BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is the g-string the most susceptible to breaking on an acoustic six string steel guitar

I love guitars. For some reason I have a passion for guitar strings. I have snapped the g-string more than any other string. I snapped the g-string from loosening and even a simple tuning adjustment. The g-string is under the most tension. Furthermore, it is wrapped unlike the high e string, which is plain steel. The high e although tuned to a higher is under less tension. In addition, more bends are done on the g-string. As a resuit it wears out faster than the other strings The g-string also has the thinnest core of all the strings. For those reasons the g-string is the easiest to break.
outdoor games are for a good cause

She thinks that because many people are not bothering for the health, that outdoor games are for a good cause. Although I will agree that many people are not in fact bothering for the health, I cannot help but establish that this is an obvious non sequitur fallacy. Furthermore, she must show that all outdoors games are for a good cause in order to win. However, given the cases where individuals may play life threatening games for the purpose of satisfying their own pride, the topic is negated.
A Debate.org user who Forfeits debates VERY often should be penalized

People who accept debates and forfeit them on a repeated constant basis should be penalized (for example, they cannot accept debates for a week). In the current state, there are a lot of people who forfeit debates (sometimes just after the acceptance round). This ruins many debates and degrades the quality of this website. I understand that many people do not have time as something unexpected comes up and they forget about the debate and hence the forfeiture of a round. Which is why only repeated forfeiters must be penalized.Forfeiting debates wastes other people's time. For example, there is a debate and one side takes an hour or so to construct this amazing argument but then the other side justs ignores the debate and automatically forfeits a round. This is a waste of valuable time for the intelligent person who constructed the argument.
Les Miserables (2012) is a GREAT addition to the different rendition of Hugo's Classic Novel.

Here's the adaptation genealogy of Hugo's novel: 1935, directed by Richard Boleslawski, starring Fredric March and Charles Laughton, the first version of the story nominated for Best Picture Academy Award The 1937 radio adaptation by Orson Welles The 1980 musical, by Alain Boublil and Claude-Michel Sch"nberg The 1998 film, starring Liam Neeson The 2000 TV miniseries, starring G"rard Depardieu The 2012 film, starring Hugh Jackman Except for the TV mini series & the radio adaptation; I've seen all them, more than once. If you are referring to the story as "terrible", then no amount of version of this famous novel will appease you senses; but if we set aside the story, I believe this movie version completes the adaptation history of this novel. The uniqueness of the filming process where every musical scene was recorded live, but even the twist in the director's interpretation of the the opening act singing "Look Down..." that was presented the same from most of the version (prisoners under high heat with picks & axes, dirty & sweating all over the place) is different from this version. Never realized extreme heat condition can be as worse as the opposite, which is the extreme cold....very artistic I think. Also, will give credit to the back to back musical scenes, just like watching the Broadway version with less voice quality but with a great visual representation. I like it, but not Crowe :( Jason Segal could be a better choice.
Immigration

Hello I am here as con to oppose immigration, I am doing debate this year and the resolution is about immigration so I am hoping this will help me with that. Let this be what we debate about. You may also if you wish pick a certain part about immigration that you would like to stick to just use the first round as an acceptance and state if you would like it to be a more certain topic of immigration. And if you do please state what it is. Thank you, let this be a fair match and stay on the topic.
Immigration

I had a wonderful debate with you, and it has been nice debating with you. I like that you counter act nothing just to make your argument. My conclusion is that deporting all illegal immigrants can stop evil in this country and drugs are brought by illegal immigrants. You only made arguments as "counter claims." You can always counter claim whatever I argue, but it doesn't necessarily make your argument true, it just means that you're just counter claiming it. But it has been an honor debating you and I also hope you the best of luck in the voting period. Have a nice day!
Immigration

First of all I must say I enjoyed this debate very much as it was my first one with this website. Secondly the reason I stated that you dropped some of your topics was because you didn't bring them up fully. In the Debate Club I'm in if u drop an argument it basically is dead and ur not allowed to bring it back up. Thirdly I really do not support anything that I am stating I'm just stating to counter what your saying. The reason I didn't bring up what the status quo is on illegals bringing in drugs was because you stated "the reasons we had(have) drugs. So I took it as it being how they originated. You also stated "it's entirely false to say that we can't stop evil in our society, of course we can stop evil, we just have to be willing enough to kick out all illegal immigrants." The one way to definitely not stop evil is kicking out all the immigrants. You can not look into the future and see all happy people because there are no more illegal immigrants. And then on top of that the amount of money needed to deport illegals is tremendously large. [1] Well I really enjoyed debating with you and am pleased that you defended the topic so well because of how I support it. and wish you the best of luck with the voting. http://money.cnn.com...
Immigration

