BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the Bible the Myth

I shall now attack my opponent's case. Firstly, my opponent states that most explanations for the accuracy of the Bible are failures, yet my opponent fails to provide these statistics or references. Yet here (. http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com...), I provide evidence of truths written in the words of the Bible. Then he states that the Bible is 'a book to educate the illiterate masses and give them a moral path to follow. ' Firstly, my opponent fails to elaborate on the first part of this statement, calling the Bibl education for the illiterate. However, a book cannot be read by anyone who is not literate, so this part of the statement is false. Next, the second part of the statement only states that it provides a moral path, but this cannot be proven as bad or prove the Bible a myth. The government provides rules and morals for everyone yet the government itself cannot be proven a myth as it is not. 'As time passed we grew and obtained a vast amount of knowledge the writers of the bible couldn't even grasp. ' --The Bible references the circling of the universe and the existence of dinosaurs, and it also provides an open-mind for evolution in the symbol of '7 days. ' See above link. 'From the outside looking into the bible it reflects the myths of the ancients and feels in the gaps with knowledge of their time. 'Here (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) are instances where Jesus is referenced outside of the Bible, proving that Jesus himself existed. Many relics of Saints referenced in the Bible exist and can be provided as evidence for the fact that the Bible is not a myth. 'It has no relevance with today's culture or technology. We need only to look upon it as a attempt in history, society, but nothing more. It is the moral code of conduct of the time and just for bronze age Palestine. It has no place in the moral realm of today, nor is it justifiable. 'When examining the laws, one can see that they resemble a lot of what is said in the Ten Commandments of the Bible. Also, I already provided proof that Jesus and other elements in the Bible are accurate and truly exist. 'We as a species need to understand what the bible has to say, understand that it had a time and to place but we have surpassed the knowledge bronze age man, it is no longer needed to be that moral guide. We no longer need to search its text for meaning. The truth is there its a myth nothing more. 'Regardless of whether or not the Bible is needed, my burden is only to prove that it is not a myth, which I already have. I already proved that many of the truths known today were referenced in the Bible and that the morality exhibited in the Bible is exhibited in society today. Seeing all of these truths, one can say that the Bible is not a myth.
why zoos do more harm than good

It is true that when an animal is born into captivity it very rarely is ever released into the wild. However, this is not because we are being cruel to them. When an animal is born in captivity its mother is also obviously in captivity. If both the mother and the baby where to be released into the wild there is a very good chance that they baby will die as the mother has not had to hunt for its own food for many years and so simply can't provide for itself and its child. Apart from this it simply makes more sense to keep an animal born into captivity. by keeping these babies fewer animals are being taken out of the wild. As you said there are tools/weapons used to move or control animals in zoos. Several of these can be described as cruel. However, tools such as the whip or cattle prod can be the only way to get animals to move from one place to another. large animals just don't respond to the same techniques as small animals. Throughout the zoo community there are certainly cases of animal abuse. However, as a whole zoos are not designed to be cruel to animals in order to please the public. As a whole zoos provide more good to the general public, the scientific community and the animal world then harm.
why zoos do more harm than good

I know that were is a very big difference between a zoo and a circus but there are many times that they choose specific animals to do things. When an animal is born in captivity it will never really see what its true home is like. And sometimes the animal that is brought into the zoo will never be let out again. There is also many weapons that are allowed in zoos like sharp bullhooks , or whips. Also you say that they have safe living conditions but really they have dictated living standards. There was an act that was passed and it is called The Animal Welfare Act. The AWA is a very serious thing that is supposed to help these captive animals but even with its federal power it has, it cant do anything for the animals because these zoos are paying thousands of dollars to have these things taken of there records even tho there is a lot of harm done and i DO NOT agree with it.
why zoos do more harm than good

It is true that we cannot actually ask the animal and see how they are doing, but like you said pacing back and forth is one of many ways we can study animals and make a pretty good guess on how that animal is doing. secondly there is a very big difference between a circus and a zoo. although there can be shows with animals in zoos it is extremely rare especially in modern zoos, outside of some private animal facility like a circus, to have an animal starved in order to perform tricks for audience members. Finally your last point that its an animals right to run free. Animals primary goal is to eat and live long enough to reproduce not to romp through the fields and smell flowers. All though it is true that small areas can lead animals used to open areas to go crazy, a zoo is not like a prison. in prison a person is detained for doing something illegal. A zoo provides an animal with safe living conditions and a steady and safe supply of food.
why zoos do more harm than good

you can never really tell if the animal wants to be in the enclosure or not, there are many other zoos that do cause harm to the animals. when you go to a zoo you don't want to go and see all of these animals pacing back and forth. when an animal is pacing back and forth it is a proven fact that they are going mentally insane. you want to go a zoo and see the animals having fun and playing but you rarely see that. there is also many times that the animals that are being showcased to the people get reprimanded or starved because they do not perform right or do a trick right. It is the animal to be free and run not to do a flip for fish or treats.
why zoos do more harm than good

