BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Were the Black Panthers a terrorist organization

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics: `42;Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; `42;Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and "Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. It looks like if I can prove just one single advantage that proves that the Black Panthers did any on this, than that means they did commit domestic terrorism. I could make my case very short, but I would like to list a few examples of them committing acts that harmed officers, or tried to intimidate others. ""April 6, 1968: An armed confrontation between Black Panthers and police led to a 90 minute confrontation at a building housing Panthers. Eventually, the Panthers surrendered. Over the course of the day, at least four policemen were wounded and one killed. One Panther member, Bobby Hutton, was killed by the police and seven others were arrested." The Black Panthers already have four policemen wounded, and one killed. They affected the government by killing one police officer, and wounding 4 others. This counts as domestic terrorism. ""May 2, 1967: About 30 armed Black Panther members entered the California legislature to protest consideration of outlawing the right of private citizens to bear arms. There was no violence, but the spectacle is well remembered and brought the group into public light." 30 armed members walked around in a legislature with guns. This could be a sign of intimidation which is another point in Domestic Terrorism. Intimidation-1.frighten or overawe (someone), especially in order to make them do what one wants: Oxford Dictionaries They were trying to influence government policy by walking in with guns. http://terrorism.about.com... Sorry about the fact that my arguments are short. It is just that we only really can document real offenses when they were actually popular. Either way, even if one of these examples are true, that is a win for the debate for me. One of these offenses if proven true which are true basically clarify them as a terrorist organization.
Evolution (Pro) vs Intelligent Design (Con)

I apologize if Pro feels I have extended the debate topic too far. If my opponent does not wish to continue, I am perfectly willing to shake hands stop the debate here. However, the points I brought up in Round 2 are completely legitimate within this topic. According to Pro's Round 1 definition of "Intelligent Design," I was challenged to show how life is "best explained" through I.D. I assumed this challenge also applied to Pro by showing how life is "best explained" through evolution. Thus, my point about seeking the best explanation. I am not asking my opponent to prove anything, I'm simply asking them to offer a complete explanation. From my point of view, a complete explanation needs to account for the entire evolutionary process - from single celled bacteria to Beethoven. But before that, it must also explain how that bacteria transitioned from non-life through a process of chance + matter + time. Ultimately, Pro must therefore start at the beginning with how the universe came to be through an "undirected process." Since my opponent is arguing against a position that claims "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." then I think it's only fair to ask Pro to give their own account of how the heavens and the earth were created. Evolution must be able to account for the whole process in order to be a complete theory. If Pro wants to continue, I invite them to pick up where we left off with their rebuttals to my opening argument. Otherwise, thanks for this fun discussion.
Evolution (Pro) vs Intelligent Design (Con)

I congratulate you on that excellent response Con. It is an argument that has made me think, thank you very much for that. Rebuttal: “To conclude, Pro's argument about evolutionary change is spot on.... but it only explains how life changes after it is already alive and exists in a complex form. Pro must explain the whole story - how life begins to evolve without design in the first place - which must include how life rose from non-life and how the universe was created from nothing.” Okay well this debate is about evolution, not the Big Bang, so I don’t think I will be going into detail on that. Evolution is more about how life evolved, not the origin of life. Throughout your whole response, you say that I have to show the how life first came about. That’s a different topic, I’m attempting to explain that life evolved over time to the life forms there are today. Conclusion: As reading through your response, it’s all about me having to prove that life was not created by an intelligent designer. Evolution is not about that; your entire argument is false. Prove to me that life did not evolve over time.
Evolution (Pro) vs Intelligent Design (Con)

It’s Christmas and I’m with my family so I’ll try to make this short, sorry. In the 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory of evolution. In 1858, Charles Darwin published a new evolutionary theory that was explained in Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859). “Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.” If you can find fossil evidence, or any kind of evidence to prove that God created life, it would be wonderful to make that evidence visible for us. Evolution by Natural Selection, is a long process that takes millions of years to see significant change. This process is disrupted in human life today since we no longer live in a ‘state of nature.’ But in a ‘state of nature,’ you would agree that the human with bad eyesight, or bad athletic ability would be more likely to be killed by a predator. Since these human’s do not survive as well, they are usually killed, and unable to pass on those genes. Therefore the organisms better suited to their environment live, and pass on those genes. So as time progresses, frogs start to have longer and longer legs, lions with sharper teeth, etc. Over millions and millions of years these slight changes add up and you notice significant changes. So I couldn’t write more but I’m really busy. Thank you very much, back to you Con! http://en.wikipedia.org... http://humanorigins.si.edu...
Evolution (Pro) vs Intelligent Design (Con)

