BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism and Theism are not the same.

atheism and theism, are not things, they are beliefs, they are nothing belief=Be lie, as I don't know is true disbelief is belief, it is the positions on the claim that is in opposition what are you most certain of, what your neighbor is doing or that you are reading these words? belief is doubt, and know is certain, know=physical experience of now. I know I am typing these words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen just answer the question, if you say that I am holding a rock in my hand, you are a theist and I am your god science has many theist worshippers thinking they are atheists, but atheism has nothing to do with science, unless you disbelieve science
Atheism and Theism are not the same.

Thank you, Con.I am really unsure about my opponents arguments, considering some of them actually went towards mine, because "Atheism and Theism are not the same thing."Belief: a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true [1]Antonyms of belief: disbeliefWhich proves my statement that they are not the same, because:Antonym: a word with a meaning that is opposite to the meaning of another word [2]Opposite: completely different [3]A disbelief is not a belief, considering it is the complete opposite, as defined."but disbelief, is belief, therefore atheism, is theism, it even says it in the name"There are many words that have the same word in each other but are the opposite..."am I holding a rock in my hand as I type this? you have to imagine it"This doesn't relate to the topic...I will only rebut, considering I am short on time. I will argue later tonight if you do post your argument.[1]- http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]- http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]- http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Rhyming battle based on stories about monsters

This seems to be the end and I only have one rhyme and that involves a monster with a grin. I will now attempt to take a verse and make it better than the first. You see Monsters we cant understand are things that frightens me and does not make me stand in glee. Like The hound That Sherlock and Watson from London town that they fought heroically on the swampy mire they solved the case killed the beast and discovered the liar. So sorry about not making good rhymes I hope you do good on your other debates and have a great time.
Rhyming battle based on stories about monsters

Nasty grin indeed but truthfully what scares me Is a monster who succeeds in luring its pray for its deeds John Harker did come as pray, cause of his need to pay income Real estate in London is what he had done But once he found Dracula he would partake in something spectacular With Van Helsing he was to bring Dracula down and wedding bells will sound For him and his wife Mina Muray and their vows will they say For Dracula is gone and Transylvania will go on This monster is no more for that is for sure His deceiving lies would comprise Of a monster who talked the talk of a human but could not walk the walk Study he did so he could bid Hello to London and leave his dungeon Study he did but God forbid Him means to be human and this would be his ruin A monster of lies but with no disguise Could he be seen with a slate that's clean Though criticize I shan't for I can't say the same that i not be that monster is me
Rhyming battle based on stories about monsters

Mistaks are made but now I am on a crusade to find ryhmes about monsters Your ryhmes cannot be that horrible is it realy not possible for you to try It is okay to make mistakes even if it takes all 24 hours Perhaps it would look like a monster from a book a monster with no name Maybe you would be like a mastermind on his spree to find his glorious science done Frienkenstein you are yes it may be bizare but picture it In your labratory creating a story of a monsters rythm Frienkenstein you are so puff a cigar and try It could be a monster but as we know monsters make good stories Frienkenstien you are so go so far as to make something bizarre
Rhyming battle based on stories about monsters

It lurks in the night it stays out of sight it doesn't know right and wont stand in the light A mixture of good and ill intent with a back that is bent time it was lent so it could do what it shan't A smile of evil eyes of the devil it's mind can't be leveled it must be disheveled When it does heckle it makes me tremble a side of Jekyll he didn't want to settle When the ill side gets to tired to abide the lies Jekyll has lied come out with Mr. Hyde And though it's something I want to hide I must swallow my pride it is mine The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
should Christopher Eccleston reprise his role as the ninth doctor one more time on doctor who

Sorry about that. I had to leave DDO for a few days [1]. Onto your arguments. "The reason I'm talking about cameos now is because that I think is the least he can do but anyway he accepted the role once to become the doctor and I know he definitely don't owe us by becoming the doctor again but he should start looking at his time on the show and give it one more try he even said he thought he had more to do with the characte what did he mean by that and when is he going to fallow. Wouldn't he be better of is he reprised his role se there would be less people bugging him about reterning" Your entire arguments seems to be based around the fact that Eccleston accepted the role once. However, this really has nothing to do with it. Multi-Doctor stories aren't a common event, and Eccleston, not being a fan of the show, most likely didn't anticipate ever being asked to come back. Honestly, no one is bugging him about returning, they are simply asking if he would. There is no reason the ninth Doctor can't make a return in the form of a cameo and sound-alike as opposed to the actor. 1. http://www.debate.org...
should Christopher Eccleston reprise his role as the ninth doctor one more time on doctor who

