BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Social media is for losers who can't communicate in real life

Dependence on social media will lead to the collapse of modern society. People today can't function without their electronic devices. People don't know how to read a map anymore or use a compass because they are so dependent on GPS, People don't know how to socialize in real life because all they do is text. Banking research all info could easily be wiped out by a solar flair, A huge EMP blast, A natural disaster that would wipe out the electric grid and people would be completely useless because they are so dependent on social media. How will you function without your phone when there is a massive blackout for a month, What about a year? And this is why social media is for losers, Because when there is a zombie apocalypse or a serious global disaster like a massive volcano eruption, A massive tsunami event or serious global extinction event, People will be completely useless to function as soon as the power grid goes down. And it's for these reasons why social media is for losers. People don't know how to function without their phones anymore.
Social media is for losers who can't communicate in real life

Social media is for anti social misfit losers who can't communicate in real life so they hide behind anonymous user names like misslady99 or some stupid arow2032 usernames WTF. If these losers actually went outside and communicated with real people, Young and old they would realize there is a whole world out there, Yet they choose to stare at their phone and use their thumbs instead of their mouths. Social media is for losers who don't know how to live in the real world, So all their thoughts and suggestions and socialization is broadcast on the Internet for the whole world to see, While hiding under some anonymous user name. Social media is for losers who have thousands of friends and followers on-line, People they don't even know, But no real friends in the real world. mic drop
The US needs to abolish the Federal Reserve.

As anyone reading can observe, my opponent has done nothing to defend his position, has never defined his position, and has refused to debate the issue. Wikipedia is not by any sense a reliable source, and would never be considered as a reliable source in any scholarly journal or research paper. Also, when wikipedia names its source, it does not cite the government definition but simply a word used to describe it Quasi-private does not mean private, nor private leaning. It simply means part-government, part-private. In a way, this reflects the federal reserve, but only because it is not directly funded by tax money. However, like other quasi-private or independent government organizations, the policy makers are all appointed by the government, it is not a for profit organization, and its legal purpose is for the public good. In response to your last statement, I was saying you cannot say you have the same position as another because you cannot say your assuming someone else's argument. You can say you agree with someone else, but you can't say you are going to speak for someone else. As anyone can see, this debate has gotten well off track because my opponent refuses to debate the issue. He has not even responded to any of my original points and has not defended any of his positions on the issue. My opponent seems to never intend this to be a real debate and has only wasted both of our time. I would encourage those reading to vote on the merits of the discussion, and I will continue discussing this topic with anyone who is willing in the comments section.
The US needs to abolish the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve is not a government organization. I invite you to quote what it is stated on the wikipedia page, and post a link to the page too. It clearly says the federal reserve it quasi-private. This means a private company has control over this country's money. "You cannot say you maintain the same side as crutherford because you are not him." That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. So because I'm not him, I can't be on the same side as him?
The US needs to abolish the Federal Reserve.

If you wish to have a debate with me about the Federal Reserve, please, define what you really mean by your position before you challenge me to a debate. The title and opening line of the debate seems to give the impression that the U.S. should either have a central bank, the Federal Reserve, or it should not. I did not come to debate a change in the running of the Federal Reserve because that is not what the title of this debate implies. So far, you have put together no support for your argument and failed to define what your position is. You cannot say you maintain the same side as crutherford because you are not him. I wonder if you actually read crutherford's arguments, because he clearly did not believe that the federal reserve had a purpose and should simply be turned into a government organization (which it already is). Look at the Act he quotes. I would ask you to read up on the federal reserve before debating me instead of simply repeating some general rhetoric you may have heard. I believe in order to have a real debate, my opponent must have at least a partial knowledge of the topic and a definite position. This is an either/or argument: Either the federal reserve should exist or it shouldn't. My question to my opponent is what side are you on, and why.
The US needs to abolish the Federal Reserve.

That is a completely different argument, and a contradiction to what you said in your opening paragraph. I will quote you: "I am on the side of abolishing the Federal Reserve." Abolition does not mean converting the Federal Reserve into a government organization, which it already is. If your most recent statement, "I am not saying that the country has no need for it. i am saying that the US needs to make it a government organization" is what you believe, then why did you entitle the debate "The US needs to abolish the Federal Reserve" and take the Pro side. If you wish to argue the point you said you would defend, we can continue. Otherwise, your last statement is essentially the same as the Con side.
The US needs to abolish the Federal Reserve.