In this debate, as Pro, I intend to argue that humans came about from Evolution by Natural Selection. My opponent, as Con, will intend to argue that humans came about from "Intelligent Design" or "Creationism." Definitions: Intelligent Design: certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection Creationism: the belief that living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth Natural Selection: the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring
Evolution (Pro) vs Intelligent Design (Con)

I will keep this very short. Pro accused me of holding a position for which there is no evidence. Yet I brought up the Big Bang and non-life to life transition to show thar Pro is doing the same thing. Evolution has evidence to prove that living things change in slight ways over time, and I do not dispute that. But that is not an explanation for the origins of life. When asked how evolution accounts for life arising in the first place, Pro is forced to shrug shoulders and admit "we dont know." There is no evidence that the Slimy Soup Theory is true. There is no evidence that life can accidentally arise after billions of years other than it "seems" like it "should" be possible. If I am guilty of accepting an origin theory without evidence, then my opponent is as well. But I am not guilty. There is evidence for god. Not the least of which is that we know it's mathematically impossible for the universe to have an infinite past. Even if the matter was "all in one spot" it must have been created at some finite point. This is strong evidence for the existence of an infinite power outside of space/time. Furthermore, the improbability that the universe (and therefore life) formed and evolved by chance is a number with more zeros than there are atoms in the universe. Any reasonable person would have to admit the impossibility of this option, which demands that we must consider design. Saying "god did it" is not the same as saying Zeus or Leprechauns did, because we can climb to the top of Mt. Olympus and see that Zeus is not there, and we can observe the end of a rainbow and see there is no pot of gold. In regards to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," Carl Sagan would do well to remember that raw chance and evolution is actually the extraordinary claim, given that the vast majority of humanity has and still does accept Intelligent Design. Perhaps thats why he was, by his own admission, not an atheist. Thanks to Pro for a good debate. I apologize if it did not take the direction they wanted it to, but I hope it was fun and interesting nonetheless.
Which is the better phone company Samsung or Xiaomi in all aspects.

Im confused if Samsung Galaxy M30 is a better phone than Xiaomi Redmi note 7 pro in overall aspects, The price on both is somewhat similar but i have heard mixed reviews about both, I personally am inclined towards Galaxy M30 but Redmi note 7 pro is a really tough competitor which is impossible to ignore. Please don't recommend any other phones these 2 are the ones i wish to choose from.
This ones on you

Abraham Lincoln once said this about welfare given to those who were willing to live off the labors of others , " In all ages of the world, some have labored, and others have, without labor, enjoyed a large portion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue." But continue, it has up to the present day. Aliens who manage to make it across America's borders are then free to reap the harvest of all that the welfare system provides without any efforts on their part to exert themselves to furnish their own needs. Come one, come all, American workers who work for a living each and every day to support themselves and their families don't take offence at aliens taking the money that they work for and having the government take a chunk out of their wages to furnish, gratic, to you for your families maintance. And what were some of the costs of aliens extracted from working American citizens '.....82,679,000 of the welfare-takers lived in households where people were on Medicaid, said the Census Bureau. 51,471,000 were in households on food stamps. 22,526,000 were in the Women, Infants and Children program. 20,355,000 were in household on Supplemental Security Income. 13,267,000 lived in public housing or got housing subsidies. 5,442,000 got Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. 4,517,000 received other forms of federal cash assistance...." Quoted figures from CNSNEWS.com __________ "Welfare " " Given that illegals tend to earn less money and live in poverty, they are also prone to use welfare. In Texas, for instance, 58 percent of illegal households collect some form of welfare, CIS reported, with 49 percent using food assistance and 41 percent using Medicaid. In California and Illinois, 55 percent use welfare. " And what were the costs to working Americans to educate these aliens " CIS reported. Taxpayers provide some $40 billion to educate illegals and their offspring. " Quotes from NEWAMERICA Written by R. Cort Kirkwood Thomas Sowell wrote in his book," AMERICAN EDUCATION" that one state, Oakland California, found that it was spending $ 7 million dollars annually to provide native-language instruction..." "Cicero knew of what he spoke." "We keep them in precarious balance only with our gold." J Carlton, Calgary wrote "Today's version: We keep them in precarious balance with Obamaphones, food stamps, "free" medicare, monthly welfare checks, public education...and on and on. The beginning of the end. Resolved: Aliens coming across America's borders illegally shouldn't be allowed to stay in this country and they shouldn't have access to any welfare benefits from state or federal agencies. Only those aliens who can prove that they will not have to receive Welfare in any form will be allowed to remain in this country and then only after entering this country through the legal channels provided for immigrants who wish to live in this country.
White bread is healthy