Zoo's do more good then harm. the real answer to this debate lies in whether or not the animals would prefer to be in the zoo or whether it would prefer to be out in the wild. There are certainly zoos such as the surabaya zoo in Indonesia or even the San Antonio zoo, that do cause harm to animals and zoos such as this do cause more harm then good. However, these are only few and far between specific examples of animal cruelty in zoos. The purpose of a zoo can range from simply displaying animals for the general public to see to use as a way to easily study certain animal species that are hard to observe in the wild or even to preserve a species that is endangered. As a whole zoos like this do more good then harm.
atheism=a religion, like an opposing religion

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. ... The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. https://www.atheists.org... A religion is where people have the same beliefs in gods or believe in the same rules. atheism doesnt have any rules or they dont believe in any type of god.
My Opponent was, or Currently is, on Crack

"So in the previous round my opponent's whole argument was based on her having Social Phobia. " My opponent missed the point of my last argument. I was not saying that I must have Social Phobia or General Anxiety Disorder. I was trying to make a point that there are SO MANY other possibilities that my "symptoms" show signs of. A MAJORITY of the side effects my opponent listed for cocaine do not relate to me in any way such as changes in blood pressure, heart rates, breathing rates, nausea, vomiting, convulsions, swelling and bleeding of mucous membranes, damage to nasal cavities, and damage to lungs. On top of that, there are other common physical side effects that many people would notice (but don't) if I used cocaine. Short-term cocaine effects include: Increased blood pressure Constricted blood vessels Dilated pupils Mental alertness Increased energy Increased heart rate Decreased appetite Increased temperature (. http://www.cocaine-effects.com...) If I used crack, my pupils would most definitely be dilated. This is an obvious sign of cocaine use. My opponent has not mentioned this because he has never seen my pupils dilate in such a way. If he said such, it would be clear proof of cocaine use as it is not caused by many other things. My pupils do not dilate and have not dilated because I do not use or used cocaine. "Social Phobia is caused by problems with neurotransmitters in the brain called dopamine and seretonin. " My opponent makes it seem like this is solid proof. This might not even be true! Although some studies suggest involvement of dopamine and serotonin, other studies have not supported the idea that these two neurotransmitters are related to social anxiety disorder (. http://www.anxietytreatment.ca...). Once again, my opponent does not relay the true idea of my life when he says I, "have moved from Virginia to Texas last year after your father remarried. " My opponent does truthfully say my father remarries but, he remarried when I was 6 years old. That happened almost 9 years ago. "So your parents pay for everything and you only have $380 saved up? " I am a teenage girl. I go shopping and to the movies every weekend. The $380 is my spending money. I said "in cash". I have thousands more saved in my bank account. I just like to stay at around $380 in cash. Each week I get $10. That's all. I only baby sit our neighbors every couple weeks. I don't get an extravagant amount all the time. "I believe I have provided sufficient enough evidence to prove my point over yours. " I would disagree and say you did not prove your point over mine. I did so. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would really like to thank my opponent for offering this debate as my very first one to participate in. He is also my friend and was the one who encouraged me to join DDO. So, I give a special thanks to him. Thank you to everyone and anyone who votes in either favor. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
My Opponent was, or Currently is, on Crack

<> If something is 100% proven, then there's no point in debating it. We had this conversation at school, and you agreed with me on this point. I'm proving that it's MORE LIKELY you use crack and you're proving it's LESS LIKELY you use crack. So in the previous round my opponent's whole argument was based on her having Social Phobia. Social Phobia is caused by problems with neurotransmitters in the brain called dopamine and seretonin. (. http://www.anxietytreatment.ca...). Crack works by signaling these 2 brain signals to create pleasure for the user. However, by using it over and over again the cocaine damages these neurons and they tend to stop sending a signal at all or signal at a reduced rate (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). This causes less pleasure, anxiety, and depression. So in effect, social phobia is a side effect of crack cocaine. This means that by admitting she has social phobia she has admitted to a side effect of the drug she is taking. < > You misunderstand me, what I was saying is that people who take crack tend to be in denial. This is only used as an add-on piece of evidence for the other contentions. <<- I do have divorced parents. It has been this way since I was 5 years old. The divorce of my parents is a normal way of life rather than a stressor to me because that is just the way I grew up. The divorce of my parents has never been a problem that would lead me into a drug-filled life. If my opponent chooses to argue that it has been stressful to my life, I could just as easily tie it to generalized anxiety. People with generalized anxiety anticipate disaster and are overly concerned about health issues, money, FAMILY PROBLEMS, or difficulties at work (. http://www.nimh.nih.gov......).>> But you have moved from Virginia to Texas last year after your father remarried. Many people would say this would be a major cause of stress and anxiety that you tried to solve with crack. <<- I would like to point out that my parents pay for all things to do with my cell phone (including texting). I do not run out of money. I would also like to point out that I currently have $380 saved up in cash. I do not like wasting money, rather I am one who believes in saving. >> So your parents pay for everything and you only have $380 saved up? You've made around $11 a week for a year cleaning your house and doing other chores. This alone makes $530 and when you add in the fact you worked for your mother's company in Virginia over the summers, babysat, and birthday money you should have way over $380 dollars. Who knows, maybe you even steal from your parents as this is a common habit of most drug abusers. <> I agree that neither of us can solidly prove our side. However, I believe I have provided sufficient enough evidence to prove my point over yours. It's been a great debate! Glad to have you on DDO!
My Opponent was, or Currently is, on Crack

