words of Gandhi 'An eye for an eye and the whole world will go blind'. The Mujahideen(now Taliban) were in-docrinated to fight a jihad against the soviets before and can be in-docrinated again to fight themselves or change their ways. The same can be said for Al-Quaeda: Subliminal messages, disinformation et al can be chucked through the largely western mass media to get these people who love Hollywood action movies and porn, to change their minds. And the changing of minds is more important and effective than horrific compounding bloodshed. This battle should be fought psychologically and verbally not with atrocious means of population control. "War on Terror" itself is a slight misnomer. "War on Al-Quaeda" is what they should be calling it. Terrorism is nothing but a war tactic, that of attacking civilian populations in order to weaken morale and support for the opposing government. So it is like saying "War on Nuclear Warfare." War tactics do not die out, unless everyone can be convinced that the tactic itself is unethical and taboo, as has largely (but not completely) happened with the use of nuclear weapons. As long as religious fundamentalist ideologies in Muslim countries continue to convince people that targeting civilian populations puts a smile on the face of Allah, terrorism will continue to exist. Even on the off chance that Al-Quaeda is successfully wiped off the face of the earth, other groups will pop up with new ideologies, religious or not, to back up the use of terror.