BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homeopathy Does Not Work

Homeopathy Listeni/G6;hoA0;miG2;;4;pə_2;i/ (also spelled homoeopathy or hom"opathy; from the Greek h"moios- P05;_6;_9;_3;_9;`2;- "like-" + p"thos `0;^0;_2;_9;`2; "suffering") is a system of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of like cures like, according to which a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people.[1] Homeopathic remedies are found to be no more than a placebo,[2] and homeopathy is widely considered a pseudoscience.[3][4][5][6][7] Hahnemann believed that the underlying causes of disease were phenomena that he termed miasms, and that homeopathic remedies addressed these. The remedies are prepared by repeatedly diluting a chosen substance in alcohol or distilled water, followed by forceful striking on an elastic body.[8] Dilution usually continues well past the point where no molecules of the original substance remains.[9] Homeopaths select remedies by consulting reference books known as repertories, and by considering the totality of the patient's symptoms, personal traits, physical and psychological state, and life history.[10] The scientific community regards homeopathy as nonsense,[11] quackery[12][13][14] or a sham,[15] and homeopathic practice has been criticized as unethical.[16] The axioms of homeopathy are long refuted[17] and lack any biological plausibility.[18] Although some clinical trials produce positive results,[19][20] systematic reviews reveal that this is because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias.[21][22][23][24] The postulated mechanisms of action of homeopathic remedies are not only scientifically implausible[21][25][26][27] but precluded by the laws of physics.[28]
who is better at duleing yugi or seto kiba

So that leaves Seto Kaiba for me.First of all i would just like to point out that every time yugi fought against kaiba, even the time pro mentioned, when yugi was able to defeat him with exodia, it was actually the pharaoh Atem fighting for him. And not to say more but the pharaoh did have access to the shadow realm and the magical powers from the milenium items, giving him a big advantage, even tho in the begining he didn't remember his past, it was in his blood so to say. Secondly Kaiba was the only duelist, without the access to the shadow realm (compared to marik and yugi), that was still good enough to fight them on the turnament. That proves that he was very skilled and probably the best dualist if others wouldn't have the advantage of magic. But as much as yugi moto is concerned, Kaiba always was stronger than him and without Atems help, he wouldn't win against kaiba.
who is better at duleing yugi or seto kiba

well i will choose yugi moto as my person so here we go yugi may be weaker than seto with cards but yugi has strategies like his mystical hats that can hid monsters or cards or nothing but yes it is always a close fight with them two but rember when yugi first fought against seto the champion dulest but yugi beat him easyly and defeated setos 3 blue eyes wight dragons all at once with his exodia the forbidden one and at that moment yugi actually became the best dulest out of them two now to you my friend
United States should have beaten Brazil in the Confederations Cup

Although they were both on Brazil mistakes, like you said they capitalized on it. Although Brazil had the ball more of the game, they only capitalized on their chances when they really had to. Making mistakes is part of the game and they happen in every game. The US had the mind to capitalize and they did. Although the goals were on breakaways, that doesn't mean they didn't deserve it, they deserved it as much as Brazil deserved their goals. Yes Tim Howard played a great game, and yes Brazil made a few mistakes, but I still believe the United States could have and should have won that game. They earned their spot to play their and they were so close to being champions. Thanks for debating
United States should have beaten Brazil in the Confederations Cup

I honestly do not think that you watched this game. USA's goals were both on breakaways started by bad passes. Brazil had the ball 59% of the game. Brazil had the ball in USA's end for the majority of the game. Tim Howard is the reason that the game only ended up 3:2. It was another anomaly in Tim Howard playing the game of his life. If you are going to use the word "should", then you need to know that neither of USA's goals should have happened. Brazil made a couple of mistakes and USA capitalized on them. Anomalies, in their nature, should not happen. If it weren't for anomalies, Brazil should have won by five goals.
United States should have beaten Brazil in the Confederations Cup

I am talking about the game on June 28th. Although i must agree with you about getting to the semi finals, they beat Spain fairly. They were obviously the better team and I believe that for the Final Game against Brazil. The US was the better team. If they played to win and not to lose, the game would have been won. Besides losing the mental game the United States did one thing I did not agree with. Although he had no goals, Jozy Altidore could have been a big help. Also Luis Fabiano had a great game and you cant stop that but you can slow him down. Overall I think that the United States had a better game and should have been Confederation Cup Champions.
United States should have beaten Brazil in the Confederations Cup