I see you have dropped majority of what you previously stated, probably because all your statements were false. You are saying that MS-13 will be stopped by the border patrol, but still I will say it is impossible to stop evil, when they are that corrupt. They will always find a way in and nothing will be able to stop them. Yes there would be illegals and immigrants that would be stopped but you can't stop them all, not to mention the cost of making said border patrol. From the amount of school I have I can't say much more but I think I made my point.
Immigration

Here are my sources to support my stances: [1] http://www.pewresearch.org... [2] https://fivethirtyeight.com... [3] https://www.reuters.com... [4] http://www.heritage.org... These sources state the facts about illegal immigration, how Donald Trump's plan to deport immigrants can help stop gangs like MS-13, and make the Border Patrol much, much stronger. There, I provided sources and explained! Next turn, con.
Immigration

Well first off I would like to say that 9/11 wasn't a cause of illegal immigration, all the terrorists were on student, tourist, and business visas. So your border would have done nothing to stop it. Foreign-born terrorists who entered the country either as immigrant or tourists, were responsible for 88 percent (or 3,024) or the 3,432 murders caused by terrorists on U.S soil from 1975 through the end of 2015. 154 foreign born terrorists caused those deaths. Only 10 of those 154 terrorists were illegal immigrants. You stated "Illegal immigrants are the reason we had drugs like cocaine, math, and heroin," first I shall state that I believe you meant to say have drugs like instead of had, because trust me we still have drugs. Also I looked it up and there is no such drug as math, so I have decided that you meant meth. So continuing with what I wanted to say, you stated illegal immigrant are the reason we have cocaine. That actually isn't true. Coca leaves (where cocaine comes from) was first discovered by the Spanish army when they were taking over Central American Indians. Soon after a German chemist Albert Niemann discovered the way to make cocaine how we all love it now. It wasn't until the 1880's when cocaine became popular, and the reason it became popular is because a Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Frued used it constantly and told the whole world that it was amazing. In 1886 the drink Coca-Cola was created which included cocaine in it. Coca-Cola was started in the U.S. and it was very much legal, and not brought in by illegals. In the United States in the 1950s, legally manufactured tablets of methamphetamine (Methedrine or Meth) became readily available and were used non medically by college students, truck drivers, and athletes. There's proof illegals didn't bring Meth into the U.S. Heroin also if you look into it ( I would but I have homework to finish up with so I just clarified that it wasn't) brought to the U.S. by illegals. As for the MS13 gang. Yes I fully agree that it is a horrible gang that does horrible things. But also I don't believe a border wall will stop them. If they want to do something bad they can do it. When someone is that messed up and crazy to murder, rape, and steal without any thought of it being wrong won't be stopped by a wall. Thank you and I await your sources and explanations.
Immigration

Hello, WarTurtle10101! I'm here to propose and support the idea of borders that secure our country from drugs, illegals, and terrorists. We don't want these people to wreak havoc on our day to day lives with drugs, bombs, and criminal gangs like MS13. My next round, I will claim that these illegal immigrants are the reason we had drugs like cocaine, math, and heroin, Terrorism like 9/11, and criminal gangs like MS13. Then, I'll provide sources and explanations beyond the opposer's (con's) argument in the next round. So, I await your first argument Con.
Return Debate on a Clichéd Topic - Arguing about God.

LCA: Con opts for a short, easy refutation instead of tackling the actual argument and demonstrates that he has not actually read the opening post. At the beginning of the debate I pointed out that one argument would essentially be impossible to prove a God with all the aforementioned attributes (with the possible exception of Con's failed ontological argument) so debaters were not required to do so; instead they had to give arguments that contribute to proving the existence of such a being. The LCA does so because it attempts to demonstrate the existence of a personal mind with an immense amount of power that created the universe. The objection is irrelevant per the terms of the debate. DPoE: Whether or not I can conclusively prove that there is a higher purpose for suffering in the animal kingdom is irrelevant. It is of course possible that a higher purpose exists for allowing such suffering - however, it is no less likely that God would have reasons in addition to the ones already presented to prevent such suffering. The question therefore revolves around moral reasons that we already know or can logically deduce. The proposition that such suffering is necessary to produce humans is equally weak, because an omnipotent God could create humans though other means. Pointing to the bible is irrelevant since we are not discussing the biblical God, but the God of classical theism. Even if God is shown to be callous and uncaring to animals in the bible all that would show is that the bible must be an inaccurate portrayal of God. In addition, it is reasonable to assume that a God with omnipotence could achieve the salvation of humans in the absence of the degree of animal suffering that exists so this objection fails too.
Return Debate on a Clichéd Topic - Arguing about God.