Firstly, I strongly deny your claims of ever using crack cocaine. To answer your second question, I do not fluently speak any Hispanic languages. In order to win this debate, you must prove that I actually use or once used crack cocaine. You have the burden of proof because you are the instigator. I just need to disprove your statements. I would like to present a few definitions: Was: past of be Is: present of be (http://www.askoxford.com...) It is then clear that the resolution is either true or false. This leads me to believe that my opponent clearly has burden of proof and that no such burden can be shared. I now await your case.
My Opponent was, or Currently is, on Crack

Hello Jessica, thank you for joining DDO and taking part in (if you accept) your first debate. The resolution which I stand in affirmation of is that you DO or DID crack cocaine. We both have the burden of proof and if both of us fail to prove our point then we this debate is a tie. Because this is your first debate on DDO I would like to give you the honor of posting your arguments first. Before you do that, I would like to ask a couple questions and give some definitions. Crack- Also called rock. Slang. pellet-size pieces of highly purified cocaine, prepared with other ingredients for smoking, and known to be especially potent and addicting (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Do you, or have you ever done, crack? Do you speak any hispanic languages?
Evolution is impossible to prove.

Well, that is unfortunate... I was hoping to engage in robust debate. I sincerely hope my opponent submits an argument for the next round. But I am the one with the burden of proof, so I will state my case. 1.) The recurrent laryngeal nerve represents some of the strongest evidence available to contemporary evolutionary biologists. https://m.youtube.com... A video, featuring Dr. Richard Dawkins, an authority on this subject, discussing the laryngeal nerve. The point is very simple; if all the animals which possess a recurrent laryngeal nerve were individually designed by some sort of creator, why were they designed with a recurrent laryngeal nerve? Creationists cannot provide an explanation, but this is exactly the sort of situation that evolutionary theory predicts. And the scientific answer is very simple: the laryngeal nerve was positioned on the "wrong" side of the heart in our fish ancestors, and so, as the heart pulled away from the brain in tetrapods, it pulled the laryngeal nerve along with it. This has resulted in animals with a VERY long laryngeal nerve. [1] 2.) From non-avian theropods to birds. The transition from non-avian dinosaurs to neornithes is well-documented. This theory was first proposed by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1868, and the evidence has only ever become more compelling. Hundreds of synapomorphies have been demonstrated. These include the wishbone, retroverted pelvis, air sac systems, feathers, and more, including behaviors. [2] [3] This is all I have time for right now. Even if my opponent does not submit an argument for the next round, I may choose to expand upon my position. [1] Wedel, M.J. 2012. A monument of inefficiency: The presumed course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in sauropod dinoW22; saurs. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 57 (2): 251"256. http://www.app.pan.pl... [2] Brusatte, Stephen L. (2012) Dinosaur Paleobiology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ. pp 24-26. [3] Chiappe, L. M. (2007) Glorified Dinosaurs: The Origin and Early Evolution of Birds. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Rap Battle

= = = It's time for a second round knockout, I got you on lockdown The enemy's tactics are failing, everything he fires gets shot down It's too late to stop now, I'm on the path of destruction I eat a million emcees like a mass consumption I'll throw you in a volcano just before the eruption Enough with the primitive rhymes and limited lines I'm takin this to the future with twin thrust turbines Interstellar travel at lightspeed with a warp in space-time The flight is over as I eject you back to earth We already know who came in first The man with the plasma ray gun, automatic burst With a squadron of aliens ready to kill and a bloodthirst Your mind is narrow and weak, you can't comprehend I possess advanced knowledge you don't understand I rank with the greatest scientific minds of the land In this debate I have the upperhand, the first in command It's time to end this battle and I won't do it politely This is where I smite thee and the elites invite me A master in Tai Chi, the fools don't like me, I invade your psyche Strike you with a pine tree right at the crime scene I won, you lost, don't lie to me
Rap Battle

