BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
King David used the Star of David

The name "David" in original Hebrew letters and alphabet appears as 3 characters, DALETH-UAU-DALETH. These resemble two triangles with a "Y" between them. The "Y" shape is the same as our letter "U". It became the Greek letter Upsilon, and the Latin letter shaped "V", used for the sound of our "U". The two triangular shaped Hebrew letters became the Greek letter Delta, giving the name to the shape of a river "delta", based originally on the shape of the letter, rather than the other way around. The two triangular letters became the seal of the king, and can be found on ancient pottery and coins. It represents the name of the king, Daud. His name means "beloved". Symbol like this, including the serpent/pole (Nehushtan), and the pentagram (a ratio device of Pythagoras) were adopted by occultists. Their interest in them was a pursuit of secret powers thought to reside in them, as they relied on chants/spells to invoke the "energies" (really fallen malakim, devils). The seal of king Daud is not in any way a symbol of religion, it is only an identification mark of the king. The line of king Daud used it as well, as it is often referred to as Shalomoh's seal. Shalomoh is the true name for king "Solomon". It means "peaceful". If we take texts of Scripture out of their context, we see how Acts 7:32 has been used to make it appear Stephanos was referring to the "star" Kiyyun to have been this seal of Daud. The truth is another matter entirely. The Yahudim of Stephanos' day, and as far back as Yekezquel's (Ezekiel) were putting use to the signs of the mazzaroth (zodiac, zoo-animals) in decorating the mosaics of floors (see Ez. 8). The constellations (stella = star) were the objects Stephanos was referring to, not the seal of king Daud. Confusing the mazzaroth with the seal of Daud is a simple misinterpretation, but it factors in well with anti-Semitic attitudes as were held by the Assyrians, Egyptians, Romans (i.e., Constantine), and the Nicene fathers of early Christianity. These attitudes are alive and well today. To use "proof" that heathens used the seal of Daud at the same time period as Daud, or even conceived it in the first place and Daud adopted it, is an anachronistic error. Magi (magicians) constantly sought for more and more "knowledge" of the occult from outside sources, and still do so. To them, symbols play an important role in all they do (i.e., Masonic / Jesuit / Illuminati).
King David used the Star of David

King David is a fascinating figure and an ancient prophet and king. Ancient Israel is also legendary, inspiring, and colorful.Did King David associate himself with the famous design known as the Star of David? If not, was it an important symbol used in the official Judaism of his era? Several authors write that this was indeed the case, and give educated reasons. Why do they think this? When or how did it develop in society?Regardless of the outcome, it should be an interesting discussion about religion and history.Rules:1. The contender who accepts the debate will support at least one of the underlined propositions in the affirmative.2. I am to take the position that such was not the case.3. Please be nice.
Too big to fail is too short minded for longer economic growth.

If we look into the longer term economic horizon we see that the subsidisation of an economic entity to necessitate its survival will lead to the peril of that entity. We can look at the disaster of GM, which we are still bailing out because of the governments failure to let the organization fail. [1] Now the automobile manufacturers were the most notable companies to fail, that being said, the larger problem of failure is yet to come. The banking industry which received over an 80% lions share of the bailout have simply written off the federal funding on their balance sheets through manipulation of LIBOR rates and federal borrowing and repayment of aforementioned rates. Unfortunately I have yet to publish my research on this issue so I have no hard data to back this, however the banking industry paid back a menial 31.86% of the federal money borrowed however it states on any research engine that they have fully paid back the debt. This is a huge problem as this will affect the consumers in their buying power and lead to longer recessionary times, as well as place insecure weights on the Federal balance sheet. A metaphor that one can bring to mind when considering this is a person who has lost full function of an appendage due to a cancer. This person is given an antibiotic regiment that will allow some, very limited, functional use of their arm, and this person is only allowed to use their arm how the doctor says they can and not any other way. The person will be plagued with limited functionality at best and will in the end die as cancer is malignant. We cannot let our country fall to the cancer we must remove the appendage before we fall to the malignant, systemic and global problems that the toxic debt holds for us. [1] http://money.cnn.com...
Too big to fail is too short minded for longer economic growth.

