BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Exists

if there no proof there no true, nothing truly exists when its not true. proof are to be tested in science and not by words of fake claim, for claim is what we think its, but real true is solid, while solid true proofed exists. now show us solid proof that why god is exists ? let it be whatever god that mankind created, solid true did not exists in it, if true did not exists in it how could it be true? God is just an excuse for thing that we did not know, and the selfish of human, how bible itself forum is highly doubtful , how accurate is bible when human can't be accurate. bible are word from human. In history there no technology that could copy and paste a whole text file accurate , it will be word by word craft to the next generation , bible in the Old Testament contains 593, 493 words while the New Testament contains 181, 253 words. That is a combined total of 774, 746 words in the Bible. There are 1, 189 chapters. Even if we claim all those "holy" word passed down to us are 100% accurate which are transfer word by word written , how solid true can those word be? its a self-claim by human in the past history, no one could tell is it true or not. it will be the others way , god is created by human.
Donald Trump is making America great again

Donald Trump policies are in fact making America great again, such as a thriving economy, reducing unemployment, increasing border security, promoting nationalism. Those are a few of his ever growing accomplishments, Trump has proved that he is one of the hardest working presidents in U.S history, and he has shown that he truly cares about the well being of this country. Those who say otherwise are clearly brainwashed or misinformed by the mainstream media or blinded by their own stupidity!
Donald Trump is making America great again

Lol..our you agreeing or is that sarcasm I can't tell, you know Trump is pretty good at turning democrats into republicans. Isn't it funny how anti-Trump people in general can spew a thousand accusations against Trump, and then when asked to support their claims, they usually do one of two things, first they can't back their claims against Trump, because they have no substantial evidence meaning they our complete morons, and second they flee in terror, they have nothing to say so what do they do they retreat like cowards!. Donald Trump has lowered unemployment, cut taxes making hard working Americans see more money in their pay checks , it's all evidence that Donald Trump is in fact Making America Great again.
Is Batman a superhero

My source as the Google homepage is valid, because it's nearly identical to Merriam Webster, which most definitions are. Superhero: a fictional hero having extraordinary or superhuman powers; also : an exceptionally skillful or successful person. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Superhuman: being above the human : divine http://www.merriam-webster.com... Since Batman does not above human abilities it is ignorant to consider him a superhero. Ignorant: lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Is Batman a superhero

I would like to clarify some additional definitions: Superhuman: Beyond ordinary or normal human ability, power, or experience Benevolent: Of, concerned with, or organized for the benefit of charity Charity: The voluntary giving of help to those in needPowers: The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively Also, your source seems to be the Google homepage. 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;3. http://oxforddictionaries.com...;4. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
Is Batman a superhero

I'll admit that wall-climbing isn't a superpower (by your definition). I intended it to serve as an example of Batman's superhuman status. That said, I thought I made it clear that I was not referring to a person in a Batman suit. It's kind of pointless now (it being the last round and all), but the Batman I am referring to is what the bystander sees. They don't see a guy with a grappling gun(Yes, Batman can scale walls, the guy in the suit just wasn't prepared in the movie)(1), they see a dark creature rapidly ascending a vertical surface. This Batman can fly, too. The people don't see a glider, they see a huge bat-thing soaring through the air. I'd like to establish that the bystander metaphor is not even remotely close to being perfect as it relies on the ignorance of the bystander, not the nature of Batman. The main point is, you are referring to guy-in-Batsuit, and I'm referring to Batman. They are not the same. 1) http://www.batman-superman.com...;
Is Batman a superhero

1. Anyone can learn to scale walls, so it's not a superpower. In addition Batman can't even scale walls, his suit only allows him too or he would have easily escaped Bane's prison in the Dark Knight Rises. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... 2. Batman cannot fly. http://answers.yahoo.com... " Batman can not fly because he does not have superpowers, all the heroes you mentioned have powers while Batman is a normal human with no Superpowers and no beyond human abilities in a Bulletproof Halloween costume. He call his self Batman because, he is afraid of Bats it is his deepest darkest fear or it was original he obvious got over it, but because Bats terrified him so much, he wanted his enemy's to feel the same terror he felt. so that is why he isn't like a bat no power just a guy with lots of training and cool toys to fight criminals with. " -quote by RootBeerMaster on answers.yahoo.com (with poor grammar)
Is Batman a superhero