The U.S. needs a central bank for a number of reasons; to function as the bank for the United States government, to provide check-clearing, to enact monetary policy and control inflation, to act as a deposit holder for U.S. banks, to efficiently facilitate exchanges between banks, to distribute currency, and to regulate banks. The Federal Reserve is neither directly tax funded nor is it a private company. It is funded by the interest it receives from bonds put out by the U.S. Treasury Department (http://www.federalreserveeducation.org...). I will not be debating the merits of federal bonds because this falls under fiscal policy and is not controlled by the Federal Reserve. Also, the Federal Reserve is unrelated to the IRS, and the IRS has no place in this discussion. (Note: In response to the previous debate criticism of where sources were located, I have decided to post links whenever a fact is either controversial or I am directly responding to an unsupported claim by the opposition)
we need to keep the U.S postal service

"This would not happen. The buisnesses would problably agree on a price that is higher than the one we currently have then they would keep it in that general area. Another reason that the price would go up is that the buisness would need to make a proft. " (business and profit are spelled wrong) The buisnesses would not want to raises prices because they would loose customers to the internet. The electronical part of communication is already growing exponentially. My opponent has also failed to recognize my proposal that perhaps the government put a price cap on it so that we wouldn't be charged an insane amount to send a letter. "This is absolutly bogus. Rather than the quality of the U. S. postal service that we currently have, if privitized the quality would go down for a number of reasons. 1)the buisnessees would have to cover costs by cutting down on quality. 2)the system would not be held up by government spending. " (buisnessees? ) I think that my opponent absolutely fails to realize what competition does. If the quality went down the (once again) the companies would lose customers to electronics. This would result in even a greater loss of money if they even lose money, and on the reverse of this if they had a better quality they could charge alittle more and nobody would care because the quality would increase. "Also, what would happen to all the current U. S. postal employees? They would be fired which would add to an already troubled economy. What would happen to the buildings and the trucks and the tools? They would rot away into nothing. The moeny we already put into them would be wasted. " This is a very easy fix. Auction off the goods and work ot a deal to transfer the employees. "I will offer a final reason as to why we should keep the U. S. postal service. Interaction with other countries. Our postal service official delivers and recieves mail from other countries. The postal service is so entertwined with our interactions with other countries that to privitize it would be repugnant because it would require foriwghn countires to use a privite buisness rather than government buisness. " The actual mail the the U. S. government would send would still be official. I doubt another county would care who delivers it as long as it gets delivered appropriately. In conclusion the U. S. postal service should be sold because it would have many benefits. It would save the U. S. government money. Actually if the U. S. government taxed it alittle it in money from that industry. Also it would increase the quality of the mail service as well as help to further stimulate a wounded economy.
we need to keep the U.S postal service

My opponents argument seems to be centereed around privitizing the U.S. postal service. This would be disatrous and would not work. This would not work for many reasons. "I would say two things to this. The first is that the competition between companies to compete for customers would keep the price down. Second I would propose that perhaps the U.S. government could put a price limit to keep this from happening. One or both of these null the quoted point." This would not happen. The buisnesses would problably agree on a price that is higher than the one we currently have then they would keep it in that general area. Another reason that the price would go up is that the buisness would need to make a proft. "To this I would say that the U.S. government could still pose laws and even insure it. Although I would think that private companies could still insure the goods perhaps even better than the government because of competition." This is absolutly bogus. Rather than the quality of the U.S. postal service that we currently have, if privitized the quality would go down for a number of reasons. 1)the buisnessees would have to cover costs by cutting down on quality. 2)the system would not be held up by government spending. Now, my opponent has pointed out how the U.S. poistal service consumes more money than it returns. This is true. But it also provides a quality that would not be had if this whole thing where privitized. Also, what would happen to all the current U.S. postal employees? They would be fired which would add to an already troubled economy. What would happen to the buildings and the trucks and the tools? They would rot away into nothing. The moeny we already put into them would be wasted. I will offer a final reason as to why we should keep the U.S. postal service. Interaction with other countries. Our postal service official delivers and recieves mail from other countries. The postal service is so entertwined with our interactions with other countries that to privitize it would be repugnant because it would require foriwghn countires to use a privite buisness rather than government buisness. In conclusion. The U.S. postal service should nto be shut down. It should still stand as an effieiecnt system and as a service to the people of the United States of America.
we need to keep the U.S postal service

