BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nothing has its own color

My opponent once again, goes waaaaay off topic from the debate we are having. He keeps on talking about how the sun reflects off objects but the matter we are discussing does not have any relation to this. My opponent must show that "nothing", as in, nonexistence in itself, has color. I argue that because "nothing" is literally nonexistent it cannot be attributed with color, because color can only be attributed to an object. Also, the sun isn't the reason we see colors the way we see them, God is the reason we see things the way we see them. However, this is irrelevant to the debate so no need to respond to it. My opponent seems to completely ignore m=the definition of 'nothing" that has been set up for this debate; because my opponent has no objected to the definition it is the definition that will be used. This means my opponent is indeed presenting totally irrelevant arguments and that my own arguments have not been contended to. Nothing = Nonexistence Nonexistence = Can't have adjectives, or can't be described because it does not exist. Color = Description/Adjective My opponent must show that nonexistence in itself can be described with color, because after all he is Pro for "nothing" has color. However, "nothing" does not have color because it is not an object, it is simply nothing. Back to you.
The U.S. should negotiate with the Taliban

As expected, my opponent forfeited every single round of debate with me for the last 3 rounds even though he was online within the last day. In other words, he used to me write up his arguments so he could plagiarize what I said and use it in his own real-life experience (for class or a debate tournament). That's pretty pathetic, and definitely bad conduct. In short, Con has given NO ARGUMENTS, no sources, has used bad conduct, and overall he had worse spelling and grammar (i.e. "to lazy" instead of "too lazy"). In short, my RFD is a straight 7 for the Pro. Thank you.
The U.S. should negotiate with the Taliban

Hello, I will give some background information about this debate and why I chose this topic. First I'm am a middle school debate student who is to lazy to write the other side of my case and I need to test my just written case. I know you don't need to tell me I'm not doing the work for you. I just need to test one case and while were debating I would like to construct another case. It would be nice if my opponent would post there opening argument in this format 1.argument # 1 2.argument # 2 3.argument # 3 1. evidence supporting argument 1 2. evidence supporting argument 2 3. evidence supporting argument 3
Socialism

Rich people can choose to be selfish or generous. In capitalism this range of choice dictates just how severely imporverished the poor ofr a region are. Take India, Nigeria or any country where the government is havin gnext to zero intervention in its economic matters, this is the disgusting truth.In Socialism, as seen in many European nations as well as Canada and Australia, when a nation is more balanced towards socialism than capitalism, there is a higher development index score. http://hdr.undp.org...http://eucham.eu...Checkmate.
Dress Code

first of all, id like to adress how you think it breaks the first amendment, Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press? You as an minor have to abide by the rules the schools are giving you, which includes dress code. as for cost, unless you cant afford (which doesn't seem the case because most dress codes are for private schools and if you are going to a private school, you are not worried about 100$) the dress code, you cant really complain. the teachers are providing you an education, which is worth more than some clothes. And your last argument just makes absolutely no sense because that completely goes against what a dress code is. being able to customize a set uniform? makes no sense bud
Dress Code

I think the dress code shouldn't choose for kids what they have to wear, I think they should have a saying in what they wanna wear. It does break the first amendment. Plus it can cost well over $100, which is unreasonable since parents already have to pay for heir kid's education and after-school activates. Another argument is that they should at least be able to customize it the way we want, our color, any text, anything, but if we do lift this from schools we should at least be limited to certain things, like skin showing, that shouldn't be allowed if any school has no dress code.
Christianity is superior to Islam

:) Resolution: - Topic: which of the two religions, Islam or Christianity, is superior. - Terminology: > Religion = scriptures, practices, beliefs, denominations, History, Law, Theology, Spirituality & Thought. > Superior = more appealing, effective, beneficial, authentic or reasonable. Rules: - No forfeit, no disrespect, no bare assertions & no shotgun argumentation. - BOP: Pro has the burden of proof, for he is making the positive claim. - Sources: authentic & authoritative, whether within the same round or at the end of the debate. In case they are in a foreign language, a translation should be provided in a google document, at least for the relevant parts.
Evolutionary Benefit to all emotions.

