BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
debate dazzle me

i wont have to have two pages of self reassurance smoke blowed up my behind so my plight wont be hurt you debate but I bet you dont even open 2 suggestion whould i shock you if i said christianity had a chance had till me who claimed to be of God didnt preach good ethics in self control and play on people emotions lowering the bar cause they arent converted. I know ill never be perfect But I cant live as a caranal person . you my friend got the smarts to mabye shed some real light on some areas, now people dare speak of religion or rightous living which all claim but cant admit it to theirselve muchless anybody else. God reveals himself the holyspirit working is the only proof your ever gonna get sent law from heaven to moses rebuked by man the sent holyspirit into a man to show its stronger than. Everybodys right their belief. to show you im just tryn to show u a new way of thinking. old testament enough if you deny self follow his statutes. solomon and the ladys claiming to be the true mother and the baby he commanded to divide between them. the tru mother humbled herself to do right and deny herself for the good of another, the baby is the worlds religion in my eyes and instead of living how every man knows he should but says let the divide it into kills our reason for exiestance but the humble obedience will be destroyed for the weak ans insane. people in all religions dont humble completely christians worship the graven image of jesus but the spirit kept him from sin to acomplish something The Father was pleased to kill the only obiedient 1 of ever and showed how to do it. sinless sacrifice not a ram or bulock animals cant suffice God will not have sin be just in his kingdom and he owes men nothing and the will be cut down.
debate dazzle me

King james version speaks to a man hungry for God seeking truly it willschange in your life. but read wickedly expose your trustt for God and the one he sent, now im not a religious nut ask me how I know you wont understand it unless you are humble to change false conversions the sinners prayer evangelist love to blind people to wickedness . blind can see. but keep that date wrote in the back of your bible. as refrence too what decieved morethanme or never enough for you. im a fool but not the kind you think. Sinner afflicted when sins upon me but i know trust words that I have cherished . wisdom is for God the true Grace of his way and beware what you wish for .
Violence everywhere

Violent films should be banned. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Definition of violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. I do not believe that it is good to let little kids watch violent films, just like little kids should not play violent video games. I can not provide any arguments since Con provided none either. Violent films will result in more violence and therefor they must be banned. Violent films will result in teens and kids being more violent as they grow up.
Reality shows are having a negative impact on child psyche!

This new topic provokes me to learn something new about America's hottest trend. (Blimey, 30 minutes for my argument? ) While I do not believe reality shows are horrible and immensely negative, they can and do sometimes create negative impacts on children. [Psyche: the forces in an individual that influence thought, behavior and personality. ] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(psychology) My opponent's whole argument is basically that reality shows give the opportunities for the very few children to have fame and glory. While this is true, this does not mean that every other children who is watching the show is not affected. So if I can show that reality shows as of now do create a negative impact on child psyche, then I will have won this debate (as seeing there are no more rounds) and you should vote Pro! Reality television shows can create numerous detrimental affects on children, usually children between 9-12 years old. Studies have shown that amongst children from 9-12 years old who were depressed, they emphasized wealth and personal beauty as one of the biggest ways to gain happiness. Reality shows reinforce this notion, such as "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" and "Are You Hot? " Notable examples are of shows such as the popular Fear Factor. Such disgusting and intriguing acts have lead many children to try to repeat the stunts at home; leading to many injuries. Remember, psyche involves behavior, so thus it is valid to say that at times, reality shows can have a negative impact on a child's behavior and thus their psyche. Many times, the message is being sent across the board that one needs to be prettier or weigh less or have more money. While this doesn't apply to every show out there, reality shows and in fact other types of television programs can work at making a more positive message. . http://www.genesishealth.com...
Reality shows are having a negative impact on child psyche!

just tell me one thing would you run away leaving your only opportunity to fame and glory....if you do that,well it'll be the preposterous act i've ever seen after all who like to run his future.... Even afterb that these shows provide a platform for children to showcase their talent & and learn to face criticism...after all who doesn't face criticism....but even then you think that criticism is not for greater good;the stop criticising your parents for not understanding your better part..stop criticising the system for being ineffective.because having no criticism provides a backway to run away from our fallacies..i don't know what possesses you to say that these shows are not good but i hope that they stayed long enough so that many &many more American idols(or Indian idols) got to live their dreams to fame and........................ glory.
Secular Morality