You didn't specify a game so I will just assume you mean the one on June 18th. In the game on June 18th the United States did not score a single goal. The game was one-sided and USA was lucky to have only lost 3-0. If you meant the entire Confederations Cup, I will have to tell you, no matter how much you hate me for saying this, but the US should not have made it to the semi-finals. The only way they could have made it is if they beat Egypt by three goals, which by your standards is an anomaly, AND Italy would have to lose by three goals, another anomaly. Neither of these should have happened, but they both did. To top that, Italy scored an own goal. Own goals should not happen, but they do. On paper, it is clear that the US has no chance at beating Brazil. They should not have and they didn't.
United States should have beaten Brazil in the Confederations Cup

The U.S should have won that game for a few reasons. They were up two goals to nothing until the 55th minute. If you can hold a team off for 55 minutes while attacking and scoring two goals, another 35 should be NOTHING! Also a 2 goal lead in soccer is a pretty big gap to overcome. If they would have kept playing to win the game should have been their's They went into a don't lose mindset. They stopped playing to win and started playing not to lose. Had they kept playing to win the Confederations Cup should have been won by the States. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate.
Flat Tax is bad

Never fear. If the people living in the apartment are earning, for example, $30,000 per year and the people living in the house are earning $50,000 per year, then a flat tax (10% for example) would only take $3,000 of the apartment people and $5,000 of the house people. The apartment people would be taxed less than the house people ($2,000 less to be exact).
Epic Rap Battles of History!!

A bat with no powers beat me, it's true, But when I win this, what will that make you? I'm struggling to think, I'm starting to sink, Deep into your mother. holy sh*t I'm on the brink! Oh my god, I'm cumming hard, Piercing her like a glass shard, Like I am the nerd of the class and she's the resident retard, Make her squirt and then cum some more, Money's on the pillow, As I jump out the window, 'Cos your dad's at the front door. I'm the rebel, you're the rule, You're the pillow, I'm the drool
Epic Rap Battles of History!!

You think this world sucks, You whine, moan and fuss, You were that kid that no one would sit next to on the bus, In my world the only thing sucking is hoes, And these hoes, like yo' mother, yeah they suck my toes, And what cums around sure as hell is what goes, Moral of the story, no means no and yes means hoe, No need to rape, the beg me to make them gape, They worship me like I'm a human and their simply an ape, I'm a blu-ray DVD, you're just a video-tape, I'm Voldemort, you're just Snape.
It is reasonable to be Agnostic about a creator to the universe!

First of all don't be silly Con, i already know that! There can also be Agnostic Deists! Con, we can completely dismiss your whole argument on how you addressed the concept of a creator and put labels on "it". I defined the creator as someone or something that creates from the get go. Not the "theist God" creates. However, since I'm benign, I will give your argument the benefit of the doubt and analyze it. Voters, take copious notes now! In Con's rebuttal he completely avoids bringing up deism. And I'll show you why. In number 6 of his not so compelling argument he states, "if there exists an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists. This is actually an immature logical fallacy called Petitio Principii. ( e.g. It's like saying since there's no evidence for God, then no God exists. What Con is making is an assertion. In Deism they believe in a God that is all of those things, but does not intervene. Sure, this world is like a put off Science project and like a C- at best, but that doesn't mean God isn't omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. You attempted to disprove a creator but you can't. You can't prove or disprove a creator. And because of this, you as a Voter must, theist, atheist deist or agnostic, need to be unbiased and find it reasonable to be Agnostic about a creator to the universe.
It is reasonable to be Agnostic about a creator to the universe!

First of all Con is asserting that the hypothesis of a creator to life has to be defined under those biblical terms of God. However, I can argue "God" can just be a catalyst to what sparked the Big Bang or "God" could even be a malevolent entity in the sky that is just indifferent to the world and just likes watching us suffer in Calamity. We just don't know! Secondly, Con's argument is very dull, in the sense that, he is trying to disprove the bible God rather then really trying to show us why it's not reasonable to be Agnostic. Unless he's trying to debate why all the Agnostics of the world shouldn't be Agnostic and why it's not reasonable, then he's not forming a valid argument. If he's going to argue against the existence of Yahweh, he needs to argue against the existence of all the religious and non-religious concepts of "God" too. For example he says it can be known that the theist God can't be true. And let's just say that is the case, but what about the Deist God? The God that people like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson had faith in. They were two of the most well known founding fathers in the United States of America. Also, he says Agnosticism is a real technical thing. Which I highly disagree with. Last time I checked "I don't know" isn't really that technical. Personally even being an Atheist myself, I still find it reasonable for people to be Agnostic because there is no proof or evidence proving or disproving the existence of God. All there is, is fallacy after fallacy and theory after theory attempting to outsmart ones opponent with logic and reason. But, in reality Science just doesn't have an answer yet either way. Even Deists would agree with me on that one. Agnosticism is a neutral stance. That is totally reasonable. It's like with politics, people don't have to be too far right or too far left. They can just be in between. Neil deGrasse Tysonne of the most controversial Astros-physicists that is alive is Agnostic. In his words, "I just don't know and don't really care". I'm paraphrasing but it went something like that in his interview with Big Think. Source: YouTube.com/bigthink. (Interview with Neil deGrasse Tysonne about being Agnostic)
It is reasonable to be Agnostic about a creator to the universe!