I will state arguments promoting my side and then I will rebut zealotical's arguments. ======= My Points ======= - White bread is made from refined white flour containing several unwholesome constituents. - White bread contains very little fiber and nutrients. - Refined white flour is produced from the whole wheat grain which is then subjected to the refining process which removes all traces of the husk, or bran and all the goodness contained in the grain. It is then bleached using chemical bleaching agents which has chlorine and dried in kilns at hot temperatures to kill any remaining beneficial constituents ======= Rebuttals ======= 1. "White bread is healthy because it's processed. Processed food is healthy. " There is nothing factual that states that something is healthy because it's processed. 2. "The bread is white. White is a color of purity. " I wouldn't say that's a valid argument. That's like saying: "All white people are good and healthy. " There are plenty of obese and unhealthy white folks.
Australia Day should be changed from 26th of January to another date

Australia day is on the 26th of January so people can celebrate and remember what being Australian is all about. Yes the white men took away the land ad lives of the Aboriginal, it was the end for them. But if was also the start for the Australians to start expanding on land, to start improving on the country and also let the Aboriginals live through those improvements on Australia, look how beautiful Australia is today! Aboriginals still live and don't have a problem now. It is a day to celebrate what Australia has become today, what improvements and achievements have been established. it was made a beautiful country and Australia day is of course to remind people how beautiful their country is and much peace is in it with no war and all goodness. Not everyday do people think to themselves of how beautiful their home country is, so Australia day is to remind people and to celebrate. On the 26th was when Australia was just at the very start from coming along way in business, in love of the country and in families and lives.
Australia Day should be changed from 26th of January to another date

Australia Day must be changed from the 26th of January. The 26th is when the First Fleet from England landed at Sydney Cove and Captain Arthur Phillip took possession of the land for the British Empire in 1788. The day was first recognised in the 1880's, but only as an anniversary of the first landing. In 1946 it changed to Australia Day and in 1994 it became a public holiday and a day to welcome new citizens or honour people who have done a great service to the country. The National Australia Day Council recognises it as "a day to reflect on what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our great nation", but the date means that not everyone can join in on this, because for some people the very day means nothing but sorrow and mourning. These people are Aboriginals. It is the beginning of the end of their freedom and culture, the start of the enormous amount of pain and suffering they were about to go through - having their land stolen from them; their food being hunted by white men with guns; their way of living being dismissed as savage and vulgar; the loss of so many lives due to European diseases, fights and battles, slaughter and rape; and later, having their children stolen to "civilise" them and develop them into white culture. Would you want to celebrate your country on the very anniversary of the day that you essentially lost it? How can we expect Aboriginals to do this?
Australia Day should be changed from 26th of January to another date

Australia Day should NOT be changed from the 26th of January to another date. Australia is a national public holiday in Australia. It is the celebration of the arrival of the First Fleet of British Ships at Port Jackson on the 26th of January 1788. It is celebrated annually because it is celebrated on what is means to be Australian and what's great about being Australian and living in Australia as a community. It is a day to reconnect with others as a community and a society and to feel special as a community and family. It is more than any other public holiday, it is a great day to be together as a society or/and a town/suburb. It is celebrated in every town/suburb/city. My two arguments will be that Australia day is on the 26th of January to people can remember/celebrate what being Australian is all about and its history and that Australia day brings families and communities to remind them about Australia's history!
Australia Day should be changed from 26th of January to another date