I myself am also against "Too Big to Fail," but there are some things that are serious issues if we don't do anything. The free market has caused many great things to occur and one of those things is innovation. This occurs when companies constantly compete and this betters society no matter how big they get and thus we need to leave the market. We need to observe the economy and what wouldn't have occured if we didn't bail out the WORLD economy. No I'm not talking about TARP, but I'm talking about the US Federal Reserve $29 Trillion bailout. [1] This didn't just go to US companies, but went overseas to prevent a global collapse. You may ask why did they do that and that was to stabalize the market's so investors in the US could resume trading. If the Global Economy was collapsing there is a HUGE chance that it would have dragged the US economy back down. [2] This was backed when the Treasury's "Stress Test" came back with positive results. [3] If this wouldn't have happend we would have seen the Global Collapse. As we can see from the chart above we can see tha the US unemployment rate hit the highest that it has been in over the past 20 years and ended up being just a bit shy of that of the Great Deperession. If we completely adopted a hands off economy we would continue to see the bank busts that occured like the ones in the 1800s and the Panic of 1908. More likely than not the US economy would have been in a worse state then it is today especially if we did not help out the economy. Sources1. ( http://www.levyinstitute.org...) 2. ( http://www.bloomberg.com...)3. ( http://www.investopedia.com...)
Too big to fail is too short minded for longer economic growth.

First I would like to make certain general definitions clear. Economy: The large set of inter-related economic production and consumption activities which aid in determining how scarce resources are allocated. [1]Financial Crisis: A situation in which the value of financial institutions or assets drops rapidly. A financial crisis is often associated with a panic or a run on the banks, in which investors sell off assets or withdraw money from savings accounts with the expectation that the value of those assets will drop if they remain at a financial institution. [2]Investor: An investor is someone who provides (or invests) money or resources for an enterprise, such as a corporation, with the expectation of financial or other gain. [3] Moral Hazard:The risk that a party to a transaction has not entered into the contract in good faith, has provided misleading information about its assets, liabilities or credit capacity, or has an incentive to take unusual risks in a desperate attempt to earn a profit before the contract settles. [4]The Too Big to Fail concept, hereafter abbreviated "TBtF", has been a topic of much debate in the past nine years as the United States and Europe each entered into a financial crisis. I am on the opposition of the TBtF concept as it leads to long term downward pressure being put onto the overall economy in terms of excess debt, in non monetary liabilities, on the government. [5] TBtF if done in terms of monetary levity should have been implemented at minimum four times in the past where it was not, Enron (2001), WorldCom (2002) Washington Mutual (2008), & largest at a total value of $691 billion, Lehman Brothers (2008). [6] Solely looking at Lehman Brothers the bankruptcy had more in total value of debt than all the additional bailouts of nine hundred and fifty-one recipients, valued at $615 billion. If the economic ripples were to happen nothing reached wider or deeper into the financial system than Lehman Brothers did. The TBtF argument is flawed in that the biggest was not too big and fell, the economic ripples have been felt and weathered. My stance is based on the priciples above and I am for the stance that TBtF is a trap of moral hazard.To quote Sheila C Blair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, “It fed the crisis, and it has gotten worse because of the crisis.”[1] http://www.investopedia.com...[2] http://www.investopedia.com...[3] http://www.vocabulary.com...[4] http://www.investopedia.com...[5] http://www.bis.org...[6] http://content.time.com...
Too big to fail is too short minded for longer economic growth.

Definition 'Too Big To Fail': The idea that a business has become so large and ingrained in the economy that a government will provide assistance to prevent its failure. "Too big to fail" describes the belief that if an enormous company fails, it will have a disastrous ripple effect throughout the economy. [1] The argument of "Too Big to Fail", is a theorized and untested argument. Too big to fail and moral hazard walk hand in hand and when the too big to fail doctrine is set to motion moral hazard is highly probable to accompany it. This is a problem because corporations as well as governments that have been embraced by the "Too big to fail" doctrine are not helping the overall economic climate long term by staying afloat. Rather these corporations & governments are a weight on the federal budget of the governing body. The "Too Big to Fail" doctrine is a short term bandage to the economy that will peel off into a festering wounded economic horizon. [1] http://www.investopedia.com...
God's existence - supernatural explanation superior to natural due to violation of nature