= = = Clear the way, the Grand Master has entered the stage I will reign triumphant, the true sage of this age I'm so far ahead of my time, I won before the battle started For my opponent, this territory is uncharted You came to battle unprepared, I came with a fully loaded mortar You think you're a giant in this rap game, but you just got shorter Your simple mind is still thinkin about security at the border While I'm single handedly destroying the New World Order I'm sorry sir, but you're not even a worthy challenger My skills are far more advanced, beyond your low-ranked caliber Check the calendar, it's time for my annual ritual and you're the sacrafice My technological device will suffice, don't have to think twice Your physical structure rearranged, the DNA has been spliced I'll turn you from an atheist to a theist because I'm the god of war A true master of rap battles, you can't handle it anymore I slam you to the floor, leave a bomb at your door You're weak, you want to step to me, bring the heat You took on more than you can handle, now you will meet your defeat
Globalization is way more prejudicial for third world countries than it is beneficial.

What seems to have happened in this debate is that you have started a comparison of apples to oranges. There is no way to calculate the difference between the money made, and the personal sacrifices. But, one is measurable, and that is the money, so it is fair to say that we can base this debate on measurable, rather than the intangibles, which are feelings. You have stated that they make money, but not enough to live, MONEY IS MONEY, it is harsh to put it this way, but live or die, your earnings are your earnings, 47 cents an hour is better than no job at all isn't it? Sure, the people don't deserve the conditions they work under, but at least it gives them a fighting chance. You also state that "There is aid to people and industries in poor countries but not nearly enough", again, we cannot calculate the intangibles, some aid is better than none, and does not, as you stated, hurt the country, it is actually better compared to the country without jobs or aid. We cannot compare our lives to theirs in this debate, we are comparing a before and after globalization of their nations. I have clearly shown, and you have agreed, that the economy is increased, along with aid, with the occurrence of globalization, and the resolution is not that, "Globalization makes third world countries a worse place to live", but that "Globalization is way more prejudicial for third world countries than it is beneficial" which we have proven, and I admit, it is still not a GOOD place to live, but the economy is better, and the people have some sort of a fighting chance, which they may not have had before.
Globalization is way more prejudicial for third world countries than it is beneficial.

You have forgotten several things. 1-Sweatshops are still jobs, which boost the economy. 2-Globalization leads to more than just sweatshops. With the occurrence of globalization, aid has become more accessible in remote parts of third world countries, also, industries that would otherwise fail, can be successful because of globalization, for example the diamond industry in Africa. 3-Cheaper jobs means less costs to produce, which then leads to cheaper prices on products, making them more available to people who just have a job because of the flourishing industries created by globalization. 4-The three listed above lead to two of the most important aspects of an economy (according to Adam Smith) which are the pursuit of self interest, and the freedom of trade. I would also like for you to explain how sweatshops hurt the economy of the workers.
Globalization is way more prejudicial for third world countries than it is beneficial.

Today's technology brings the world together every day. Technologies like the internet have the purpose of making distances shorter and connecting people from across the world. Globalization is the main phenomenon that makes this connection possible. Globalization however, doesn't only concern global communication, but also global trade and business. Multinational companies are huge industries that benefit from the tax breaks they get in the U.S. and the extremely cheap labor found in third world countries. One would think that the jobs created by multinational companies would benefit third world countries. However, sweatshops do not help that country's economy. Those countries' governments overlook the horrible conditions these workers have to endure, and also pay these companies to stay because they believe it will benefit them in the long run. However, those companies take the money, until they can't exponentially increase their profit and then move to another country anyway.
basketball is better than volleyball

cAn YOU naMe mE soMe voLLeybaLL ref.. wh0 doesnT chEaT ?? aNd h0w aRe yoU suRE tHaT thE ref. of nba aRe cheaTiNG ?? cAn yoU expLaiNe iT to mE ?? h0w caN you assurE thAt thEy arE cenTerEd bY LiEinG anD cHeaTiNg ?? iF thEY aRe ceNteR In LiEiNg,cheaTing (etc) whY wouLd tHE audienCe suppoRt thE teAms ,, maKe pRinTs ,banners ` baLLooNs .. y wouLd thEY buY tickeTs aNd spEnd monEy thAt aLL theY caN see is cheating ., ?? how would you explaine to me that basketball dropped greatly in favoirtie sports of america ?? do yoU know thE favoirtie in the philippines , aLaskA , canada , russia , argentina , china , japan .. ?? thAnk yoU .