BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Adam and Eve should've eaten the whole tree.

Because no one can agree what is good and what is evil I stand in agreement with the resolution that states: "There would be more good in the world if Adam and Eve had eaten more fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Rules: -It is assumed for the purpose of this debate that the bible is fact. -"The World" is defined as the state of humanity at this point in time. Definitions: Good - moral righteousness (Random House Dictionary, 2010) Contention One: The knowledge contained in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was spread out or not at once in every part of the tree. Genesis 2:16-17 "But the Lord God waned him, "You may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden- except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die." a) First off, the name. It isn't called the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, its the TREE. This name comes directly from the mouth of God so we must assume there is a reason for it. The tree as a whole contains the knowledge, not just one fruit. b) From these verses we can see an obvious cause-effect relationship: Eat Fruit: Die. Contention Two: Eating more fruit would provide more knowledge. Genesis 3:22 "Then the Lord God said, 'Look, the human beings have become like us, knowing both good and evil. What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!'" This clearly states that if more fruit were eaten knowledge or life would increase, possibly to the infinite. (If you're going "What? There's no evidence of a link!" just jump to my forth contention. Sorry I had to put my argument in this order.) Contention Three: No one really knows what's good and what's evil. If everyone knew what was right and wrong there would be no philosophy or arguments over laws or constitutional interpretations. Morals are subjective and, as I've heard said on this site, God is the only Judge, the only one who can really think objectively. Contention Four: God is talking about spiritual life and death in the above scripture. "...you are sure to die." "...they will live forever." If you look at the context of these passages and what is meant by knowledge of good and evil then you will surely see that the kind of life God is talking about is eternal spiritual life. Let's look closer. First you have to realize that God is truth. Therefore when he says to Adam that he will die, he's not lying. Notice that he never specifies what manner of death it will be. Then, when Adam and Eve eat the fruit, they don't die. This narrows down what kind of death this just was. If they had died physically then we would've known because we wouldn't exist. If they had died mentally, same result. Therefore, the only kind of death left is spiritual. They lost their connection with God. We can therefore deduce that if it weren't for Jesus, we would all be spiritually dead, or condemned to hell. All because we didn't eat all the fruit (or maybe the whole tree?) and therefore didn't restore our spiritual life.
Nap time for Elementary age children should be done away with.

i would like to start by thanking my opponent for taking time to make a good response. 1. Laying there does not help the children. Going back to Con's first source, I would like to point out that it being up the fact that the brains neurons have three states, one where neurons are constantly firing, therefore sending information to the brain, one where the neurons are on and on-and-off state, where they still send signals, but not as much, and one where the neurons are completely silent. This is self explanatory, since no brain activity is occuring. These states of neuron activity is being awake, sleeping, and deep sleep, respectively. However, I will concede that you can gain muscle and organ relaxation, but Con's first source also says that this can be accomplished by simply reclining in a chair, which can be done while just watching TV. And, recent data shows that's kids, in fact, watch 35 hours of TV a week [1], this is roughly 5 hours a day, if my math is correct, so children can just as easily gain the affect you say having your eyes closed gives just by relaxing and watching TV. 2. Teacher relaxation. First off, when a person is employed to become a teacher at any grade level, they know what they plan on getting into, if they don't, they have no business being a teacher. The Con states that teachers need time to relax. Nap time for teachers is essentially break time, and that means they are getting paid to do nothing, not to mention the fact that Lunch time exists. To prove my point, let me give you an example. As a children, when I had nap time, I never slept, in fact, I read. The entire time, my teacher would be on his computer doing something else related to school activity. Ergo, nap time does not give teachers a break, they're still hard at work, and as I said before, Lunch exists to feed the students and staff, and give them time to relax. 3. Vital need for rest. It is a child's JOB to learn in school. That is the sole reason they are there. Therefore, there is no reason for kids to be giving a time to rest in Elementary school. As it is, Elementary school only teachs you to read and write, the rest of the time is arts and crafts, children have no need for rest at any period of time during school, not to mention the fact that they can nap once they get home, since nap time can be done literally anywhere when a parent is around. 4. Sleep is not necessary. I concede that sleep is vital for all ages, however, as stated in my third point, nap time can be conducted in many places, I.E. The car, at home, just to nap two examples. However, as I've brought up already as well, the benefits of sleep during nap time only occur provided the child actually sleeps. Source(s): [1] http://entertainment.time.com...
Nap time for Elementary age children should be done away with.