I think we can both agree that roller coasters simulate a dangerous environment, causing a fight or flight response which obviously has evolutionary benefit. However, this is a pretty broad response to many dangerous things, ranging from the threat of a wild animal to a harmless horror movie. Reading the comments, you asked for a "single example of an emotional response that doesn't benefit either individual or group survival." Emotions are certainly different from emotional responses. Happiness is an emotion and is beneficial to evolution; happiness from murdering people for no reason is an emotional response which is certainly not beneficial. Your argument seems to emphasize the emotion and ignore what caused it, as when you stated that "the roller coaster is not relevant to the emotion experienced in this example". Well I disagree with that because understanding what caused the emotion is crucial to evaluating whether or not that emotional response is beneficial. We cannot simply separate the emotional response from the stimuli that caused it because the same emotional response could be beneficial in one situation while harmful in another. For example, feeling pride in an achievement acts as a reward system so that the individual will be encouraged to do more actions like that one to reproduce that same feeling of pride and glory. If humans were to feel pride when they did something terrible like attack other humans who are not threatening them, pride would reinforce this action and harm society. The truth is, no emotion can be judged on whether it is beneficial unless we look at the context that produced this emotion. Roller coasters are not actually dangerous for the general population and therefore there is no need for the emotional response in which it produces.
Evolutionary Benefit to all emotions.

There was a study published in the "Journal of the American Medical Association" (http://jama.jamanetwork.com...) which monitored the heart rate of 55 healthy participants. Each of them wore 12-lead Holter electrocardiogram recorders, starting five minutes prior to the ride and ending five minutes after. The average increase was from 89 BPM prior to the ride to 155 BPM during. The scientists responsible for the study stated that the body's response of excitement, increased heart rate, and exhilaration was caused by the bodies fight-or-flight response. Roller coasters simulate dangerous circumstances (feelings of acceleration, deceleration, falling, etc.). Because the exhilaration propagated by dangerous circumstances is desirable to many, as you yourself noted, and as evidenced by the popularity of high risk sports like rock climbing (and especially free solo rock climbing), ice climbing, sky diving, canyoneering, etc., the roller coaster is not relevant to the emotion experienced in this example. This is because, while it did cause the emotional response, the emotional response itself is, as stated by the researchers, the fight or flight response. Think of it this way: an emotional response of running away from someone in fear (fight-or-flight-response) who's pretending to attack you doesn't actually help you survive, because they never intended to hurt you anyway. It's simply the fact that the body can't differentiate very well between simulated danger and actual danger. To be thorough, I'll provide a second source with the same findings: http://jama.jamanetwork.com...This article is made even more fitting given the example used is high intensity theme park rides like roller coasters. It even says the anxiety you feel on such rides is "... an extension of the fight or flight response which evolved to keep us alive." With that, I believe I've provided sufficient evidence set the precedence henceforth that the emotional response you described was, in fact, the fight-or-flight response; therefore, my task is reduced to explaining the evolutionary benefit of this response. For this, I offer up the following article, (http://psychcentral.com...) and borrow again from the second citation(Jamanetwork): "... an animal without fear is a dead animal."I thank you for the challenge, and I look forward to seeing your response. If anyone feels I inappropriately represented my opponents argument, or failed in my use of logic, I invite you to say so in the comment section. If you prove yourself correct, I'll strike that portion from my argument and, if the error is fatal, declare a loss.
Evolutionary Benefit to all emotions.

I accept your challenge. The emotion response in which I believe has no evolutionary benefits is the rush of exhilaration caused by a roller coaster ride. This clearly exists as seen by the success of amusement parks. If I were to generalize this emotion, I'd probably classify it under fear. While fear does have an evolutionary benefit by inducing a fight-or-flight response and by causing the subject to avoid the dangerous situation, a roller coaster ride exhibits neither of these characteristics. I can think of no situation one would prepare itself for survival by accelerating in a car at fast speeds. In fact, if we were to identify the source of fear from heights and the gravitational acceleration caused by falling (and inevitably death), roller coasters would have an opposite effect by making it pleasurable to fall down from large heights, albeit in a safe, enclosed environment. Therefore, the feeling of exhilaration caused by roller coasters contributes no evolutionary benefits and in fact may be a disadvantage. I look forward to debating with you next round.
Evolutionary Benefit to all emotions.

