BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is God real

Literally, I would agree with you - four thousand years ago, there was probably no flood. There wasn't any historical evidence; only biblical. However, there have been accounts (like I've shown sources for in R1) that show huge floods, much like the one spoken about in the bible, with geological evidence. And considering the idea that a day back in the biblical era wasn't literally 24 hours as it is today, this gives the impression that the flood didn't literally happen 4,500 years ago. This, along with the idea that God created Earth and the Universe in 6 days, which is quite ridiculous, sends us to the understanding that the Bible isn't literal, and shouldn't be taken literally, but as a metaphor, in most of the stories. This does not disprove the existence of God. This "disproves" (notice the quotations) the idea of a flood sweeping the earth a mere thousands of years ago. It doesn't even disprove that, you just say the lack of evidence other than the Bible (which I agree, is not "evidence") shows that there is no way a flood swept Earth. However, with my sources in R1, and this new one here [1], it is quite possible that there was a flood some thousand years ago, as well as ones in more recent times, and past times, all backed up with actual geographical evidence. The Bible being 100% accurate or not has almost nothing to do with God's existence. It is the word of God, but written by man. God is all-knowing, man is not. The only way anyone can actually disprove the existence of anything is to explore every inch of the observable Universe, and also prove (somehow) that there is nothing more in existence than the universe that we live in. I don't really like having to resort to that argument, so I will happily let you make another couple arguments and present any questions, as well as a closing statement. If what you say has any relevance to God's existence (or lack of), I would love to hear it. So far you've said the Great Flood is known to be a myth, (which I have proven could have happened, as we have actual evidence of floods much like the one from the Bible) and that God is not forgiving - which is wrong; God IS forgiving, you just have to seek him out and ask for forgiveness, and it would be a pretty good idea not to go against any of the commandments while you're at it. [1] http://abcnews.go.com...
Is God real

Hi! I would like to accept this debate and hopefully entertain argument for a good time.First, let me confirm that you are asserting God is not real/does not exist, is that correct? I just want to make sure we are both on the same page.The years in the Bible are not the same as the years today. One year is a representation of a long time period [1], and does not literally mean 365 days. So the evidence for the Great Flood could have been washed away and eradicated from history millions of years ago.Similar events to the Great Flood mentioned in the Bible have been recorded [2] and are not impossible at all. This gives us proof that the Great Flood mentioned in the Bible is not only possible, but similar events have happened, leading to the idea that the Great Flood was not only possible, but highly likely.And remember, one day is not literally 24 hours in the Bible, so rain for forty days is most likely more like a long period of rain and monsoon type weather. An example of such a great amount of rain is here [3]. Almost 500mm of rain in a month and a half, meaning for the great amount of time that rain fell in the Biblical era, the waters must have rose incredibly.God is forgiving to those who ask for forgiveness. For the people who disobey and harm mankind as well as curse God's name, there is no reason to forgive them. God created Hell for the people the bad people of Earth. [1] http://www.creationists.org... [2] http://discovermagazine.com... [3] http://www.bbc.com...
Dogs VS Cats

1. You did not state in what are Dog's better than Cats. Do you mean in terms of use or as a general pet? As you did not state originally what you meant I am forced to assume that you mean as a general pet. Cat's are better than Dogs. A cat requires little maintenance other than to be fed and given water along with a litter box. Working out isn't needed, along with cats eating nowhere near as much as a dog. In return you get a furry little friend that will curl up with you when you're asleep and provide endless amounts of amusement if you have something as basic as a laser pointer. 2. In short, Cats require less upkeep, don't need to be worked out, don't eat as much and overall are less expensive.
College students should not be blamed for acting violently when involved with alcohol abuse

So my opponent says that college students are not to be blamed for violence when it comes to alcohol. Okay, well let's look at it this way, the law makes it where students who drink and become violated can not go to jail, since they are not to blame. Now what if a college student relizises that, while drunk, and beats up a minor. He knows that he is not going to get into trouble, so he does it every night. Is that right? No. When in college, you are no longer at the age where your parents must take the blame for you. You are an adult and must take responcibillty. It is not like the students do not have a choice. I they can not handle themselves while drunk, it is better just to avoid it all together. I look forward to my opponents response.
College students should not be blamed for acting violently when involved with alcohol abuse