The U. S. postal service should be privatized. In other words we should not keep our current U. S. postal service system. I will start by refuting my opponents arguments. 1)"If we were to get rid of the U. S. Postal service then private companies would take up that niche in the economy. This would be bad as prices would rise in the cost to mail items. " I would say two things to this. The first is that the competition between companies to compete for customers would keep the price down. Second I would propose that perhaps the U. S. government could put a price limit to keep this from happening. One or both of these null the quoted point. 2)"This would also be bad because then the mail would not be protected by the U. S. government. " To this I would say that the U. S. government could still pose laws and even insure it. Although I would think that private companies could still insure the goods perhaps even better than the government because of competition. Now I will state why the U. S. government should do away with the postal service. The U. S. postal services is always in the red. As shown in the link at the bottom it is in the red by copious amounts of money. By removing the U. S. postal service many companies such as Fed Ex or UPS would fill that niche in the economy. This would be extremely beneficial because then the U. S. government could spend the money that it is spending on the U. S. postal service on other more valuable or more needing programs or projects. Doing this would also increase the quality of the postal system. Why would the quality go up? Competition. Competition to fill the niche that closing the U. S. postal system would open will have many great effects. Companies would start competing to keep the postage safer. Keep it in better quality. Provide better service. Give better prices. Provide more benefits. All this and many more things would come if we rid ourselves of this carcass of a postal system. . http://www.usps.com...
we need to keep the U.S postal service

It is my belief that we need to keep the U.S. postal service. The U.S. postal service provides many services that are valuable to todays society. If we were to get rid of the U.S. Postal service then private companies would take up that niche in the economy. This would be bad as prices would rise in the cost to mail items. This would also be bad because then the mail would not be protected by the U.S. government.
Geographical evidence points to a global flood that coincides w/ Genesis account of Noah's Ark

PRO's explanation of science was superb, and I agree with every last bit of it. However, the fact of the matter is, the evidence we have seen in this debate doesn't lead us to the conclusion that a global flood occurred. Whereas it's true that the origin of ideas is indeed irrelevant, evidence and theories still must be able to support whatever claim the idea makes. Genesis's global flood simply is not the same as the structures of benzenes or fullerenes when it comes to science – the evidence just does not point in that direction. He is correct in saying that he provided empirical examples and phenomena that others can see for themselves. The only reason why this doesn't mean he wins the debate is because I have shown how each of the items do not point to a global flood (refer to line-by-line in R2). As for the "Christian website" thing, I'm not arguing against Christianity here. I'm arguing against MINISTRIES, which the two sites openly admit themselves as such. A ministry is by definition dogmatic, and I think the probability that its dogma is "let the evidence take us where it may" is very, very low. This rigidness is not congruent with the paragraph my opponent wrote about science; ministries DO NOT ask "What best explains all the evidence? " oh no, they TELL you what the answer is and then they TELL you to find evidence that supports such a conclusion. And to exclude/ignore anything that doesn't. Science? No, far from it. The CNN thing does not prove the flood happened, as the flood according to Genesis happened around 2304BC, whereas this Black Sea event happened around ~5000BC. This goes for everything in "Section 2" from earlier in the debate as well; none of the dates correlate in a way that leads us to believe a global flood really took place. The dates actually lead us to believe that such a flood could not have happened at the time that Genesis said it occurred. The CBS link proves exactly what I was trying to say about PRO's position in my R2. The title of the article reads, "Seeking Evidence of Noah's Flood". This assumes that an event happened to begin with, which, by my opponent's definition of science, means that it's fallacious. Such an approach to science is not scientific at all, it does not use "[t]he key question [which] must always be, "What best explains all the evidence? "". "Geographical evidence points to a global flood that coincides w/ Genesis account of Noah's Ark", meaning that if we started out tabula rasa and simply looked at the evidence, then we would conclude that the Genesis's account of Noah's Ark is true and that such a global flood really did take place. I have proved in every example my opponent brought up that we would not reach such a conclusion.
Geographical evidence points to a global flood that coincides w/ Genesis account of Noah's Ark

Geographical evidence points to a global flood that coincides with the Genesis account of Noah's Ark This is my first post on the site and look forward to hearing from anyone who would like to debate this topic. Peace. 1)Global flood evidences include: The earth's features (such as mountains, canyons, regional stratigraphy (large-scale single rock beds), soft bending of rock strata, etc.) require some type of catastrophic explanation. Sedimentary rock formations (formed through water deposition) cover substantial portions of North America and other continents. There is no evidence that coal, oil, or ore deposits are being formed today, yet massive deposits are found in the earth. Likewise, the earth contains many great fossil beds, none of which appear to be forming today either. Fossils require rapid burial to be preserved. Ocean fossils are found at high altitudes on all five continents. Exceptions in the geologic column indicate that it was not formed in a gradual manner, such as the appearance of single trees that extend vertically through multiple "ages". 2.There are other, non-geological, evidences that point to a start (or rebirth) of the earth approximately five to ten thousand years ago, as would be the case if a global flood has occurred. The origin of civilization is generally agreed to be in the Middle East, which is where Noah's Ark landed. The Middle East just "happens" to be a good, centrally located place from which to repopulate the world. The oldest written materials date back five to six thousand years. The first signs of civilization, things like pottery, agriculture, the domestication of animals, metallurgy, and the first cities are dated by secular scientists to approximately 10,000 years ago at the earliest. The oldest known living things, the Bristlecone pine trees in California, date to about 5,000 years ago. Study of the build up of human population makes it clear that humans have only existed for a few thousand years (not millions), even when the maximum likely effects of war, disease, disaster, and other population-reducing factors are considered. An analysis of 30,000 radiocarbon dating results published in the "Radiocarbon" journal shows an unmistakable spike in the death of living things about 5,000 years ago All this information can be found at the website below. http://emporium.turnpike.net...
YOU need Jesus Christ.