Thanks for an interesting topic; it's good to debate somebody who has their definitions sorted out :D Isn't that atheist-agnostic-theist spectrum nonsense just such a bore? So, the question before us is whether it is reasonable to conclude that nothing can be known about the existence or nature of God. I say squarely that it is not. For instance it cannot be true that God is simultaneously existent, omnipotent, omniscient and onmibenevolent. Slightly tweaked from Wikipedia's page on the Problem of Evil [1], I present a compelling argument: 1. Assume that God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. 2. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils. 3. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented. 4. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. 5. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. 6. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists. 7. Evil exists 8. The logical contradiction between 7. and 8. implies that the assumption (1.) was wrong. That there cannot be an existing, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God seems to me to be a positive statement about God's existence and/or nature, which seems to me to run counter to the definition of Agnostic that Pro setup. I contend that at least this one thing is known about the possible nature of God. (I am an atheist myself; not happy to argue for "there are no gods", since some might choose to hide, but quite happy to argue that the proposed God of the Bible patently does not exist) Agnosticism seems to me such a technical position and, as such, quite unnecessary. Why complicate matters with beliefs about what can be knowable? Why not settle for "I've heard the claims of Theism and I'm not buying any of them. Some of them I just don't buy, some cannot be true"? I do... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
It is reasonable to be Agnostic about a creator to the universe!

Looking for an Atheist, theist or deist that is willing to challenge my claim! Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. synonyms: skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, cynic; More Creator: Someone or Something that creates Source: 'Google Definitions'
North Korea's threat should be taken seriously.

Seeing that Kim Jong Un is the leader of a communist state who are bitter enemies with South Korea, it is indeed extremely surprising that Kim Jong Un and PSY have never been in the same room. As for the fact that North Korea may rule the world by 2301, by this time there can be no doubt that an emerging nation like Iran will have started nuclear war and we will all be extinct anyway, so in no way can North Korea be considered a threat.
North Korea's threat should be taken seriously.

You sir have obviously never been hit with a rubber band. Let me tell you that they are very dangerous and can be used as a torturing method. Also kim jung un and PSY are the same person.....have you ever seen them in the same room at the same time, No. so they must be the same person. Also the North Koreans have just opened their army o newer technology. Now they use horses in stead of their feet, they go 10x faster than before. Since they go 10x faster and their slingshots are 5x more deadly, with rubber bands, they have increased their military strength by 50x what it was. At this rate they will rule the world by 2301. But we must act now and stop them. they are ggaining much power
North Korea's threat should be taken seriously.

Sadly, Logan94, PSY and Kim Jong Un cannot be the same person seeing the Kim Jong Un is obviously far more physically attractive. Furthermore, rubber bands are not particularly effective weapons. Seeing that North Korea are such a joke that 93 % of the web is dedicated to making fun of them (thanks to the notoriously reliable The Sun newspaper for this statistic), it can be ascertained they are not a very serious threat.
North Korea's threat should be taken seriously.

Logan94, I wish to refute your points in saying that North Korea's technology is not advanced. The spear technology they are currently trying only became hopelessly out of date in Africa over a century ago, showing that North Korea will surely be able to develop nuclear weapons within the next millenium. Furthermore, North Korean society is extremely advanced. The advanced form of government known as communism is only just over a century old, and incredibly is still used by major world powers like the mighty, unopposed nations of Cuba and Venezuela. This conclusively shows North Korea is catching up the West and maybe their citizens will soon learn about the concept of reading and writing even if it may take a few centuries before a literacy rate above 10% will be reached.
North Korea's threat should be taken seriously.