While I do believe a majority of the kids do not nap during naptime (which Pro provided a souce to back up), there are many things beneficial about the presence of naptime, which I will cover. I. Simply the act of laying there helps out the kids. In elementary school (most notably kindergarten), many of the children have huge fluctuations in energy. This is evident in many kindergarteners, where they can either have lots of energy or little to none of it. Naptime sort of helps to balance this out. You can potentially calm down the kids (hyper) or allow them the ability to be quiet and rest so they can be rejuvenated (little/no energy). Either way, information from my first source shows that simply the act of laying down and closing your eyes " helps your muscles and other organs relax" [1]. This is applicable for all ages. II. Kids and the teacher need a time to relax. As stated in the previous point, kids' energy levels tend to fluctuate quite frequently. With the presence of nap times, it gives them a chance to relax, as well as the teacher, who's been dealing with these children for a majority of the day. Simply giving averyone in the classroom a chance to relax and wind down helps them by maintaining their energy level (the main reason it's not present in higher grades is because kids learn to control their energy levels over the course of time). III. It's vital that kids need at least some period of rest. As present in many animals (as seen in the example below), those of a younger age need to rest more than those of an older age. Humans are no exception to this. As those kids need a time to relax, it's vital that they do end up receiving it, in order to promote their natural growth. As time passes on, they will no longer need it as much as they did in elementary. As such, naptime's all for the best of the students, as the concept of naptime itself promotes the childrens' growth. IV. Sleep is not necessary during naptime, but it helps significantly more. Sleep is a vital part of all ages. Sleep itself has many benefits, including improved memory, better ability to spur creativity, grade improvement, and a sharpening of attention. [2] These are all vital elements that kids in the elementary grade level need. As time goes on the kids still get sleep, but on their own. The allowance of a "nap time" in elementary school allows the students to hone these vital importances of sleep even faster than if naptime were excluded entirely. Overall, my argument covers these points (simple TLDR:)1. The act of laying down has benefits on the kids, even when they're not sleeping.2. The kids with their energy fluctuations and the teacher both need a time to relax.3. Sleep/rest are a vital part of growth development in younger animals/humans.4. Sleeping has many benefits associated with it that help out in the school setting. Over to Pro. Sources:[1] . http://www.theatlantic.com...[Pic 1] . http://justcuteanimals.com...[2] . http://www.health.com...
Nap time for Elementary age children should be done away with.

To begin, I would like you, as the con, to acknowledge the fact that nap time is recognized as a staple in most kindergartens across the United States. However, this is something that is simply not needed. To start us off, I present to you a piece of evidence from the website named TodaysParent.com, where, at one point, Manisha Witmans, who is the director of the pediatric sleep program at Stollery Children"s Hospital, states that only 10 to 12 percent of children at age 5 take naps, and age 5 is the entry age for kindergarten. I bring this up because it's questions the need for a nap time, when such evidence could be taken to mean that only 10 to 12 percent of children in Elementary school are actually sleeping. Not to mention the fact that children could easily be doing something else education wise, like reading, or writing, instead of wasting their time napping, as one of the most crucial times of learning for a child is at age five, where they are far more likely to pick up on the basics of a language. This is refered to as the window of learning opportunity. This means that during one of a child's most important moments in life, it could be wasting this time napping. Let's also not forget the fact that once a child goes to Middle School once Elementary school is over, he or she will be used to getting a nap in the middle of the day, and will end up falling asleep in class due to a messed up sleeping schedule. It is because of these facts that I ask to have Naps in Elementary school stopped, as the pro side believes that the large number of advantages firmly outweigh the minimal number of disadvantages. (Sorry for any errors. I did this on my phone.)
your mom should have aborted you

u still take resoures yet there are people dying w out them. u add to the excess. how ur family feels is of little significance n bigger picture u say all these things that u could be god at or beneficial.... but theres just as maby bad things u could be. instead of hypos this is about u the real u. and uve yet to show of u benefit all i see r ppl dying abd deprived of resources... the same 1s u use uur mom should have aborted u
your mom should have aborted you

I find your argument invalid because there are still plenty of resources around. Enough that I can stuff my face without anyone starving, sure I take up resources but that does not affect the rest the world because there is a LOT of resources put there. I think that's your only argument, tell me if I'm wrong. But before I had it over I would like to expand on why my mom should not have aborted me: 1. My mom and possibly my dad would feel bad after getting there aborted, most likely more than the little amount of resources I take up in that ratio. 2. The people that I'm close to such as my parents, grand parents, friends, etc, would not have had the joy to have me as there son, grand child or friend. 3. My job has a very good chance of being someone who makes other people's lives easier. I could be a farmer, ( which helps with production) business man, (who helps sell products to people who need it) a teacher ( who teaches kids basic things) etc. All those jobs help people out, more than I hinder people's resources. Thank you and I hand the debate over back to pro.
your mom should have aborted you

