BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does family teaches more than society

No, family does not teach an individual as much as society does. As prevalent and important as family can be in our lives, it does not play nearly as important a role as society. Between expectations and normalizations, society shapes everything from how we act, how we dress, to how we speak. It does this through various mediums, including but not limited to, advertisements, entertainment, and schooling. The final point of that is the most important. The average school day for an American high schooler is about 6.5 hours (according to the Business Insider), and these students are estimated to sleep roughly 7 hours a day (Nationwide Children's Hospital). That means there is only about 10.5 hours that these people are at home, awake. Of these hours, an estimated 3.5 of them are spent on homework (LA Times), making it only 7 hours a day where a teenager could be interacting with their family (though notably, it is unlikely that they will spend this entire time doing so, if you include time for recreation and extracurricular activities). Taking these factors into account, the majority of the time, teenagers (who are most impressionable and learning) spend most of their time away from family, exposed to society. Therefore, they will learn more from society.
Nothing suggests theism must be true

Definitions. Pro has allowed for me to define god, and, since Pro did not supply a definition for theism and theism is a major constituent of the resolution, I will also supply a definition for theism. theism - belief in the existence of a god or gods. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...god - a deity. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...So, now the resolution should read:"Nothing suggests that there must be a deity. "I also feel like I should explain my theism, antithetical to what you may read in my profile, because my definition of god was not very expansive. You see, I'm what people call a heliolater, because I practice heliolatry by worshiping the sun; the sun is in fact the deity in my theism. heliolotry - worship of the sun. . http://dictionary.reference.com...2. Pro's points. I, like Pro, wish to keep it snappy and to the point, so I'll follow his "meat to work with right off the bat. "Pro says:"If I believe that something must have caused the universe, what do I know about the cause? "My response:Well, NASA has measured the cosmic microwave background radiation, of the observable universe, and we ow have a very clear picture of our universe's origins being the big bang. . http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...There's something that you know about the cause Pro. Pro continues:"Should I suppose that it still exists today? Why? On what evidence? You see, I can get to this point, and still have all my work ahead of me. "My response:The big bang occurred ~13.7 billion years ago, and the universe is currently expanding, but I think it would be dishonest to say that the big bang exists today. .. it was a past event. . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...So, hopefully there's not too much work ahead of Pro. In my theism, I have felt god's presence and influence, every time I've gone outside on a godly day. So Pro says:"Here we distinguish observation from inference. .. you have personally observed them. .. to claim that their origin is supernatural, though, is an inference, not an observation. "My response:God's presence isn't supernatural; it's radiation. Also, from observing god's presence, one can infer radiation. Pro says:"improbable events would only be evidence for God if they happened MORE often than they should, more often than they would by chance alone. "My response:Improbable events are not evidence for god; this is: . http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov... I reject the resolution that nothing suggests that theism must be true, because god is observable by anyone/anything on earth that can detect god's radiation; we orbit god, it provides us with light/radiation, and god's radiation allows plants to produce food so that we may eat plants and enjoy their oxygen. Pro?
Nothing suggests theism must be true

Let the respondent define "God" as they believe in him/her/it. For example, if for you "God" = an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being of love and creation, then the topic shall be argued as "Nothing suggests there must be an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being of love and creation." Let's keep it clear and accessible, snappy and to the point. To give us some meat to work with right off the bat, I'll address some common arguments for the evidence of God (as conceived by mainstream theism). 1 - "Some day, you'll realize that all of this (gestures to the world, to the universe, and to the order and majesty they display) could not have just happened by itself." Suppose I realize that. Where should I go from there? If I believe that something must have caused the universe, what do I know about the cause? Should I suppose that it still exists today? Why? On what evidence? You see, I can get to this point, and still have all my work ahead of me. 2 - "I have felt God's presence, his influence, his guidance." Here we distinguish observation from inference. You have had powerful spiritual experiences, you have personally observed them. To claim that their origin is supernatural, though, is an inference, not an observation. Not all unusual or powerful human experiences can be supernatural. If I have one, how do I know if it's supernatural or just natural? 3 - "People are healed by God. Prayers are answered, miracles happen, people survive or are healed who wouldn't have otherwise." Say the odds of recovering from a disease are one in a million. Someone recovers anyway, and people claim this as proof of God. Well, if the odds are one in a million, it's bound to happen after a million tries, yah? Even if there is no God, one in a million things still happen every million times or so, just by chance, by statistics. It's a world of seven billion people, and some pretty crazy one out of seven billion coincidences are bound to happen, without any supernatural intervention. These improbable events would only be evidence for God if they happened MORE often than they should, more often than they would by chance alone.
I am the sexiest man alive