The reason I'm talking about cameos now is because that I think is the least he can do but anyway he accepted the role once to become the doctor and I know he definitely don't owe us by becoming the doctor again but he should start looking at his time on the show and give it one more try he even said he thought he had more to do with the characte what did he mean by that and when is he going to fallow. Wouldn't he be better of is he reprised his role se there would be less people bugging him about reterning
should Christopher Eccleston reprise his role as the ninth doctor one more time on doctor who

A cameo is different from acting and reprising a role. Your example of the Hurt-Eccleston regeneration, while it would have been pleasing, wouldn't necessarily have to have Eccleston there for it to work. They could have easily had a few seconds of Eccleston using CGI (first video) and his first words with someone who sounds similar (second video). As for your point about the BBC pleasing Nine fans, I am a huge Seven and Eight fan, as are plenty of people. But there are reasons (kind of) for those actors not appearing, and we need to accept it and realize the BBC can't please the fans if the actors/showrunners won't allow it. While it's unfair to the viewers, it would be more unfair to Eccleston to pressure him into doing something. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
should Christopher Eccleston reprise his role as the ninth doctor one more time on doctor who

Yes that is true and I know he left because he did not agree with the shows direction but from what I have seen hundreds of fans want him to retern. Just a cameo would be please us I was a bit disappointed when John Hurts regeneration was cut off before we were able to see Eccleston full face. Why would he not at least show his own live face and say one word or actually be live and present and moved his head or something when all the Doctors were together looking at Galafrey . basically I wondering why he wont just show his face are BBC not doing enough because it would so please the ninth doctor fans for him to somehow retern. Also Christopher Eccleston can only say he has his reasons so many times before we start to question.
should Christopher Eccleston reprise his role as the ninth doctor one more time on doctor who

No matter how good he was, there is one thing that should stop Christopher Eccleston from returning- He doesn't want to. Believe me, I want him, John Hurt, Paul McGann, Sylvester McCoy, Colin Baker, Peter Davison, and Tom Baker to be in the next multi-Doctor special as much as anyone, but it would be wrong for the crew to pressure him into doing something he doesn't want to do.
Morality/Right and Wrong

I am not exactly sure what exactly it is that you want to debate but it concerned morality so I accepted. I assume you have made the following claim: There is no moral objectivity (or in other words there is no such thing as a moral fact). In other words, you have claimed that there are no absolute moral axioms. If you agree that this is what you claimed we will debate this if you disagree please say so and then give a more precise claim.
Morality/Right and Wrong

There is no way to say what is really right or wrong. How do we know if something is truly good or truly bad? Because we can not tell how our actions will effect others or even the world, nothing can be good and nothing can be bad. There are simply actions and consequences and these actions can not be categorized. Many people say "it is bad to kill" but how do we really know that? What if by killing one person you are saving 20, doesn't that make killing good? Some religions believe in a god, or gods, but how do we know that god or those gods are trust worthy?
Morality/Right and Wrong

The general definition of an absolute in regards to philosophy is "a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things." Not in regards to philosophy, absolute is defined as "viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative. By stating that an axiom can be absolute, I am assuming you are saying that the said axiom is consistent from person to person without exceptions. A person can consider one thing good that another person considers to be bad. Therefore, neither good or bad is absolute. If a human being gets pleasure from inflicting pain on others, by the definition you have stated inflicting pain on others would be good. To the people that the pain is being inflicted on the action of inflicting pain on others would be evil, thus causing the axiom "Do Good, avoid evil" to cease to be absolute. Furthermore, there is no evidence stating that humans are "programmed to behave" in any specific way. On the contrary, many psychologist believe humans are born with a "blank slate." The more common belief is that a humans morality is formed by experiences and the culture that we exist in.
Morality/Right and Wrong

I think it is quite obvious that there can be a moral axiom which is absolute in all circumstances. I would argue that indeed there is really only one moral axiom which comprises all of morality: AXIOM: Do good, avoid evil. This is of course a little too loose on what good and evil actually are and could be revised to the equivalent: AXIOM: Do what you think is good, avoid what you think is evil. This obviously has allowed subjectivity, we do what we think is good and avoid what we think is evil but the existence of subjectivity in the interpretation of good and evil does not diminish the objectivity (and therefore the status as axiom) of the statement. One could probably go further if they really wanted to by adding the axiom: AXIOM: Do what you think is good, avoid what you think is evil. Where good is defined as the maximum possible state of pleasure you can create for conscious beings and evil is of course the maximum possible state of pain. Here we define goodness as doing things which will make conscious beings (humans) happy and we define evil as the opposite. I can see no objection to this. I can think of nothing good which would cause more pain than pleasure among conscious beings. This refutes my opponent's statement that any moral law will have exceptions. The answer to 'why you should follow the moral axiom' point that my opponent is I think deceptively simple. We should do this because this is how we are, in a basic sense, programmed to behave. This is really the very definition of morality. Morality is a series of Evolutionary processes which makes us act more kindly or compassionately upon those around us. Morality is advantageous for the existence of the human species (which is why my moral axiom extends less to things with less consciousness like dogs or pigs and not at all to things with no consciousness like rocks or sticks). I think I have shown an absolute moral axiom. Good luck to my opponent.
Morality/Right and Wrong