First of all me myself has done nothing to lower your resources in the way that it affects you. Their is still plenty of food water and shelter the fundamental building blocks of life. I have never hindered you in any way and who says I will. I could be very nice over your lifetime but you have no way of knowing. So really my life is none of your business, I have never faulted you and I have never benefited you, as far as I know.
Abstinence Only Education is the best form of Sex Education

Sex isn"t the important part procreation is, and even procreation at this point in our existence isn"t important. Putting too much importance on it doesn"t help unless you are like Sigmund Freud and feel like everything in your life is driven by sex. Spoiler alert it"s not. It"s is a small part of your life, and it should be a part that is enjoyable. I am saying sex is sex, and sex can be a whole lot of things. Sometimes it"s all the things you are talking about, and it"s great, but that doesn"t mean that having angry sex can"t help your relationship as well. People are individual, and as such we relate to each other in weird and beautiful ways. Some people like "rough" sex, or roleplay, or any one of hundreds if not thousands of variations physically and emotionally. There aren"t consequences of that unless it"s not mutually consensual. Just because you want sex to fall into a certain box that you label a certain way, doesn"t mean that"s what"s in the child"s LONG TERM best interest. As parents, we should be raising adults not children otherwise they can"t be happy adults. It"s not open when you tell a child sex is one way (intimate, special, important) even if you feel like that way is "good" it"s still a very closed ideology. It"s also not honest, because if you have had sex for more than a few years you KNOW it"s not always that way. Sometimes it"s "the best", sometimes it"s bad smelly, and you stop before you finish because it"s just not working. Sometimes there is passion, love, and a connection, and other times it"s morning sex where your brain isn"t even fully working yet. Abstinence is one of the worst prevention methods that exist. This has been proven time and time again by various studies, and research. It"s romantic I guess, but it"s not honest, open, or healthy long term. We can"t prevent our children from making bad decisions and if we pretend that our romantic fantasy is reality it does nothing but cause harm. Either they blame themselves for not fulfilling that fantasy, or they feel like you were dishonest with them and the trust you had is broken. For me though it comes down to how bad our sex lives are in the US. I mean 75% of women can't climax during sex... at all? That's crazy to me. The guilt, and sadness where there should be joy and pleasure in a world full of so much sadness, is just wrong in my eyes. I feel like abstinence "education" sets unrealistic expectations and makes them blame themselves for a lacked self-control, or whatever. Thanks for the debate. See ya next time.
Abstinence Only Education is the best form of Sex Education

My goal was not to win; it was to learn so I gladly concede this entire debate. Thank you for continuing regardless. I did not want to make this a religious argument, so I apologize if that comes out a little. Sex is something that was created not only for us to be able to procreate and continue our species, therefore making it VERY important, but it is also meant to be pleasurable. Are you saying that sex is just sex no matter the reason behind it? Should sex not be connected to love at all? And again I am more concerned with the mental and emotional consequences. It may have been good sex physically but what is angry sex going to do to a couple"s relationship? What are those consequences? Why not try to prevent teenagers from having sex with someone they shouldn"t? Shouldn"t that be part of having an open and honest discussion about sex? Also telling teens things to watch out for? Abstinence is a good prevention method. It is good to make mistakes and learn from them, but it is even better to try to prevent bad things from happening if possible. Lastly, I see no problem with encouraging teens to strive for a happily ever after. Not so much that they will never be satisfied, but enough that they will not settle for something that is less than the best. Thank you so much for debating. I hope this has been as enlightening for you as it has been for me.
Abstinence Only Education is the best form of Sex Education