Why not change it? Pretty much all non Aboriginal Australians don"t know or don"t care about the fact that the 26th is when the First Fleet arrived and Australia was taken possession of by the British Empire. Most people are just happy to get a day off work and a chance to celebrate with friends and family. The only ones that the date has any real significance to are the ones who want it to be changed, so surely it"s best to change it and quell the controversy and protesting. Most people would probably be more than happy for it to change to another day, for example towards the end of the year when there"s no public holidays. The citizenship ceremonies and honouring great Australians are what bring real meaning and are of most significance to Australia Day, and their meaning is not any more rooted, powerful or momentous with the hoisting of the British flag in Sydney Cove on the 26th then it will be on any date that Australia Day could be changed to. If Australia Day is, as it is claimed to be, about so much more than the arrival of white men on these shores, and truly about coming together as a nation through all the different cultures, religions, races and beliefs we have here then what"s the harm of moving the day somewhere where it"s not marked by invasion and destruction of an entire race?
Australia Day should be changed from 26th of January to another date

There is no need to change the date, the history can not be changed. Australia day has been celebrated for 208 years now, why change now? If the date was changed, then what would it be called? What would it be celebrated for? What other history is there where everyone in Australia is happy with the whites and the Aborigines? What date would it be changed for, again there is no reason to change! Australia day brings families, communities, towns together. it is a fun day for everyone to enjoy there are carnivals, music festivals, family events and it's a public holiday where most people don't have to work and kids don't have to go to school! It's a day to look forward to and everyone has a smile on there face! The news people have a smile on their face and everyone does! Australia should not be change, it is so much work to do and history has to be stopped! It makes people at home, as a country!
Australia Day should be changed from 26th of January to another date

This topic is not going to go away. It is going to be brought up every single year until the date is changed. Every year there are marches, protests and conversations like this one. It will continue to drive Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians apart on the very day that we are meant to be brought together as a nation. The debate has especially begun raging after Kevin Rudd broke his promise - he promised he would change the date from the 26th to another day because he knew what a devastating day it was for Aboriginals, and then didn't see his promise through. Aboriginals are always going to mourn this day - and how could they not? They were invaded: they need to mourn and commemorate their ancestors who suffered. The 26th has always been their Day of Mourning, not just since Australia Day became official in 1994. As they said during a chant on Australia Day: "We won"t stop, we won"t go away, we won"t celebrate Invasion Day". Australia Day won"t truly be a day of national pride, a day that we can all celebrate as one, as many cultures, and recognise as having Aboriginal culture at our core, until it is no longer on the 26th.
Is year round school a good idea.

On my last argument, I said that their are breaks in two-to-four week vacation. So, instead of having a long, two month break, you have lots of two or four week breaks, so they can spend time with family and friend during then. Also, I have a snowboard and ski trip every year, and I have to skip classes to go, so I would like to have my trip AND keep my education good and healthy. And also, most teachers at summer schools teach at those schools, so it won't effect the job growth. ======== Thanks
Children are not our future

My opponent was very clever in this debate. He lured me into a debate that I thought would be a easy win. But I will still try to argue with him. My opponent stated, "Children cannot be our future, because by the time the future comes they will no longer be children! They will be adults! Therefore, children are not our future." This could be viewed in a different manner, Some could think that My opponent is talking about adults who act like children, Which would mean that children are our future. Thus my opponents entire argument is refuted. I think my opponent for this challenge
The Bible is not a good source of Morality

In this debate, I will advocate for the position that: the Bible is not a good reference for human morality. Filled with contradictions and atrocities, it is a mythos that should be read only as such- a fairy tale. The lessons that actually do reflect basic human empathy (secular) currently exist in our current society, and the character of God should be judged by the standards of real human morality. I will also advocate there is no existence of 'Divine Morality' (that which is innate to humans by birth or creed) and acting as if there is- is in itself immoral. An opponent must be able to argue the effect of the Bible without merely quoting verses. (Verses will be accepted with valid arguments attached.) No trolls please. This is is for a friendly debate. 5 Rounds. R1- Initial Position/ Acceptance of Debate R2 Arguments R3 - Rebuttals R4 - Rebuttal Responses R5 - Closing Arguments