I will do my best to address all points thoroughly. Magic PRO has claimed that magic is an acceptable belief when we see a magician turn a cat into a dog. Aside from the obvious flaw in the analogy of the “magician” using sleight of hand, we run into the problem of making another Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. In this case, PRO is using the fallacy in its most basic form, basically saying that an explanation should be believed since it has not been disproved [1]. To demonstrate the absurdity of PRO’s position, I claim that the universe was created by an Invisible Pink Unicorn. According to PRO’s reasoning, she must accept this proposition unless she can prove it false. The time to believe a premise is when sufficient evidence has been provided. Thermodynamics I would like to thank PRO for expanding on her point about thermodynamics. It appears now that she is talking about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, specifically that entropy will increase with time [2]. It seems to me that she is then reasoning that there must have been a point in the past where entropy was 0, and that this must have been the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang. Furthermore, PRO goes on to point out that there must have been a cause of the Big Bang, and that cause violates the natural laws. She then says that we could call this cause “God. ” I would ask PRO to correct me if I have incorrectly framed her argument. I will address this again in my final section. The Uncaused Cause No, we do not have an observation that “the universe apparently came from nothing. ” What we have is an area in which we are ignorant. If PRO is claiming that the universe came from nothing I would be willing to look at her evidence. Occam’s razor Here, PRO is forgetting something; we have evidence that the natural world exists; we do not have evidence that anything supernatural exists. Therefore, in ANY discussion, a supernatural explanation requires at least one more assumption (that the supernatural does indeed exist), and therefore it can be cut away with the razor [3]. Arguments from Ignorance/Final Thoughts The problem that is at the core of all of PRO’s arguments is that she seems to commit the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy with reckless abandon. Simply because we cannot disprove a proposition, does not mean it should be believed. Positive evidence for the proposition MUST be offered. This is the case whether we are talking about magic claims by illusionists, the cause of the universe or the existence of the supernatural. PRO is able to argue back to our ignorance, but then she begins to make assertions for which she has no evidence. If we don’t know something, the correct answer is “I don’t know. ” I look forward to PRO’s comments in the final round. [1] . http://rationalwiki.org... [2] . http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [3] . http://rationalwiki.org...
God's existence - supernatural explanation superior to natural due to violation of nature

it is not based on ignorance. it's based on observation. if we see a magician who turns cats into dogs, and cannot find a way to prove it being scientific, we at least have an observation that says it's magic. even most scientific methods answer questions based on the best evidence available... that's not appealing to ignorance, it's just going on what we have best. "There are four laws of thermodynamics [2], none of which state what PRO claims them to say. Perhaps PRO can elaborate further." http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu... "Natural systems left to themselves move towards states of lower potential energy." the uncaused cause thing is same as before. we have an observation, that the universe apparently came from nothing. we go with the information we have available. everything else we might suppose, are based on theories alone, not empirical information. okham's razor could be said to be best fulfilled by the supernatural hyposthesis. most any therory (aside from us coming from nothing) that we might posit for how the universe began would necessarily entail more questions, it's no better than the God hypothesis. at least with teh supernatural hypothesis, we can just chaulk it up to the mysteries of the supernatural, and in fact probably have fewer questions overall in the long run. the only theory that might have fewest questions, would be that we came from nothing, as that is most apparent and raises only 'how is that possible'.
God's existence - supernatural explanation superior to natural due to violation of nature

I will argue that a supernatural explanation, to any question, is necessarily inferior to a natural explanation. I will happily share the burden of proof. All of PRO’s points are based in a version of the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. That is, because we cannot explain a thing, an individual’s pet theory (in this case a God) is posited [1]. Unfortunately, doing this has not advanced knowledge, as no real evidential support has been offered for the pet theory, but it is basically assumed to be correct because it has not been proved wrong. This is, of course, fallacious thinking. Thermodynamics PRO has claimed that the Laws of Thermodynamics “says energy is always breaking down from higher states. ’” There are four laws of thermodynamics [2], none of which state what PRO claims them to say. Perhaps PRO can elaborate further. The Uncaused Cause PRO has claimed that that every effect must have a cause, except the first one. This is a case of the Special Pleading Fallacy [3]. PRO must provide evidence for why that first cause must have been uncaused, not simply claim that “the cause of our universe apparently had no other cause before it. ” This again is an Argument from Ignorance The Inferiority of Supernatural Explanations My defense of my own proposition, that supernatural explanations are necessarily inferior to naturalistic explanations, will basically rely on Occam’s Razor. Occam’s Razor basically states that when comparing two hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be preferred [4]. PRO has not demonstrated that a supernatural ANYTHING exists. Also, positing a supernatural explanation does not have any explanatory power. If we do not know the explanation for X. We are ignorant on 1 item, and we have 0 assumptions. However, if we claim by fiat that God is the explanation for X, we now have 1 assumption, but we are ignorant on at least 2 items (How God did it, and an explanation for God himself). We have multiplied our ignorance and added to our assumptions, therefore, Occam’s Razor requires us to abandon the supernatural explanation. If we are ignorant of a thing (which we all are about numerous things) the correct course of action is to admit our ignorance, say, “I don’t know,” and then go about looking for an answer. Supernatural explanations do not have explanatory value Final Thoughts PRO has made several logical fallacies in her first round comments. I look forward to her expounding upon her points in the subsequent rounds so that we can have a fruitful discussion. I would again like to thank PRO for setting up this debate; I am having a good time so far. Sources [1] . http://rationalwiki.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
DDO Song Wars: Big Beat/House/Techno