I believe that college students are not to be blamed when they act violently because of alcohol. Alcohol make us unconscious---which means that intoxicated adolescents dont know what they're doing when they're drunk. As we all know, alcoholism can lead to extreme cases such as car accidents, damaged property, and conflicts. For this, I believe that the blame should be put on the parents and peer pressure. The prospect of "fitting in" in a college community pressures the students into doing what they think everybody else does--drinking. Parents also play an important role in an adolescent's life. Adolescents are curious by nature and thrill-seeking to them means involving themselves into college drinking. Now, if the parents are not aware of this, tendencies are these children develop drinking issues. Thus, students are not o be blamed. I would like to say good luck to my opponent. Reference: http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
free verse is not poetry

You contradict yourself once again in the very beginning of this rebuttal. When quoting my line about dictionaries not giving full analyses of words, you say that you've shown definitions of poetry and free verse and that free verse. You seriously just said "Dictionaries don't give the full, correct meanings of words, but I'm giving a dictionary definition so it counts." You COMPLETELY disregarded the first part of your sentence and then use the first part of the sentence that you just admitted was wrong to prove a point! Because definitions don't give full meanings of words and the differences between classifications, *you cannot use a simplified form of two word definitions when some key aspects that connect the two are missing.* As for the next paragraph, it doesn't matter the contradiction in the statement (I'll debunk that in a minute) as you cited a source that works *against* your statement, not *for* it. That's like a person who denies global warming linking an article that shows the effects of global warming as support for their point. Do you not see that your evidence disproves your own claim? As for the contradiction in the term "free verse," you've severely misinterpreted the meaning of the words in the phrase. The seventh definition of "free" (in the adjective section, because it's used with a noun; just making sure there's no confusion) in the New Oxford American Dictionary is "7 (of a literary style) not observing the strict laws of form." So the term means "Not observing the strict laws of verse." There is no definition in the dictionary that says "free" means no meter, either. It's used like the word "not," it has no real meaning on its own until it's combined with another word to create a phrase, rendering contradictions impossible because of this dependency. So, yes, in short, the term "free verse" makes perfect sense. Also, you have no argument against my "majority rules" vs. "all or nothing" mentality point? Considering that was probably the most important part of my last argument I have a feeling that you're running out of valid points to counter mine.
free verse is not poetry

I have given proof based on the definitions of poetry and free verse that free verse is n poetry con says "You forget that dictionaries don't give the full meaning and descriptions of words" maybe so I but again I have shown that on the definitions of "poetry "and "free verse" that "free verse" is n poetry also con say I "contradict yourself with the definition of free verse" but free verse is a contradiction in terms "free verse" "free" means no metre "verse" means writing in metre so "free verse" writing means "no metred metred "writing thus a contradiction in terms
free verse is not poetry

You forget that dictionaries don't give the full meaning and descriptions of words. "Meticulous," for example, comes from the Latin root "metus" which means "fear," giving it an archaic but still somewhat relevant connotation of fear. Yet the New Oxford American Dictionary defines it as: "showing great attention to detail; very careful and precise." Even if you give dictionaries the benefit of the doubt and count their definitions as complete analysis, you still contradict yourself with the definition of free verse in which the first word is "poetry." The New Oxford American Dictionary also lists the term as "poetry that does not rhyme or have a regular meter." Even so, the guidelines for poetry are more detailed than a one-sentence description. Although poetry has the qualities of meter and prose, it also has the guidelines of using figurative language (such as personification, similes, metaphors, hyperboles, alliteration, etc.), line spacing, stanzas, evocative writing, and a common theme, often about subjective experiences. Conversely, prose is the lack of most or all of these qualities. The issue of distinction is a "majority rules" verdict, not an "all or nothing" verdict. Allow me to use simple everyday logic to demonstrate: I see an object which I think may be a stove. Is it inside, like my stove? yes. Is it in a kitchen, like mine? Yes. Is it square, like mine? Yes. Does it have a timer, like mine? Yes. Does it produce heat for food, like mine? Yes. Is it red, like mine? No. Does it have five knobs, like mine? No. Although it doesn't fit all the criteria, I can reason it is a stove. Furthermore, using "all or nothing" verdicts between poetry and prose means that haikus aren't poems because they don't rhyme and a quatrain isn't a poem because it doesn't have meter. Therefore, "majority rules" categorizing should be used for poems, making free-verse valid poetry because it meets most of the criteria of a poem.
free verse is not poetry