So. . . We're not using my definitions. Okay, I can live with that. I would have preferred to steer clear of this argument, but you have forced my hand. Bruce Wayne does not have superpowers. Bruce Wayne is not a super-hero. Neither are all of the other people who have worn the feared suit. Batman, on the other hand, is a superhero. Batman has superpowers. Batman can scale walls, Batman can fly. Bruce Wayne (From this point on, Bruce Wayne refers to everyone who has worn the Batman suit) cannot; but Batman can. The point of this is that Batman is not synonymous with the 'person in the Batman suit'. Batman isn't a tangible thing, Batman doesn't exist. All there is is a person who runs around fighting crime in a Batman suit. Batman is figure made up by the people of Gotham. Bruce Wayne in a suit has on superpowers, but Batman does. Your definition of superhero states that for one to be a superhero, they must be fictional and have superhuman powers. Batman is fictional, and I have just established that Batman has superpowers(which is synonymous with super human powers).
14 year olds who have been convicted in adult court of 1st degree murder should be sent to prison

If you are a child and you commit a crime yes you should be punished but no I do not believe sending a child to adult court is right. Children the age of 14 still don't have the mind of saying if something is right or wrong. I still made mistakes when I was 14 years old but killing someone when you are 14 and going to adult prison can ruin that child's life forever. That kid still has a chance to grow up and learn and people still have time to teach him and help them. 14 years old and in adult prison ruins lives and raises violent children who could have learned from someone they don't have to be that way. They could still have a life. Stop the suicides and raping and hurt of 14 year olds. Children should not be allowed in adult prison. its cruel and unusual punishment. Is that in our constitution?
14 year olds who have been convicted in adult court of 1st degree murder should be sent to prison

Yes, putting a young teenager is adult prison for a long sentence is unlawful, but does that make 1st degree murder lawful? 1st degree murder is decided by the prosecutor and judge which is a credited source, so if a murder is defined as 1st degree then the suspect was clearly in an aware state. If you know what you are committing is a crime, then you know you will be punished.
14 year olds who have been convicted in adult court of 1st degree murder should be sent to prison

14 year olds doing crimes should get punished yes they may understand how to kill but putting them into adult prisons is unlawful. Research has shown that juveniles incarcerated with adults are 5 times more likely to report being sexually assaulted then in juvenile facilities because of this suicide rates of juveniles in adult prison is 7.7 times higher then juvenile system. In december 2013, a law suit accord because of a prison guard, not even an inmate, but a prison guard raped and sexually assaulted a juvenile. Children in these adult courts are in danger and should not be permitted into adult imprisonments.
14 year olds who have been convicted in adult court of 1st degree murder should be sent to prison

At the age of 16 you can receive you Driver's License and take your life and the lives of others into your own hands when you get behind the wheel of a car. At the age of 14 you are aware enough to take another person's life. 1st degree murder is defined as In most states, "first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or 'lying in wait' for the victim" (FindLaw.com). If a 14 year old teenager is aware enough to plan the murder and to think about what he/she is doing, then you are aware enough of your situation and that you should be punished because of this.
14 year olds who have been convicted in adult court of 1st degree murder should be sent to prison

Children in the US today have been learning violence early in life. But children under the age of 7 don't know right from wrong. Almost 3000 children have been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. These kids are as young as 12 years old being tried as adults in the court system. For children the death penalty is unconstitutional, its cruel and unusual punishment. Kids from the age of 12-17 may or may not understand what wrong and right decision are. In-between those ages these kids can grow and understand what they can and can not do. Don't send them to prison its more constitutional to give them help. Adult prisons can ruin a child who is perfectly ok, but just made one mistake.
14 year olds who have been convicted in adult court of 1st degree murder should be sent to prison

I think that 14 year olds should be tried in adult court right away because some states in the U.S. already set the minimum age at 10,12 and 13 so at the age of 14 it shouldn't be much of a shock to society. For example, take the case of Philip Chism in Danvers, Massachusetts. Although he was 15, slit the throat of his teacher then proceeded to mutilate and hide the body. With overwhelming evidence in addition to him confessing, why would he not go to adult prison for confessing to 1st degree murder of his math teacher. !4 states in the U.S. have no minimum age for trying children as adults, so some people would be benefiting from the age being set at age 14. Yes you can argue that some kids are forced to commit crimes because of their background and family life, but at the age of 14 and older you are completely aware of your actions.
Obama is not P.O.T.U.S.