It i capable of holding only 20 men and north korea only has 5 at its disposal. Also if the tide is not right when they try to get to Japan they could end up anywhere else. Secondly, north korea is only testing their spear technology at this point and it is decades behind the Wests bayonets. Also their leader is a dictator by day, and an american pop sensation by the name of PSY by night. Cool but not threatening.
Resolved: A sequel to the Bible, "The Bible II", should be written

Pro: "Yeah it is, all versions are based on the same crap from earlier ones, its kind of like inbreeding, which im pretty sure is also in the Bible"Whether you believe in Darwinian Evolution or Creationism, you still have to recognize that either way, we came from inbreeding. Creationism teaches that Adam and Eve were created perfect, so mutations didn't come into effect until many generations later, thus nullifying bad defects from inbreeding. However, from evolutionary thought, we would have started off with bad mutations, and the inbreeding would have all of humanity be immensely defected.Pro: "But we didnt understand what God's intentions were in the past, so that there defeats your argument. "But we did understand his thoughts in the past. They are written in the Bible. It really actually isn't hard to understand at all what it is saying, but some people purposely misinterpret it to make it say what they want to say."No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw (http://atheistempire.com...)Pro: Religion can address more modern dilemmas"There is nothing more simple than doing unto others than what you would want unto you. It's pretty straightforward, and it's adding to that which causes people to lose sight of the value of simplicity.Pro: People desperately seek what others think of God because they dont have all the answers themselves.This is not true. I have many answers and I do not desperately seek out to others. What you are assuming is demeaning to the general population.Pro "The bible isn't a book full of theological errors"You attempted to disprove this by providing links to websites that have no training in religious thought or Biblical exegesis. An ignorant person cannot make claims in which they have no understanding of.Pro "Holy Wars"People will kill others regardless of religion.
Resolved: A sequel to the Bible, "The Bible II", should be written

1) 2000 years Without a new one" it's not entirely accurate to say there hasn't been a new one"Yeah it is, all versions are based on the same crap from earlier ones, its kind of like inbreeding, which im pretty sure is also in the Bible2) Update to what God really wants."Also, God is described as unchanging, so if we can understand what God's intentions were in the past, we can conclude as to what they would be in the present."But we didnt understand what God's intentions were in the past, so that there defeats your argument. 3) Religion can address more modern dilemmas "Jesus said "Love God with all your heart, mind, and sould; and love your neighbor as yourself". This is the religious stance on everything"That doesnt f*cking answer anything though. Youre just doing what every other religious butt-pirate has done in the past where they take one barely related passage, interpret it to an irrational degree, and try to sell it to others. If a Bible II was made then it could directly address what people should believe on modern issues with all this ancient scripture bullsh*t. 4) Better Authors"and honestly, not too many people really care about what modern people think of God"Um hello, there are tv shows dedicated purely to religion where pastors give their opinion on what they think of God and his actions every day every hour! People desperately seek what others think of God because they dont have all the answers themselves. 5) Fix errors"The bible isn't a book full of theological errors"Yeah it is: http://www.infidels.org...http://www.freethoughtdebater.org..."Works of antiquity are a great marvel. We wouldn't ever want to write a sequel to the Iliad,"The Iliad isnt used to launch Holy Wars or denounce entire religions though. With a book as influential as the Bible, its important to MAKE SURE ITS ACTUALLY ACCURATE.
Resolved: A sequel to the Bible, "The Bible II", should be written

1) There hasn't been an a new one for over 2000 yearsAs the Bible is moreso a historical account of events, it's not entirely accurate to say there hasn't been a new one. We use church tradition as like a modern oral version of the Bible, but it's not necessary these traditions get written down.2) Update to what God really wants.The Bible isn't a book that is written like a philosophical treatise. It is an account of history of the Jewish nation, and it is the best historical document we have from antiquity. Also, God is described as unchanging, so if we can understand what God's intentions were in the past, we can conclude as to what they would be in the present.3) Religion can now clearly address it's stance on stuff like abortion and Gay MarriageJesus said "Love God with all your heart, mind, and sould; and love your neighbor as yourself". This is the religious stance on everything, and when religious people try to make specific claims about what the religious stance should be, they end up breaking those two rules.4) We would have better authorsThe Bible was not written only by poor poeple, it was written by a large array of people, from simple farmers to great kings. People will always be curious as to what ancient mankind thought about God, and honestly, not too many people really care about what modern people think of God. Everyone has their own opinion, but the origins of religious thought are generally more appealing.5) We could correct errors in the first oneThe bible isn't a book full of theological errors, it is an historical account written by ancient mankind who did their best to write down what was actually happening. With archaeology we can make assumptions on whether these events happened or not, but we can't definitively prove it one way or the other. Works of antiquity are a great marvel. We wouldn't ever want to write a sequel to the Iliad, to the Arabian Nights, etc, because it would diminish the value of what the originals stand for.