This debate is really simple as it just comes down to the definition of poetry and definition of free verse The definitions show con that free verse is not poetry If you don"t like the definitions that is just to bad if you think you can define poetry any way you like then the term poetry looses all meaning The debate comes down to what is the definition of poetry So here is how poetry is defined http://www.merriam-webster.com... poetry is defined to be 1)a : metrical writing : verse 2): writing that formulates a concentrated imaginative awareness of experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific emotional response through meaning, sound, and RHYTHM And rhythm is defined to be http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... "A strong, regular repeated pattern of movement or sound Metre is defined to be http://www.merriam-webster.com... 1 a : systematically arranged and measured rhythm in verse: (1) : rhythm that continuously repeats a single basic pattern (2) : rhythm characterized by regular recurrence of a systematic arrangement of basic patterns in larger figures so from the above definitions poetry is writing that is in metre (ie rythymical ie repeated sounds) Definition of free verse http://www.thefreedictionary.com... free verse n 1. (Poetry) unrhymed verse without a metrical pattern thus from the definition of free verse "which is not in metre- free verse cannot be poetry-which is writing in metre/rhythm if you think you can define poetry any way you like then the term poetry looses all meaning
free verse is not poetry

Free verse is poetry. I believe this because poetry is considered an artistic expression laced with various forms of figurative language to get across a feeling or event. Serious examples of free verse use figurative language to express the concept and use a line-separation format not found in prose. To demonstrate this I will be using Emily Dickinson's "Come Slowly, Eden" as an example. "Come slowly, Eden Lips unused to thee. Bashful, sip thy jasmines, As the fainting bee. Reaching late his flower, Round the chamber hums Counts his nectars - alights, And is lost in balms!" (as written in http://www.thehypertexts.com..., compiled by Michael R. Burch) Dickinson uses line spacing, as found in most other forms of poetry, to separate ideas. She also uses the simile "As the fainting bee" to paint a picture of the sipping of jasmines. In fact, it could be said the whole poem is a metaphor for paradise. She also very loosely uses alliteration in the lines "Reaching.../Round" and consonance with "hums...balms." In short, although free verse may not fit the complete definition of poetry, it is much closer to it than prose and should be classified as such.
free verse is not poetry

colin leslie dean argues that free verse is not poetry as it is not in meter see POETRY-OR-PROSE-POETRY-IN-DECLINE-THE-RISE-OF-PROSE-OR-THE-END-OF-POETRY http://www.scribd.com... Oromagi says the same when he criticizes colin leslie deans poetry for being bad as it is quote it has "...No sense of meter or verse." http://www.debate.org...
should schools make it mandatory for students to wear uniforms during school time.

Intro: I age with many people that wearing what I want is great, but wearing uniforms is only in school also the benefits of school uniforms are numerous, and many schools nationwide have adopted a uniform policy in public, private and parochial settings. Not only do school uniforms help reduce the cost of a growing child's school wardrobe, but uniforms assist with discipline and behavioral issues. cont 1: School uniforms ensure people don't label others What I am saying is that with school uniforms kids will open up to each other. What I mean is that in school lets say a kid dressed in preppy clothes sees a kid with ragged like clothing or Goth clothes, he will not interact with him or make fun of him. IF all kids have uniforms they will get engaged with each other and not label them in a group. Another example is when you see kids sag their pants or whatever you assume their dumb ghetto kids which isn't' always true. Uniforms ensure kids are not labeled and ensure a higher unity amount the kids in the school. cont 2: benefits of uniforms "Preventing gang colors, etc. in schools "Decreasing violence and theft because of clothing and shoes "Instilling discipline among students "Reducing need for administrators and teachers to be 'clothes police' (for example, determining whether shorts are too short, etc.) "Reducing distractions for students http://712educators.about.com... Conclusion: As you can see uniforms have many benefits that are worth considering. I admit I like my own clothing but it would also be real nic eto have a school environment where people are treated more equally due to same outfits Response: My opponent's full main argument is that kids are limited in creativity they can express in clothes, is true but again it is only in school and they are not limited in the creativity they can exrpress in the mind. Also benefits of school uniforms outweigh the cost.c
should schools make it mandatory for students to wear uniforms during school time.

Ok i will start this off, to me if my school made us wear uniforms i would not be happy for one that would be a drastic change for me, because i have never had to wear a school uniform other than CPI but thats not school thats trades. on the other hand i feel that your cloth tells about a persons personality and it shows what they like to wear. and i feel that a uniform constricts them from there creativeness in cloths. But i know that some people may wear inappropriate cloths and i hopeful they get that taken care of and just because someone wears something that is not school appropriate that does not mean you should jump the gun and mandate uniforms but what they should do is make rules about what type of cloth are appropriate like no shorty shorts, and no perverted cloths, one those students are about as old as 18 and under and there just not old enough to be wearing that kind of wardrobe. So thats what i have to state now its your turn, make it good.
No Gods Exist.