I've got BAD NEWS for you Joe.. You are NOT alive.. When Adam sinned he separated SPIRITUALLY from God, so although we are physically alive we are (Unless we are 'born again' spiritually, e.g. INVITE Jesus Christ into our hearts) in fact, Dead in our sins.. I really do NOT intend to insult you.. this is a serious business. Of course you are free to believe what you choose but you are not free from the consequences.. God is the source of ALL Goodness and Beauty, wisdom and love and righteousness.. If you or anybody rejects Him you are choosing hell.. I understand how that sounds but think about it.. if there is one room in a house that has an open fire and I go and stand in another room and then complain that I'm cold then we begin to see the problem. You say you 'don't do bad things'. Really? By who standards shall we judge you? by your own? that would mean we must judge everybody by their own standard, including Hitler ( who incidentally believed himself to be the saviour of all mankind ) . You see the problem. Or shall we judge you by 'the times' the general consensus? Then that is ALL you shall be.. a 'child of your time' which of course means that had you been born a few hundred years ago you not only would have believed in God but slavery and many other things. Right and wrong cannot be judged by these subjective means.. or else there IS NO right and wrong, and you and I KNOW that there are such things.. you said so yourself. SO.. I have more bad news! Until Jesus came along we were really in the dark.. ( 'A Light has come into the world' ) we had the ten commandments and the prophets etc but Jesus Christ alone reveals the Heart of God (His Purpose!). Have you ever looked at a woman with lust in your heart? Have you ever hated your fellow man? ever Lied? You don't need to answer any of these questions.. there rhetorical. I know the answer. " For all have sinned and falls short of the glory of God. " Romans 3:23 THERES GOOD NEWS TO COME!
YOU need Jesus Christ.

It is not only bad logic to say everyone needs Jesus it is also ignorant to say everyone must share your opinion. In the second sentence you stated that people need Jesus in the same way we need food and water but that is wrong humans need food and to survive I chose not to believe,but I am still alive. To DEMANED that someone agree with your religion is unamerican and unchristian on the fact that "God" gave us freewill to chose our own path.As far as your statement "As with any crime (sin) SOMEBODY has to pay the price.." by your logic the reason to avoid sin is to avoid hell but I personally don't need to be scared into not doing bad things I don't do them because they are wrong.Please have faith in your God but don't insult me by saying I must share that same view.
YOU need Jesus Christ.

YOU Sir/Madam absolutely, undeniably NEED Jesus Christ.. In the same way that you need oxygen, a brain & other vital organs.. In the same way that you need food & water, you need Jesus Christ. All humanity is condemned to death by an utterly Holy and utterly Just Creator.. Adam sinned and we are ALL born into and continue to sin. As with any crime (sin) SOMEBODY has to pay the price.. YOU cannot pay.. the 'currency' you have was given to you by the same creator.. Only God can pay God and Jesus Christ is God and HAS PAID.
YOU need Jesus Christ.

This is a debate on whether YOU need Jesus Christ, or not.. You say He made the golden rule, do you then see Him as just a 'good teacher' ? because that is the one thing He did not leave open to us. No one who was good or in their right mind would have made the incessant claims regarding His own divinity that Christ made. I do not believe you have seriously answered my question on who's criteria we are to be judged.. I understand this because if you seriously consider the implications there is no other answer.. if there is objective truth, objective morality, then where is it? it can only reside in Someone Who has ALWAYS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE. I want to thank you AverageJoe.. this is my first ever online debate and i've really enjoyed myself.. (I was actually thrilled to be called 'unamerican' -glad to hear mcarthyism still alive & kicking.. just kidding!) I'd just like to encourage you to to keep an open mind (and heart!) regarding Jesus Christ.. He is "The way, The truth and the Life." Thanks again, All the best. DAT C MOTO