As you stated 'Who is the sexiest man alive?' is an opinionated question. Plato stated that on opinions on the maters of self your's is the only opinion that maters. If one where to say I am the most glamourous man in Roma he is. If you and me where both to state 'I am the sexiest man alive' we would both be telling the truth. Also proving why opinions are fallacy and should never be used for philosophical debate.
I am the sexiest man alive

The resolution is "I am the sexiest man alive". As Con, I will negate this resolution by arguing that my opponent is not the sexiest man alive. Now, let us move on and refute Pro's absurd claim that he is the sexiest man alive.Pro's ArgumentWhat Pro said in his first round basically just boils down to this: "Some people told me that I'm the sexiest man alive (I.e., My mother, a guy in the ally, and an another guy who lives nextdoor). Therefore, I am the sexiest man alive." This argument is extremely fallacious and weak, because it doesn't follow that you are A just because some people said that you are A. Sure, some people may have said to my opponent that he is the sexiest man alive, but that doesn't therefore necessarily mean that it's actually true that he is the sexiest man alive. Let me give one example in order to illustrate just how flawed and weak this argument is: Imagine if a guy came up to you and said that he is God. After hearing this, you naturally ask him "Why do you think that?". The guy answers by saying "Because my mother and all my friends said so." Is this a good or reasonable answer? Does this make sense? Of course not. A reasonable person would think that this guy is just insane and doesn't know anything about logic. Indeed, a reasonable person would easily understand that a guy isn't the sexiest man alive or God simply just because some people said to this guy that he was.Problems with Pro's claimThere are several problems with Pro's claim that he is the sexiest man alive. I will, however, only present two of these problems.1. The first problem with Pro's claim is the fact that what makes someone "sexy" depends greatly on who you ask. For example, for some people being fat is sexy. But for some other people, not being fat is what is sexy. Some people may say that intelligence is a big factor in determining if someone is sexy. Some other people, however, may say that intelligence doesn't really matter when it comes down to what makes someone sexy. In short, what makes someone "sexy" and what it even means to be "sexy", is very subjective.2. The second problem with Pro's claim is the fact that his claim is almost impossible to prove. In order for us to determine if my opponent is the sexiest man alive, we would have to look at all the men in the word who is alive today; for how else can we know with certainty that my opponent is the sexiest man alive? It may very well be the case that a guy living in Africa or Asia somewhere is more sexier than my opponent. The point is, there is no way we can say with certainty that someone is the sexiest man alive, unless we actually compare that someone to all the other men who are alive today. But of course, comparing my opponent to all the men who are alive today (about 3-4 billion people), is something which is quite unrealistic.The resolution is negated.
Abortion is wrong.

The comment section wasn't working. I wanted to continue our discussion because you brought up good points and I want to understand where your coming from. I also want to stick up for a the innocent victims of abortion. I wouldn't get pregnant at 15. I'm not a slu*. If I did get pregnant as a teen I would keep my baby. If a girl doesn't want the baby she can give it up. If a girl chooses to sleep around than she should suffer the consequences for her own actions. The baby shouldn't suffer because of the moms mistake. Thanks! :)
Abortion is wrong.

I'm not completely against welfare. I'm fine with giving my money to people who need it. If you can't work for a good reason or your trying to find work than I'll gladly give you my money. If you choose not to work and use my money for you to be a lazy, drunk, crack head, uneducated, stupid, poor mannered person and do nothing all day even though you can work than I won't give you my money. I'll happily pay for the crack baby's of drunk lazy stupid moms because they're kids and it's not their fault that they're mom is lazy. Remember the more kids a women has the more money she gets. Lots of these women choose to have lots of kids so they can take more of our money. I would love to open up a place for mothers to live when they have no where else to go. I would like to find women who are going to abortion clinics to kill heir baby's and offer them a place to stay. You would rather kill your baby than give it up? What if you found a nice couple?. What of your baby would want a chance to be in this world even if they have to go through struggles. You won't become a drug addict. That's something you can control. Don't take drugs or drink too much alcohol. Becoming homeless...that could happen to anyone. If a women tries to kill a baby and dies in the process...she shouldn't have had unprotected sex and she shouldn't have tried to murderer a baby. Violence is not the answer. Pro choice people want the baby's to die and pro life people want to protect them.
The Russian T-90 tank is superior to the American M1 Abrams