You can not have an absolute moral axiom. An absolute moral axiom serves as a measure of morality where Consequences and exceptions are not considered. Because there are to many exceptions that can be said for any rule, an absolute moral axiom can not exist.. Also, if you are to analyze and examine an "Absolute Moral Axiom", the question "Why should one do the things prescribed" is brought up. When answering this question, you must consider consequences for yourself, others, and all concerned, therefore diminishing the purpose of an Absolute Moral Axiom. Thank you for assisting me in clearing up my statement. That is precisely what I was aiming to say.
It's time to bring back invalid carriages

but back to the point. I find it rather funny the way you say " when other road users hear the distinctive engine noise made from an invalid car engine this would give them time to take action and pedestrians to jump for cover " lets be honest if that was the case of the car being that dangerous then it wouldn't get out of the street never mind onto the road. you make disabled people seem like lunatics when in actual fact the vast majority are probably less likely to have an accident than most drivers because they know that there disability effects their driving meaning that they will have to pay more attention etc , but these cars are probably more likely to cause accidents than a modern car designed for the disabled , built with safety features and suitable to the needs of most disability. another thing I would like to point out is that I actually forgot these cars were not aloud on motorways , but know that you have pointed that out I would say that is very unfair on disabled people who would have to drive cars , remember if they wanted a good job chances are they will have to drive on a motorway to get there. Also if they were dangerous drivers they are more likely to have an accident on the street rather than a motorway. but referring back to my original point, why should these people have to drive around in cars that make them look like social outcasts and lunatics . I would honestly say its just discrimination as in this day an age we have all the things to help disabled people live everyday life as normally as possible.
It's time to bring back invalid carriages

With many thanks to my opponent for replying to my arguments, I should like to say it was certainly not my intention to be offensive – only to vary my vocabulary. Repeating the same words ad-infinitum makes reading a passage very tedious. That is why I varied "disabled person" with other words such as "spastic", "cripple" and "handicapped person". All of these are, or were until recently, perfectly legitimate and inoffensive words – for example, the charity Scope was called "the Spastic Society" until 1994. Moreover, the voters will have noted, I hope, that I have avoided using blatantly derogatory terms such as "flid", "spazza" and "joey". Moving on, I certainly agree that children shouldn't be allowed to drive just because they have a disability and blind drivers certainly pose a potential danger to other road users. But that is the law of the land, at least here in England (the law in Scotland may differ, I'm not sure). Anecdotally, I remember having to cycle three miles to school every morning through wind, rain and snow and being splashed most days by a boy my age as he drove past in a brand new car. You'd think I would have cornered him in the playground and punched his lights out wouldn't you? But I didn't. Why? Firstly because he only had one leg, which is why he was allowed to drive a car so young and, secondly, because he was actually pretty handy with his crutches! The point is that the disabled deserve to have their own independence and it is right that the taxpayer should pay for their private transport – but not sports cars and 4x4s (SUVs) – only invalid carriages. Certainly, this would mark the disabled out, as my opponent rightly suggested, but that is to the advantage of other road users. When a driver sees a bright turquoise invalid carriage heading his way, he can take evasive action. Similarly, pedestrians could dive for cover when they heard the distinctive racket of the Invacar's two-cylinder engine approaching. By the way, these cars, like mopeds, are banned from using the motorways because they are too slow. There are anecdotal stories of Invacars being souped up so that the owners could achieve their ambitions of getting a speeding ticket but, in reality, they were only capable of 40mph or so. http://farm2.static.flickr.com... Together with their light weight and low speed, the momentum, and therefore the potential for damage, of these little cars is much lower than a big 4x4 travelling at full pelt. With regard to Weegie neds (Glasgow chavs (hoodlums)) and similar young drivers elsewhere in the world, I agree that they can be a menace on the roads. For that reason, drivers under 25, especially males, pay huge insurance premiums which effectively preclude the possibility of buying fast cars. As for the coffin-dodgers, it's true that they are getting away with creating havoc on the roads and something should be done about them too, but that's for another debate. Thank you.
It's time to bring back invalid carriages