Inspired by jifpop09's music debates, I am initiating DDO Song Wars! The goal is simple: to find better songs matching the Topic's genre than your opponent! For your argument, link to a YouTube video of your song for the round. Only one song can be posted per round, and any accompanying synopsis of the song/artist is welcome. For my first round, I will be posting the song "Rockafeller Skank", by Norman Cook. This song is one of Cook's most popular tracks, and has even been featured in the 2012 Summer Olympics! http://www.youtube.com...
All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights.

Since the instigator has made this debate five rounds, I would like to institute an organized round structure. Round 1: Acceptance/Greetings/Rules/WhatevsRound 2: Opening Arguments (Neither opponent can respond to what is said in Round 2)Round 3: Rebuttals of Opening ArgumentsRound 4: Counter-Rebuttals/Defend Opening ArgumentsRound 5: Concluding remarks (no new evidence or arguments, merely conclude what has already been said. I will be arguing in this debate that The United States should institute a nationwide gun ban of all firearms, meaning that no citizen is allowed to possess a firearm of any kind (handgun, rifle, assualt rifle, shotgun, all of them) except for Law Enforcement and Military (SWAT Team, Police, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, Navy, Airforce, Army, etc. )The United States would institute this law and all citizens would be required to travel to a government building in which they will hand over their firearms to government officials. They will have a grace period of a couple months in which they must find the time to do so. After the grace period is over, any citizen found possessing a firearm will have their firearm repossessed and serve jail time. The United States would dispose of the firearms by disabling them, via incineration, dismantlement, etc. Since this debate is on whether or not the US should have gun rights, we should make this debate less about the whether all guns would be banned, or whether the law could be passed, we should make this about whether it should be banned. Thank you and I look forward to my opponent’s arguments.
All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights.

Since this is my last response, I have not read my opponent’s conclusion yet, and I will conclude what has already been said in the debate. And therefore, as agreed upon, not bring up any new arguments or evidence. In this entire debate, my opponent has only brought up one argument in favor of gun rights; rebellion. That if the US government was to become corrupt, the people will have guns to start a rebellion and take over the country. I have shown that the possibility that the US government will become corrupt is so low, that the risks that guns pose do not outweigh this one advantage that Pro proposes. The systems and regulations and foreign agencies that have been put in place after the Revolutionary War have made it that it is extremely improbable, if not impossible for the government to become corrupt. Even in the scenario that it would, what would the people be able to do against the government’s forces (Airforce, tanks, professionally trained soldiers, etc. ) This will only lead to more bloodshed and deaths. Pro has also failed to rebut the arguments that I have put forth, even conceding my “Accidents” argument. Rebutting my suicides contention by claiming that knives are just as effective as guns in suicides, which I proved is absolutely absurd. And rebutting my homicide contention by saying that guns are used in self-defense, which I revealed is the least used defensive behavior. Again, thank you for the debate.
All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights.

It is now time for conclusions. Remember not to read mine until after you post yours. Suicides Con says that guns are the most common suicide method. However, if they were eliminated, people would poison themselves, jump off buildings, cut themselves with knives, or suffocate themselves. Falling and suffocation are actually more lethal than guns. [1] Con insists that gun control would reduce suicide, but this is evidently not true. Homicides Con claims that saying guns are used in defense requires a source. I will now give him several sources to show how obvious it is. [2] Con also claims that criminals will have difficulty getting hold of a firearm if guns were banned. He apparently ignored my argument that criminals will illegally keep the guns that they have. Accidents Apparently Con missed my point that every human right comes with some negative effects, and he essentially drops the argument by claiming that the point was irrelevant. Right to rebel Con has dropped this argument. Since this was the whole reason that guns should be allowed, ignoring the argument is admitting defeat. Conclusion Con has dropped my main argument that citizens have the right to rebel. Since this was the basis for my arguement, it still stands, while Con has presented no reason to ban guns. [1] http://www.annualreviews.org... [2] http://www.latimes.com... http://www.cato.org... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... http://gunssavelives.net... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com... http://www.usnews.com...