In Iraq, the Abrams was commonly used and the results were not so good. Low quality IEDs in combination with RPG rounds effectively eliminated Abrams. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... The T-90 also has better sloping of the armor than the Abrams. (debatable) I do not have much to say because I do not have any arguments to refute. Thank you for the debate.
The Russian T-90 tank is superior to the American M1 Abrams

"both tanks have 125mm guns" The Abrams actually has a smaller caliber gun. Let's start with the gun. The T-90 is an autoloader while the Abrams needs a loader (20th century methods), meaning the Abrams is more prone to error during simply because there is a human instead of a machine. The T-90 is the only tank in the world that can fire a missile through its cannon. It can fire a laser-guided missile which has a range of 5 km. This means, in fact, that the T-90 can destroy an Abrams before the Abrams can even see its opponent because of the enormous range of the missile. The T-90 has a faster fire rate than the Abrams. Next, let's examine the suspension/engine. While the Abrams only has a max speed of 56 km/h, the T-90's top speed is 65 km/h. The T-90 is also known to have amazing suspension and can travel on virtually any terrain. The T-90 weighs less (almost 20 tons less) than the Abrams. This allows the T-90 to have an operational range of up to 700 km while the operational range of the Abrams is only 425 km. Let's take a look at protection now. The very base armor-thickness of the Abrams is 350 mm to 700 mm (depending on type of ammo being shot at the tank). This is inferior to the T-90s 800-1350 mm armor thickness. The T-90 has the Shtora-1 armor system which protects the tank from RPG shots (which destroyed many Abrams in Iraq) and laser-guided missiles. The T-90 has an anti-mine defense system as well. The T-90 is even protected against weapons of mass destruction. Not only is the M1A2 far inferior to the T-90, but the T-90 ($4.25 million) is less expensive than the Abrams ($6.21 million) http://www.diffen.com... http://www.armyrecognition.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... I honestly don't see why people consider the Abrams competition for the T-90. As far as I can see, the T-90 is superior in virtually every respect.
The Russian T-90 tank is superior to the American M1 Abrams

Well, both tanks have 125mm guns, relative to each other in velocity, and both can fire the same types of rounds. The T-90 can traverse faster by a few km, but the M1 has about 300 more milimetres on the front armour, so that's good. The M1 Also has a electronically controlled 50.cal, so that's good to.
Mormonism is Christian

I'm sorry, but just because you believe in God and believe in Heaven, it does not make you a Christian. According to your logic, if believeing in God and a Heaven qualifies you to be a Christian then, to you, a Muslim would be Christian and same with Jehovah Witnesses, Hindus and etc, because after all they do believe in a god and a heaven. Joseph smith, around the age of eighteen was confused because their are so many Christian denominations. So in his confused state he went out to the forest by his house to pray and ask God, which one was correct, in which he claimed God appeared to Him and told him that they are all heretics, for lack of a better word. God went on to say that he needs to interpret the golden tablets and later founded Mormanism. Now, if Christians are heretics according to the Mormans, why put these two groups in the same box? Obviously, Mormans are not Christian.
Mormonism is Christian

Sorry I got confused. Mormanism is Christians because it is under the protestants who broke away from the Catholic Church in the 1800's. 135 million people beleive in it and they beleive in heaven, although they have many different beleifs, they do beleive in God and beleiving in these makes you a Christian. If you research this you would find the same thing. My pastor taught me, that Mormanism was created in the 1800's during the Protestant Reformation. It started with 35 Morman's and then grew and got huge numbers. See, to be a Christian, you beleive in God and Heaven. There are many other parts that vary, but those are the main things that you have to have to be a Christian. So since they beleive in these things, they are technically a Christian!
Mormonism is Christian

For the first part of this round I will offer my brief rebuttal then I will put up my case for cross examination. My Rebuttal: The resolution clearly states, "Mormonism is Christian." I negate the resolution, which means that I do not believe that Mormons are Christians. My opponent is suppose to affirm which means he/she believes that Mormons are Christians. However, in the first round they say that "Mormonism is not Christianity," therefore they agree with me and negate the resolution. Clearly they are confused on the grounds of what they believe. Now I offer my case: Contention 1:According to the fifteenth president of the Mormon Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, the Jesus of the Book of Mormon and the Jesus of the Bible are not the same. In LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7, it states "In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" In Mormonism, they teach that Jesus is a product of sexual relations between God the Father and his goddess wife (McConkie, Bruce, Mormon Doctrine, p. 192, 321, 516, 589). Not only that, but they also believe that Jesus is the spirit brother of the devil, you and me (McConkie, p. 192, 589). Contention 2: Mormonism teaches polytheism, while Christianity teaches monotheism One of the truly dividing lines between Mormonism and Christianity is doctrine of the plurality of gods. In the Articles of Faith by James Talmage, p.35 it says that "The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man." However, in the Bible it states that "besides Me there is no God" (Isaiah 45:5). While often the concept of the trinity is misunderstood it does not teach a polytheistic belief system. It teaches monotheism. If you ask the average ignorant person "are Mormons Christian?" they will say "yes." These people are sadly misinformed.
Irrelevancy of God