This entire debate has rested upon ambiguous concepts and definitions of the rules, though I'll admit this is somewhat of an ambiguous topic. To clarify, let me state the definitions that I have been using for my argument. I realize now that there may be discrepancies between our idea of the debate. Emotion: a strong feeling (such as love, anger, joy, hate, or fear) www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emotion Exhilaration: a feeling of great happiness and excitement http://www.merriam-webster.com... Fight-or-flight response: a physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival http://en.wikipedia.org... You state before that "the emotional response itself is, as stated by the researchers, the fight or flight response." Fight or flight is a physiological reaction, which is different from an emotion. There might be some emotions associated with this reaction, such as exhilaration, but classifying fight or flight as an emotion would be like saying sweating is an emotion. The emotion that I argued for was exhilaration, which you did not directly address and instead focused on the physiological aspect of it. Now you might argue that emotions are essentially physiological reactions, and that exhilaration and the fight or flight response are the same. In some cases they may appear similar, but exhilaration is a broad emotion that can result from several different circumstances. Based on my definition, there is a certain aspect of exhilaration during romance, but this is clearly different from the exhilaration caused by dangerous situations. So going off your parameters for this debate, in which you said it was "to explain the evolutionary value of the emotional response... not it's value in relation to the stimuli" arguing that fight or flight has an evolutionary benefit does not fully address the emotion of exhilaration. To prevent this, I assumed that we would narrow the emotion down to a certain environment and situation. Otherwise, there would be no need for me to state the roller coaster part and simply state the emotional response as exhilaration. Your examples did not argue for your side either. You said that happiness has three parts, and "all three are important". Then you argued that since roller coasters cause pleasure, they cause happiness and are an evolutionary benefit. Extending that argument, I could say that getting high off drugs causes pleasure, which then causes happiness. Clearly this is not true, as with the suicide rate of drug addicts. That argument neglects the other three parts that you state were important.
Should the Government pay the expenses of Space Exploration

"The Sun will will turn into a white dwarf and yet it will turn into a black hole or explode into a nebula." Although it was rude for you to say that I do not know what I am talking about, I will have to suggest that you do not know what you are talking about. As my source states, which you must have not read, "First, there’s no possible way that the Sun will ever explode. It might seem huge to us, but the Sun is a relatively low mass star compared to some of the enormous high mass stars out there in the Universe. When our Sun runs out of hydrogen fuel, it will expand up as a red giant, puff off its outer layers, and then settle down as a compact white dwarf star; slowly cooling down for trillions of years... But let's say that our Sun has about 10 times as much mass. Now we're talking an explosion. [1]" This clearly states that the Sun has no possible way of exploding, all the Sun will do is expand and cool. The Sun simply does not have enough mass to explode.My opponent argues that space exploration is needed to keep humans and other organisms from extinction. Through my findings, I have found a lot of inhabitable planets, one system being Kepler-62. [2] tells that "Kepler-62, a five-planet system about 1,200 light-years from Earth." Now, you can simply Google the translation into miles and find that the distance between this system and Earth is 7.05419978 × 1015 miles (7,054,199,780,000,000 miles from Earth, just to show relative data). Now, we all know that it would still take hundred of years to travel this at the speed of light, but because it is scientifically impossible to travel at the speed of light through space and survive [3], how do you suggest that humans make it to the planets before their lives expire?My opponent argued that my sources are not reliable as they are "out of date."I see two predominant flaws with this argument.1. All sources that I used in my argument are 2 year old, therefore still reliable.2. Many people use the Constitution and Declaration of Independence as sources in many debates such as abortion and gay marriage. If a 237 year old document can still be used as a source for debate, a TWO year old document can share the same purpose.I would like to note that my opponent added sources but did not clarify where the source was to be accounted for. I would also like to note that my opponent reiterated that she believes all governments should pay for space exploration because they are being saved, yet did not answer the question on how this would be possible. She failed to show her reasonable plans for funding these space explorations and consistently mentioned that humans would become extinct without space exploration. Sources:[1] http://www.universetoday.com...;[2] http://www.nasa.gov...[3] http://gizmodo.com...;
Should the Government pay the expenses of Space Exploration

First of all you do not know what you are talking about. The Sun will will turn into a white dwarf and yet it will turn into a black hole or explode into a nebula. Black holes are 4Dimensional objects and they still remain very dangerous and strong. Sorry there was a typo, I was talking about all governments around the world so that scientist and astronomers are able to work together to figure out ways on using another planet as a planet for future generations. As I was looking through all of your sources they are no longer reliable and outdated due to the date provided and the websites you have used are made by amateurs not actual astronomers or scientists. If you look on NASA's website these researches go towards saving human life and other life forms. Second of all, this research goes toward saving the species of humans left in this world, the homosapian sapians. It is all very clear that the sun will die in 5.5 billion years. By that time the earth would be polluted and a wreck therefore finding other planets to live on is a reasonable point. Do you want our human kind to go extinct so that life does not exist? It is put out there that people recommend money being put in by the government for space exploration for it is important to society, many people say well why don't we use the money for the country we live in. What is the point when printing more money makes the money less in value. Other reasons for space exploration is that it is a way to explore how the world works and how it is essential to our life. Asteroids and meteors make become a problem overtime and will continue to become a natural threat to human kind. There are many more reasons to put out there but this is all for now. Sources: http://kids.discovery.com... http://www.nasa.gov... http://www.cliffsnotes.com...
Should the Government pay the expenses of Space Exploration