The Second Article of the Constitution of the United States of America states the following as requirements for a person to serve a president of the United States*:1. 35 years of age or older2. Natural Born Citizen3. Resident of United States for the preceding 14 years before election.If my opponent wants to argue that Barrack Obama is NOT president, he must prove that Obama is not a naturally born citizen of the United States, as he is both the 'Pro' and the 'Instigator' of this debate.Barrack Obama has presented to the public a certificate of live birth that would highly suggest that he was in fact born in Hawaii. My opponent can choose to reject that as evidence, but it stands that a certificate of live birth carries the weight of a birth certificate in most situations.Best of luck to my opponent.* http://www.archives.gov...
Obama is not P.O.T.U.S.

Obama is not P.O.T.U.S. The Constitution, a.k.a. the Supreme Law of the Land, requires that the P.O.T.U.S. be a natural-born citizen. Never mind the fact that there is legitimate and widespread concern Obama is not natural-born-- Obama has failed to prove that he is qualified to be P.O.T.U.S. and since the burden of proof is on him to prove his eligibility, he cannot be P.O.T.U.S.
veganism

I am quite surprised with the speed of Pro's reply. Let's check out the arguments laid out by Pro. Pro did not provide any reason or arguments why veganism will solve world's hunger,nor did she provide a good argument against eating animal-based foods,and didn't explain why is our way of producing food wrong. Also she didn't explain why the fact that one in 6 people goes to sleep hungry is caused by not eating strictly plant-based foods. She only stated that preparing meat costs us resources. Then went on to name a few celebrities that are vegans (which is irrelevant to the topic). Maybe from his point of view you have to have a plant-based diet to be an environmentalist. This is not necessarily true though. "meat and dairy are the most time consuming and ineffective ways to have calories as they require feed and housing where as plants do not require a daily food and do not excrete and waste matter which is better for the environment as we do not have store it and it can pollute rivers and wipe out river ecosystem." Although it might be more time-consuming than plant-based food preparation,it is certainly not true that it is an ineffective way to consume calories. Vitamin B12 is essential to our circulatory and nerve systems (it can be only found in animal products). Many protein that meat contains cannot be found in plants. It is a really good source of calories. Animal waste rarely makes it to the river or any water source. If stored properly,animal waste can be used as natural fertilizer and actually benefit the growth of plants. It can pollute the water,but it can't wipe out an ecosystem,because it isn't toxic,or anything that would endanger those ecosystems. Everything in Pro's arguments was (to some extent) irrelevant to the title of this debate. Pro has to provide reasons and arguments to "Why veganism will solve world hunger?" You also have take into consideration that something else is causing the world hunger,like poverty (which is much more reasonable to believe in than "the way we eat"). Good luck,you are gonna need it.
veganism

1 in 6 people go to bed hungry each night therefore the way we are producing food and what we are eating is not working 1 pound of beef uses 13 gallons of water the food system account of a 1/4 of all global human emissions and in america the most animal product consuming nation 17.5 million people live in food insecure households.there are many vegan celebrities such as james cameron johnny depp. james cameron himself is a vegan and environmentalist he says you cannot be an environmentalist if you do not eat a plant based diet.meat and dairy are the most time consuming and ineffective ways to have calories as they require feed and housing where as plants do not require a daily food and do not excrete and waste matter which is better for the environment as we do not have store it and it can pollute rivers and wipe out river ecosystem.
God exists

I do not understand, for you God is only the God of the Bible? There can be a supreme entity that we could call God, and we call it God to don't stay and think about other names? Do not just think about Chiristian God and Bible when you hear God, stop materializing Him, maybe then you will understand that God can exist in the absence of dogma. Here is a quote about our lil friend Pascal. "If I trust in God and He exists, gain infinite. If I trust in God and He is not there, lose anything. If I do not trust in God and He exists, lost forever. If we trust in God and he isn't there , again no loss. "
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