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument I will only bring up a point against one of my opponent's premises as I believe that will be enough. P2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. I will concede that the universe needs a cause but I will not concede that that cause must necessarily be the god which my opponent is defending. -omniscient -omnibenevolent -omnipotent My opponent has yet to show why this being must necessarily be morally perfect or have complete knowledge of everything, or even be all powerful. I will wait for my opponent to defend these positions in the next round. The Darwinian Problem of Evil My opponent cannot conclusively prove that there is not some sort of higher purpose for suffering in the animal kingdom. For example, without the hundreds of thousands of species which went extinct in preparation for the human species to evolve, we would not be here and thus Christians would never be able to enjoy eternity in heaven. God values human life over animal life, as one can see from numerous examples of animal sacrifice in the Bible and god giving man dominion over animals and the planet in the book of genesis. One can also see this in that god only allows humans to gain salvaton and thus get into heaven. So when one compares the finite suffering of every animal species that has ever gone extinct with the infinite happiness and joy which those with salvation will experience in heaven, the scale tips towards humans and heaven thus outweighing the suffering of extinct animals.
Return Debate on a Clichéd Topic - Arguing about God.

Since Pro forfeited the last round, I will simply respond to the syllogisms of his arguments this round: 1. The ontological argument - it is helpful to point out that this is not the ontological argument invented and defended by Plantinga in contemporary philosophy. Rather, it is Plantinga's interpretation of Anselm's ontological argument, a long refuted attempt to prove God's existence. In addition, Pro appears to have copied the argument quite badly and made spelling errors, rendering the argument logically invalid. Nonetheless I will be charitable and address the argument found in Pro's source. The problem with this argument is that is makes no distinction between entertaining an idea and holding a belief. I can conceive a being with all of God's properties and fully accept that part of the concept is existence, without actually believing that God exists. The conception in premise (1) is the same as in premise (3) - the only difference is that in premise (3) the same conception actually exists. Therefore, premise (4) is false because both hypothetical beings have the same quantity of 'greatness'. 2. This argument might be a little more difficult to refute because of the layman's definitions provided in R1 (any philosophically rigorous definitions would immediately falsify Con's position), so it was really necessary for Con to elaborate in R2. Nonetheless, I will provide some possible answers. Firstly, if omnipotence is defined as 'infinite in power' then it is difficult to see how a logical argument could work against God. He would transcend logic. Such a position has its problems, but if we start from the assumption that God has that property then the argument doesn't work, in principle. Second, it is not clear that (3) is true. If God is omnibenevolent that might imply that he wouldn't commit morally impermissible actions, not that he couldn't. Third, if omnipotence is merely defined as 'almighty' then it isn't at all clear that (2) is true, since God could have limits on his power.
Return Debate on a Clichéd Topic - Arguing about God.

Honestly this is my favorite topic and while I am personally an atheist I have no problem arguing for either side. I really have never been in a debate quite like this but will do my best! Depending on how long you have been gone I may or may not have joined before you left. My name is socialpinko but apparently in one of the mafia games I have been referred to as spinko. Anyways, I thought some form of introductions would be polite. Now on to my own arguments for and against the existence of god. I'm actually a little bit annoyed at my opponent for claiming the only slightly defensible argument for a god. Oh well I guess I'm going to have to dress up my argument with plenty of bells and whistles. Argument for the existence of god I was thinking of going with the teleological argument but I simply think it is utterly indefensible and so went with Plantinga's Ontological Argument for god's existence. [1] (1. )God exists in our belief but not in reality. (Position of non-theist or atheist) (2. )To exist in reality is better than to exist in belief alone. -Premise (3. )One may conceive a being having all of god's properties(my opponent's [1] from R1) existing in reality. -Premise (4. )A being whic possesses god's properties and existing is greater then god. -From (1) and (2) (5. )A being greater than god can therefore be conceived. -From (3) and (4) (6. )A being greater than god cannot be conceived. -Definition of god (7. )God cannont exist in understanding but not reality. -From (1), (5), and (6) (8. )God exists in understanding. -Impossible to disagree with. (9. )God therefore exists in reality. -From (7) and (8) _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Argument for the non-existence of god Now my opponent has taken the traditional problem of evil so I think I will follow my opponent with one of the arguments from incompatible properties. I will argue that the properties of omnibenevolence and omnipotence cannont exist in the same being. I have changed it slightly from the argument found at my second source. [2] (1. )God is essentially omnibenevolent. -Definition (2. )God is essentially free(omnipotent, able to do anything). -Definition (3. )God cannot do what is morally wrong. -From (1) (4. )God is not free. -From (3) (5. )God is free and God is not free. -From (2) and (4) I will follow my opponent's wishes and wait until the next round to refute his arguments. [1]. http://plato.stanford.edu... [2]. http://www.pitt.edu...
There is no God, No Jesus, No religion