I open to change if you can prove it. If you concede that "abstinence only education may not be the best", then you concede the debate, as the debate is "Abstinence Only Education is the best form of Sex Education". So, this is over, and you lost by your own words. I don"t however, mind continuing the discussion, so if you are curious why I feel that abstinence education isn"t open and honest, and teaches children sex is bad keep reading. We must consider why you don"t want them to have sex. You say sex is special, important, deeply intimate experience, and if it"s not then what? As an adult, you"ve likely had one night stands that were none of that, does it mean you did something wrong? Maybe you do love the person, and in general you are intimate but this one time you had angry sex instead, and it was great, does that mean you don"t love each other, or you"ve cheapened your love? Why was it good if it didn't have those things? Look sex can be all those things you've mentioned, and it can be none of those things, and nothing is wrong with either. Most relationships have a spectrum of sex that can go anywhere from mercy sex to animalist soul consuming, and each encounter could be anywhere in that range. When you tell a child that sex is this one thing (intimate, special, important) they strive to make every sexual encounter into that. This leads to a belief that if they can"t make it that way, something is wrong with them, and for many (women mainly) this causes horrible consequences because they feel like they aren"t doing it right, or something is wrong with them, or many other very negative feelings toward sex, and it makes their sex lives very bad. Sex isn"t by nature important, and trying to save it for someone isn"t romantic. It"s just doubling down on the pressure that I was talking about above. Will you have sex with people you shouldn"t" of course. That is why it"s important to be open and honest in discussion with children about sex rather than setting fantasy expectation about how meaningful and important sex is, and how it"s a treasure to save. Then you pick the wrong person to "give" it too, and spend the rest of your life regretting the decision, and feeling like someone stole your treasure. Very few people live happily ever after with the first person they have sex with. (well except for arranged married cultures where you don"t have a choice, so you just end up making the best of it, and over the years start caring for each other, but I digress) So you are setting the child up to fail... I get the thought of your child having sex at 17 or whatever scares you. As adults, we understand how little teens know about the world, even if they believe they know everything, but trying to force a few extra years has made it so that 75% of women in our world can't climax with vaginal stimulation alone, and many women have never climaxed during intercourse EVER. That is a bad outlook on sex, and it's all to delay the loss of virginity by a few years. Horrible idea, and it needs to stop.
Abstinence Only Education is the best form of Sex Education

Thank you for accepting. I will counter your argument but first I would like to ask if there is something that I could say that would make you change your opinion on this topic. Also I will define my terms as clearly as possible so we both have a clear understanding of what we are arguing about. Students should be taught anatomy of course, and I am not suggesting that kids should not be taught about sex, I just believe they should be taught the importance of self control that goes along with staying abstinent. Sex is a very special thing and teens should be taught how and when to use it correctly. Not only is it very different physically from other things teens experience it can have very important mental and emotional effects. I would argue that abstinence is more important for physical and emotional health more so than physical. When you give that kind of intimacy to another person it should be something that is planned and carefully considered. Especially since less than ten percent of high school relationships last, it is important to teach teens that they should only give that kind of intimacy to someone who will appreciate it and not use it incorrectly. As for the importance or lack of importance of "saving yourself" for marriage, in my eyes it is very romantic to wait until marriage to engage in sex. I realize this is just an opinion, so I will move on. I don"t see how abstinence education is telling teens that sex is bad. Could you clarify? I see it more as teaching them that sex is a very special and wonderful thing that they should be excited for but also be taught how to use it with caution. Also there are many ways that abstinence only can be as open and honest as other sex educations. I will concede that abstinence only education may not be the best, but abstinence should be taught alongside other sex education so that teens can make their own informed decisions.
Abstinence Only Education is the best form of Sex Education

Abstinence education shown no impact on teen sexual activity per the center for disease control. https://aspe.hhs.gov... States with abstinence only education continue to have higher teen pregnancies rates than those that teach a more comprehensive, open and honest science based approach toward sex. https://thinkprogress.org... Abstinence not only doesn't work, it also instills a negative view of sex which can last through a person's whole life. There is nothing wrong with having sex, you are not "saving yourself" like virginity is some sort of prize for your future spouse, and on top of that, historically speaking the age we start having sex on average has done nothing but increase since we ended the laws that allowed children to be wed at 12 or 13.(On average people lose their virginity around 17 years of age) The damage done to children's attitude toward sex in an attempt to prevent them from having sex for a few extra years needs to be stopped... now. What we need is open, honest, and frank discussions about sex like the french have in their sex education in schools. Not only do they talk about contraception, and STDs, they talk about pleasing your lover, and what you should expect when you have sex. Their teen pregnancy rates are less than half of ours. It works... abstinence doesn't. http://data.worldbank.org...
The Universe is not Infinite nor Expanding

The universe is not infinite nor is it expanding. My arguments will be stated after the rules. Rules: Round 1 will be for acceptance and the statement of my argument and the rebuttals of my opponent. Rounds 2 and 3 will be a continuation of claims and counterclaims along with evidence. Round 4 will be for the conclusions of my opponent and me. Con will take the position of the Metric Expansion of Space and Accelerating Universe theories and will argue that the universe is infinite and expanding. I argue that the expansion of the universe is nothing but an illusion, and that the universe is actually a finite four dimensional hypersphere held together in the macroscopic scale by Dark Energy and exists in a fifth dimensional hyperspheric multiverse.