"It is crucial to human life as it helps us."-You have yet to state how space exploration will help us."The Sun will soon die... species will die out and be extinct."-Regardless of the grammatical errors, there is a huge flaw in your argument. The use of the word "soon," as if you qualify 6 BILLION years soon [1]. However, [1] also states that the Sun will not explode, and any astrologer knows that the Sun will not "die," it will just continue through its life as a star, though it will not be able to sustain life as it is now."I am talking about governments in general."-There are hundreds of governments in the world [2], and by saying "governments in general" you are giving all governments an obligation to help fund this space exploration."The world is expanding..."-I will need you to expand on this idea in the next round because I do not know what you mean. Do you mean expanding in population? Expanding in area? If you mean either, I would like to point out that 80% of 8.7 million species on this Earth has been undiscovered [3], meaning that their habitats have been yet to be discovered by humans. My Argument: It is too costly."The launch of a space shuttle costs $450 million and there have been about 130 of them. It cost $1.7 billion to build just one of the five-strong fleet [4]." As you can see, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions, to successfully create and launch space shuttles for space exploration. And using the earlier argument, you are saying that you would split this huge amount of money through "governments in general"? What about governments that want no part in space exploration? Do they still pay the cost? Do the people under said government have the right to live on a new planet, if' found? Sources:[1] http://www.universetoday.com...;[2] http://world-leaders.findthedata.org...;[3] http://bigthink.com...[4] http://news.discovery.com...;
Should the Government pay the expenses of Space Exploration

It is an ideal that the government should pay for the expenses of Space Exploration and it is crucial for LIFE on Earth. It is crucial to human life as it helps us. The Sun will soon die and future generations of the Homo-sapian sapian species will die out and be extinct. I am talking about all governments in general. The world is expanding and the bigger it gets the faster it will expand. There are many planets like earth out there and they may help in finding a new planet for future generations.
The Bible Is Immoral: It Is Acceptable To Beat Slaves According To Old Testament Laws.

My opponent has dropped all of our arguments and has not responded to any of the verses. Instead my opponent uses basic assertions that are not true. For this I believe I should get the conduct point. But I will refute what my opponent has given me and make a summary. First off I found out that exodus 21:20-21 only pertains to foreign slaves. So to most slaves that rule did not effect them. 1. Hebrew slaves were not bought and sold. Foreign slaves however were but were still treated with respect. 2. Again Hebrew slaves were either ordered to be slave by a Court or voulenteered themselves. So the Hebrew slaves either agreed to do this for something like food or protection, and the other Hebrew slaves served to do harsh work for there crimes. 3. Hebrew slaves were not beaten but foreign slaves were. Though back then regular peoe would get beaten to when they misbehaved, maybe not as badly but they were beaten. 4. The slaves in the bible dd have rights as I have mentioned in the previous round. Yes they were considered property but again as I said before slavery was not always permanent. 5. (Sigh) did you not read my last argument? Yes slaves did have sone legal rights. Such as to celebrate festivals and to take rest on Sundays. 6. A man could not be thrown into slavery unless ordered to by a court or by voulanteering to be one. A person could have become a slave because he had no money or might have needed protection, if slavery was not an option msny of people would have starved. Sources www. jewishvirtuallibrary. org/jsource/judaica/ejud Summary Slavery was pertained in all the nations around Israel, at time Israel was the only nation not to force isrealites to join slavery (unless the Israelites has committed a crime). Israel did set the standered and its silly to think otherwise. Now you may argue that the bible still advocates slavery so the bible must be immoral. This is not the case, this was back thoundands of years ago when the need for slaves was much higher then now. The bible put many limitations on slavery and gave all slaves basic rights and the option to become free after the seventh year if labor. It's unfair to judge a nation from 9000 years ago with 21st century standards. I believe I have proven that slaver in the bible wisent all that bad and have done a much better job then my opponent in this topic.
The Bible Is Immoral: It Is Acceptable To Beat Slaves According To Old Testament Laws.

"please remember that the slavery used in the 1700s and 1800s was very different then the ones described in the bible." Ugh...wrong!! Please differentiate: 1) They were bought and sold. 2) They were forced to due hard, thankless tasks for no money or compensation. 3) They were beaten if they were disobedient. 4) They were considered the property of another human being. 5) They had no legal rights. 6) They were often born into slavery and remained slaves until they died. My opponent is treating biblical slaves as the equivalent of being modern day servants. Yet beating a voluntary servant would be considered assault & battery, and it is illegal. No the Bible clearly states that beating slaves is O.K. Once again, I have shown that the Bible is immoral.