1. Romantic love usually involves sexual relations but I suppose there are certain situations where a sexual aspect is lacking. 2. Although it is true that one can lust over multiple people at once, I disagree that love is the same way. Loving someone is more than just a physical attraction, as lust is, and involves various feelings and emotions that are not so easily put out on display. 3. I agree with the definition of polygamy but I think that polygamy does not apply in this case. Polygamy can lead to the person developing stronger feelings for someone over another which can cause jealousy. Jealous people would do just about anything to regain the affection of their loved one and feelings become less genuine. 4. Love is different than being in love because you love family and friends but are not actually in love with them. Platonic love is definitely for more than one person but being in love is restricted to one person at a time. There is too much at risk to throw such strong feelings around like that. 5. When people have affairs it is usually because they have lost feelings for their significant other and are searching for that in someone else while still being their partner. That is not romantically loving more than one person at a time because you are betraying that person"s trust and going behind their back which is anything but love. 6. Therefore, it is not possible to romantically love more than one person at a time. My argument still stands because although my partner gaves reasons as to they thought it was plausible; it seems too far-fetched to be reality. People can barely keep one relationship alive let alone multiple ones simultaneously. My partner helped my cause when he said that Jealousy is an issue in all relationships, because it is. People naturally get jealous and having more than one romantic partner is going to cause a lot of fights and envy.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

1. Romantic love is along the same lines but can include a sexual aspect as well. 2. Love is different than lust but people can love more than one person at a time just like they can lust after more than one person at a time. 3. The term polygamy refers to the relationships someone has with multiple people. All the people involved are aware and consenting of the main person"s relationships with the other people. 4. Loving someone is different than being in love and it is easier to love more than one person at a time than to be in love with more than person. It is more likely to see someone in love with one person and then romantically love a couple other people at the same time. 5. Although cheating is wrong it can be considered one person romantically loving more than one person at a time. Having an affair is a better example because it is two relationships at once but one is a secret. 6. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once. My argument is still valid because my opponent gave a lot of hypothetical analogies and not a lot of reasoning that would disprove my argument that it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

4. How can what someone does in one relationship not effect what happens in the other? These people will constantly be vying for that one person"s attention which would put a strain on all the relationships involved. It seems like a lot of work for no reason. 5. Loving someone and providing for them and caring for them requires a lot of time and effort. Sometimes people are unable to maintain one relationship because they are so busy with their own lives. If you have your own separate life and then two or three romantic relationships on top of that, you are spreading yourself really thin. Spreading yourself thin among all the aspects of your life would cause turmoil in the relationships because you would not be able treat them the way they deserve to be treated. That is through no fault of your own, you just have too much on your plate to give your undivided attention to more than one person romantically. 6. I have not come across someone that would be accepting of their partner seeking a new person to be romantically involved with. It does not seem plausible that that person would be so okay with their partner blatantly cheating on them.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

2. I agree but I"m sure there are asexual people out there that are romantically involved with more than person and their lack of sexual desires makes that easier to accomplish. 4. Jealousy is an issue in any relationship. For someone romantically involved with more than one person at once, what happens with one partner should not interfere with the other relationship. And if it does then they would need some sort of outlet to relieve that jealousy, not ruin the entire operation. 5. More often than not, people have more than one romantic partner in their lifetime. And throughout their lifetime they tell their deepest desires and secrets to these people and sometimes the relationships work out and sometimes they don"t. But why is it okay for that to be the case but not okay to have some of those romantic relationships at once? It is the same principle but instead of it being spread apart by years it is simultaneous. 6. Cheating is wrong if done for the wrong reasons. Going outside of your relationship in seek of something new, not necessarily better, is okay as long as your partner is accepting of it. And if in turn that something new turns into love then so be it.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

2. Just because you"re asexual doesn"t mean you want to romantically love more than one person at a time. Being asexual is simply a preference to not engage in sexual acts with their partner, not be with anyone they want because they aren"t interested in sex. Love is more than that. 3. I agree with this statement up until you say that more than one person will take the bait. Why would you want more than person to take the bait, the bait meaning your heart, that would just lead to so many conflicts between you and whoever else is involved. 4. Jealousy is a major part of why people break up or fall out of love with someone. And if you are in a relationship with someone who has multiple partners jealousy is going to run wild, it"s only natural. This natural reaction makes it virtually impossible for someone to romantically love more than one person at a time without one of them getting upset or insecure. 5. Platonic love is not as strong as romantic love and does not entail the same things which are what makes romantic love so exclusive. You wouldn"t tell your cousin your deepest desires or secrets just because you have familial love for them. Romantic love drives you to be completely open with one person because you know for a fact that they would not judge you or look at you any differently. 6. Cheating is cheating, it is not love. It may be love for the person and their secret lover but it is not love going behind someone"s back like that, regardless of the situation.