I would like to point out that the way you use the word " cripple " is rather offence I myself am not " crippled" but I know of several people who are and would take offence to this , the correct term is disabled . also I think what you are saying is rather offence in general you are making disabled people look like out of control idiots and what you said about a blind two year old driving a car into a toys r us , I'm not sure if that was a joke or you honestly think somebody who is blind making them unable to see is aloud to drive a car for they are not because how can anybody that's blind drive ? and mainly how can I person who is 15 years to young for his driver license get driving ?and also this blue badge you speak about like its a drivers license , its a badge to allow a disabled passenger or driver to park in disabled spots ... anyway back to the point. I think the reason these cars are no longer around anymore is for many reasons is that these cars make the disabled people stick out and would make them feel ashamed about their disability however big or small . you say that disabled people cause the most accidents excluding drunks etc , no they don't the probably cause a small amount of accidents in comparison with drivers under 25 and drivers over 65 who are resosponsible for the majority of these crashes , so why not make young drivers drive around in a plastic car with three wheels ? I think not ... Other reasons why these cars are no longer around are also safety if this car is made from plastic lets think logically if it hits you at 70mph doesn't matter if its made from wood or metal or plastic its most likely going to kill you anyway . But spare a thought for the people driving these cars , what happens if a truck hits them ? what good will a bit of plastic to to protect them from the impact ? but my point is in this day and age were everybody is suppose to be equal and not be discriminated against . why should disabled drivers be forced to drive these cars which are commonly labelled " spaz chariots " etc by idiotic people when in reality disabled people do not cause much crashes and the cars of today are well equipped for meeting a disabled persons needs.
It's time to bring back invalid carriages

Have you ever driven a car in Britain? If so, you may have seen some pretty erratic driving – cars driving on the wrong side of the road, cars jumping red lights, cars mounting the pavements (sidewalks), etc. The explanation for this is usually due to the driver being: a) drunk b) on a mobile phone (cellphone) c) an American tourist unused to manual transmission (stick shift) and the steering wheel being on the right-hand side of the car Otherwise, there is a very good chance that the driver is disabled. Thanks to generous Government allowances via the Motability scheme, many British handicapped people drive luxury cars which have been converted so the vehicles can be driven by cripples. However, from the outside, these vehicles look completely normal. The only clue to other road users that the driver is a spastic is a small blue disabled driver badge on the windscreen. Now, in order to get a blue badge, you have to be at least two years old and meet one or more of the following criteria: • You can't have any arms (if you've got one arm, that's one too many to qualify for a blue badge) • You can't be able to walk • You have to be blind http://www.dft.gov.uk... This means you might see a Range Rover Sport doing 70mph down the High Street and you wouldn't have a clue that it was being driven by a blind toddler using his teeth to steer until it ploughed through a crowd of shoppers and crashed into Toys ‘R' Us. However, until the 1970's the handicapped had to drive special invalid cars which were instantly recognisable because they only had three wheels and they were painted bright turquoise. Because these cars were so distinctive, other road users could keep out of their way. http://www.virtualgaz.com... As they were made out of plastic and were powered by a pathetic 2 cylinder, 500cc, 19hp engine, the great advantage of these tiny cars was that the amount of damage that cripples could do in them was limited. Since there's no need for disabled people to swan about in flash cars, especially those cripples who are still in kindergarten, the Government should not be paying spastics to drive around in Range Rovers and convertible BMWs. http://www.motabilityonline.com... No, it's time to get the handicapped back into invalid carriages and, If they don't like it, they can always take the windowlickers' bus. http://www.tfl.gov.uk... Thank you.
School Uniforms

As stated previously most work placements have a uniform or workplace attire policy, so unless the majority of students intend on either being self-employed and working from home or being unemployed, which I doubt, then not wearing a uniform at school hardly seems a relevant issue especially if it improves the educational environment. Most adults who wear a uniform or formal work attire seem to cope with wearing it for 8 hours per day 5 days a week without it seriously impairing their personality or self expression, so I'm sure a student can do likewise for the short period of their life while they attend school. As for cost, it is cheaper to have a uniform with the associated positive benefits than it would be to have 5 separate casual outfits with footwear, etc, assuming that the student is going to wear the same 5 outfits for the whole year and in all weather conditions. Wearing casual clothing would bring into play the "haves and have nots" issue where peers look down upon those who either don't have or can't afford the latest fashion items. Peer pressure can lead to bullying, low self esteem, depression with associated problems such as self-harming, drugs, alcohol abuse, theft and possibly suicide. Peer pressure can also find itself transferred onto parents of students, forcing them to take on debts for clothing they can't afford leading them into financial difficulties.