Thank you for ever so kindly allowing me to take the floor first. My first argument is simple; how would one explain the big bang theory? Science has no certainty towards how this freak of nature had happened and what the cause of it was but there is speculation that a higher being, Such as god, Had created this. On the matter of nature, Why does nature follow the laws of nature? There is no reason for it to which further supports the idea of a bigger being existing to establish that.
Mexican soccer players are better than Americans

There was a moment of history in which American players were better than Mexicans some years ago, but nowadays Mexicans are undoubtedly better than Americans because of this: 1. Mexico won gold medal in London Olympics showing a really dominating team. 2. http://www.fifa.com... Mexico have more wins since 2000 3. FMF is way better than MLS and Mexican players are playing in better European teams than Americans
Mexican soccer players are better than Americans

Though Mexico is rich with Soccer history and many good players have come from Mexico, America has a better soccer team than Mexico. Recently, the United States defeated the Mexican national team 1-0, in Mexico I might add [1]. The United States has more quality wins than the Mexican team such as their 1-0 win against Italy, their 1-0 win against Venezuela [2], and most recently their 4-3 win against Germany [3]. Under their current coach, J"rgen Klinsmann they have a record of 11-5-7 [4]. The United States has also had several ties with Mexico over the past couple years. The United States also has more quality star players than the Mexican national team. The American team has players such as Jozy Altidore, Clint Dempsey, Tim Howard, DaMarcus Beasley, and the rising star Fabian Johnson. All of these five players have played in Europe in places such as England and Germany. I would now like to refute your previous statements about the Mexican national team: 1. During the London Olympics, many national teams such as Spain, Germany, and the United States played younger players that did not have as much international experience as others. If the normal starting players had played in the Olympics, it would have been very unlikely for Mexico to win or even advance as far as they did. 2. The site you posted is outdated and does not calculate some of the more recent ties and the win that America had over Mexico. 3. As I posted earlier the United States have several players playing abroad in Europe and even some playing in Mexico. Also, there is no way to prove that the FMF is better than the MLS because the two never play. The two also play against different levels of talent within their respective leagues. Thank you and I look forward to your next argument.
Life Philosophy

I am in a bit of a philosophical mood and was hoping to argue something deep and thought-provoking. The two subjects currently on my mind are Free Will (I am Con) and Objective Morality (I am Con). Feel free to accept if you have a contrary opinion on either topic and would like to argue it. If you have another philosophical debate on your mind, feel free to post in the comments and I'll gladly consider something new. In fact, I'd rather debate something new as I think I've made up my mind on the two above topics. In any case, any questions will be answered in the comments. My opponent will have Sole BoP if he/she chooses the Free Will topic, but BoP will be shared if he/she chooses to argue Pro Objective Morality. Upon accepting, I ask that my opponent state which topic they chose and present their arguments in the first Round.
Life Philosophy

"certainty negates belief" No, revelation of truth negates belief. One can be certain in their beliefs, as many religious people are, for example. "math is objective, reality has no flaws" Yes, I agree with both statements. However our perception of reality may be flawed. But since our view on reality is biased, we cannot make an unbiased decision and therefore there is no free will. Since we cannot observe an objective reality, there is no way we can make an objective moral judgement and these judgments vary from place to place, culture to culture. There is no free will and no objective morality.
Life Philosophy

So we shall argue both, fantastic. In fact, I'm glad that you've accepted this debate as I have been curious to debate you for a while now. You say morality is objective, but I'm a little confused on your proof for it. Humans have had such a wide variety of beliefs when it comes to morality and the morality of a particular actions depends solely on the society in which the act is committed. For example, today in the US, it would be considered immoral to eat another human but several centuries ago this was a common practice in the indigenous tribes of New Zealand as well as many other groups around the world. There is no objective standard for morality as moral codes vary widely from one society to the next. objective=universal no universal code of morals=no objective code of morals You say that since one can be mentally enslaved, then one can be mentally "free" and therefore have free will. What do you mean by "mentally enslaved"? Who's to decide that a certain state is slavery while the other is freedom? "free will is my ability to divert from the path i walk, or my ability to consider it" Yes you consider it, but your "decision" is biased. It's based on already-present factors that YOU DID NOT CREATE nor do you control. free will=ability to act without bias bias=already-present factors that you don't control We are not able to act without bias, as to act without bias is to be completely removed from our environment, which we are not. inability to act without bias=no free will
Life Philosophy

morality is objective, like it wasnt a bad thing to give your kids mushrooms to eat because they were not deadly poisonous free will must exist if i can be mentally enslaved belief=mentally enslaved knowledge=free will for perfect balance, as they stand in contrast free will is my ability to divert from the path i walk, or my ability to consider it.. resistance on the path of choice is the lack of will blind men shouldnt search for rainbows