First of all there are no good arguments for God, News flash, He doesn't exist, Just like the tooth fairy, Easter bunny, Santa Clause, Krumpus and any other man made up entity. You give figures for creation of life being a very minute number, Well there are billions of stars in the universe and so far we have not found any life out there, So yes life creation is minute in the grand scheme of the universe. Your second argument about all things being in motion is not entirely true, A rock on a beach in not in motion, Sure the earth is moving but the rock is not going anywhere. You are describing an entire universe which is essentially unlimited. There are things that might not be in motion, But chain reactions happen. The big bang created our solar system, The planets, Than time and evolution did the rest. There is no God because where is he. Are you going to tell me he is invisible? We can detect gamma rays, Radiation, Small particles in space, Atoms, We have technology, Yet no one has ever said they detected a spirit of God. Because it's all made up in your head, Like an exaggeration of a story, A fairy tale you spin. You can make up anything, Any being, Any story, BUT show me proof of God, Don't just tell me he exists but you can't sent me a photograph. So you need a lesson on the creation of the universe, Ok here you go Around 13. 8 billion years ago, All the matter in the Universe emerged from a single, Minute point, Or singularity, In a violent burst. This expanded at an astonishingly high rate and temperature, Doubling in size every 10-34 seconds, Creating space as it rapidly inflated. Within a tiny fraction of a second gravity and all the other forces were formed. Energy changed into particles of matter and antimatter, Which largely destroyed each other. But luckily for us some matter survived. Protons and neutrons started to form within the first second; within minutes these protons and neutrons could fuse and form hydrogen and helium nuclei. After 300, 000 years, Nuclei could finally capture electrons to form atoms, Filling the Universe with clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. After around 380, 000 years it left behind a bath of photons " the Cosmic Microwave Background that Penzias and Wilson accidentally detected. Within this were tiny ripples of matter that were stretched to enormous sizes during inflation, And in turn these became the seeds for the galaxies and galactic clusters we see today. Nowhere is there any mention of God, Or Jesus or any other man made up entity. Also God did not create Adam and Eve as you would like to believe in your MAN MADE UP book called the bible. Here is some reading for you on the evolution of earth and humans https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/History_of_Earth https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Human_evolution
There is no God, No Jesus, No religion

There is no God, No Muhammad, No Buddha, No miracles, No religions. Religions are just cults. Anyone who is religious is just mentally ill. The more religious you are the more mentally ill you are. Believing in God is like believing in Santa Clause as an adult. There is no actual proof of some man made up entity. Science has shown us evolution, Space, Biology, Medial science, We can create life through DNA and science labs. We have advanced so far and have proven that there is no spiritual being. It is all a figment of your own imagination. Like people with Bi-polar disorder, Schizophrenia, Autism, Dissociative mental disorders, THE MIND is what creates coping skills, Like after a very traumatic event the mind can suppress these haunting memories, It's the same with God and religion. A stressed out, Depressed mind can create religion to cope with hard times and the thought of there being more to their miserable life than just themselves. Therefore people create religion and an invisible being that can do anything to help them cope with their unstable mind. This is why the poorest countries have the highest religion levels, This is why inmates in jails turn to religion to cope with being locked up, This is why people with mental illness turn to religion. Religion, Gods, It's all FAKE NEWS for the mentally weak.
Only True Bronies should be allowed into the fandom

*Face turns red, flames emerge* (That's probably what AJ would do) Okay, all right, maybe after this is over, I might create an opinion or forum that you can do whatever you want, however lazy you want. But this is not the time. I can't believe what this fandom has come to, we should be as active as Tartarus, you know, with the hating getting worse and the population of Bronies dropping very unexpectedly, it's just UNBELIEVABLE! Okay, that may have sounded a little wishy-washy, but still, all of youse get my point, right? I believe that once you officially become a Brony, you have to stick to that oath and work as hard as you can to try to become a True "Make-Your-Mark-On-The-World" Brony. Because believe me, I'm really, really trying my hardest and working my hardest to at least do something to myself, and the last thing I need is to be hanging around FAKE Bronies who have absolutely no interest in making their marks on this world, or MLP in general. Am I not making it clear to anyone what I believe a True Brony should have? Where do you think you would end up if and when Princess Celestia and the Mane Six visit this world and are looking for "the one"? Now even though it's pretty obvious that I'll probably turn out to be "the one" in the end, but where would the FUN be in that if I didn't have enough competition to satisfy my hunger and thirst for all this stuff? I'm not just talking to you, my friend, but to everyone out there reading this debate right now, thinking about their future and their day as a Brony. So, my Brony friends, I'm leaving all of this with you as I close my debate, and you better be thinking about all of this and vote in your opinion on all of this. Because everything I have written in this debate is a huge part of who I am, and what I'm trying to make out of my life. And to my opponent, I hope you will soon learn your lesson about all of this. Thank you, Jason Martin