Before I begin my arguments for the debate, I must state my position on the subject. Though I myself do not believe in God, I will entertain the idea of his existence for this debate and I do not wish to offend anyone. Additionally, if any conclusive scientific evidence is found for God's existence, I will accept it.My position is that God's existence (as described by basic Christian principles) is irrelevant to the future of this universe. Christianity says that God is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. This means that before God decided to create the universe, he had the intention of creating a universe perfect for humanity, knew what the perfect universe for humanity would be, and executed this plan perfectly.With this, we can determine that the universe, no matter what we decide to do, is either currently an ideal universe, or will eventually be an ideal universe for humanity. This ideal universe will have no interaction with God beyond the instant in which it was created due to God creating a perfect universe that requires no divine intervention.Now that I have stated my position, I will leave the determination of whether or not I am correct to the voters and my competitor. My intention here is to share my ideas and see what ideas people wish to share with me, and to learn from the experience. I promise that I will vote for or against my competitor based upon whether or not he or she and the commenter have changed my opinion.
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize

Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. ----------------- I will be taking CON in this debate and in doing so will let PRO go first. ---------------- I reserve the right to clarify the topic should I deem it necessary. -------------- Good luck to who ever accepts this debate! ------------- My opponent may propose definitions.
everybody likes to argue about their FAVORITE MOVIE!!!!

To start off let me just say that my opponent, in his last response, showed his flaws. In about 75% of his response he was apologizing for his errors and basically showing that I had indeed won the previous engagement. Also, no where in my opponents argument did he talk about why Amadeus had won "Best Picture." My opponent still has not stated why Amadeus won and what makes it better than Red Dawn. Also, he breifly discusses how unrealistic Red Dawn is. He states that "i believed that a communist invasion of America was (back then) unrealistic." Back in 1984 the U.S was engaged in the Cold War. Communism was a HUGE threat! So back then an invasion or bombing of America was not only completely realistic, it was feared. Secondly, he states that " the use of commercial airplanes as Russian paratrooper transports...." is unrealistic as well. If you can remember, the hijackers on 9/11 used commercial airplanes to devestate our country. If it was done in 2001 it most certainly can be reasonable 17 years prior in 1984. Lastly, my opponent accuses me of opinionating my arguments as well. Of course there is going to be some opinionated views peppered throughout the debate, but the Con has not only peppered, but added some salt to it as well. If you look at my opinions vs. the Con's, you can see that I used more facts and less opinions than he has done. In round one we see the example of myself using facts, and movies as evidence to show success of the actors and the director. There is little to no opinions expressed in my argument throughout Round 1. The Con also states: "'They have also been accused of voting on movies based on star favorites rather than overall quality of the film...' That was, word for word, what the Pro said when criticizing the nomination process for academy awards...'" This statement is false. I personally did not say that about the voting process. I had received that quote from a source directly. Therefore, my opponent can't directly link that to my personal views. I was merely showing what qualities the voters look for when voting on "Best Picture" movies. In conclusion, I can safely say that I believe my opponent has dug himself into a hole. Round 3 was nothing but apologies and stating that I was correct. Hopefully, you, as the voters, see this and vote accordingly when the time comes.
everybody likes to argue about their FAVORITE MOVIE!!!!

Think of your favorite movie right now...... Now try to remember if you thought it should have won best picture the year it came out. Did it? Maybe it did but it probably didn't, but you think it should have won right? Here's the deal, You argue why the movie ________________________ should have won the best picture award for the year it came out, And I will argue A) Why it shouldn't have won, and/or B) Why the movie that did win best picture deserved it more than the movie you chose :) I will be the Con/Against, you will be the Pro/Con. You may use Round 1 to pick your movie and begin arguing why it should have won. Max characters and max rounds so get ready to defend your movie as much as possible.