I first will answer your questions:1) No, I don't even believe in souls.2) Agnostic theism with the moral outlook of a Hindu (SEE BELOW).*TO SAVE ARGUMENTATION OVER MY ANSWER TO 2, LET'S SAY I'M A NON-VEGETARIAN HINDU, NO ARGUMENTS OKAY? I HAVE ALL OTHER VIEWS THAN THE ISSUE OF ANIMAL RIGHTS.*Theist Morality - The view that any and all 'unpleasant acts' to human race will in and of themselves come back to haunt you regardless of when you physically die and that to have such a mindset is to find true reason to be 'good' and 'righteous' in life and thus in any afterlife one might face.
Secular Morality

I will be making the case for secular ethics/morality. *This is not to be a debate on semantics. *This debate is a no forfeit zone. If you do, it's an automatic loss. *The first round is for acceptance and for my opponent to answer the following questions before the debate: 1)Do you believe animals and insects possess morality? Basically, from a theist standpoint, you'd be virtually answering if you believe animals and insects to have a soul as well. 2) Which theistic view will you be upholding in this debate? *There is a shared burden of proof. I must make the case for secular morality, and my opponent must uphold theist morality. (This is not to be a debate where Con just picks at Pro, Con must present the case for theist morality as well as argue against secular morality) *My opponent cannot say that both exist. *This debate is unacceptable because I'm looking for an opponent that can beat me. I will review those who may comment and say they're interested, and I will directly challenge the one I believe to pose the greatest threat. (If you happen to be intellectually brilliant and find a way to accept, there is no punishment or automatic loss. You've just simply thrust yourself into the Con side of this debate.) Definitions: "Secular ethics is a branch of moral philosophy in which ethics is based solely on human faculties such as logic, reason or moral intuition, and not derived from purported supernatural revelation or guidance (which is the source of religious ethics). Secular ethics comprises any ethical system that does not draw on the supernatural, such ashumanism, secularism and freethinking."http://en.wikipedia.org...My opponent is allowed to present his own definition of theist morality.
Public transportation is more efficient than driving one's own car and/ or any car.

Regardless what you may consider efficient or non efficient, it is fact that the use of public transportation "reduces green house gases and conserves energy." This subject is most important than your subtopics of what is efficient or not efficient in terms of my arguement. This arguement goes far beyond sub-topics. Public transportation is more efficient because it is, once again, environmenta friendly if not more than driving one's own car also because it is FUEL EFFICIENT and an increase in public transportation will increase Fuel Efficiency. source: http://www.apta.com...
Public transportation is more efficient than driving one's own car and/ or any car.

"You provided me emotions/ opinion that have nothing to do with the termonolgy efficient; "crowded" and "privacy?" to bad theres a price to pay in order to be more efficient."Actually a place being crowded does have to do with efficiency. Let's say you are on a bus. It is crowded, so first you have to get on the bus, because of the crowd, it would be a hassle. Everyone tries to get on, slowing the overall time down. Not very productive. Then after you sit, the bus has to make sure everything is okay before he starts driving. Again, slowing you down. Then when you get off, same process. This reduces the productivity and overall efficiency."Contention 3 on the other hand may, however economical expenses supercede how many stops a bus makes being that you do not buy any gas nor keep up with it's mechanical maintainance, therefore you are saving a great deal of money and time, therefore being in a state of efficiency."Economic expenses? Busses use way more fuel than a car does. Sure, more people use the bus, saving money from the car, but then, you have to pay the bus driver, then maintain the bus, etc. And busses have more stops, therefore slowing you down on time."Final point: your car will not always be in service as much as public transportation may be."The point of a car is not to be "in service", it is to be used when you want. Actually, it is the exact opposite from your point. Let's say you need a bus. They are not available all the time, unlike your car, you can use it any time."When there is public transportation available, the use of a car is a waste of time and of your effort as a human being because you are indeed using your self energy to get from point "a" to point "b" instead of not using all that energy and just being taking to either point and doin something more valuable and not a waste of time, as in school work or anything that provides a good to society."So basically this is your argument:P1. Using private transportation needs you to use your own energyP2. You can use that energy on something elseC. Why waste your energy?Well, P1, I agree with, except public transportation also uses your energy because you have to wait for busses, stand in lines, buy tickets, try to find taxies, etc.And P2, driving a car does not take much energy. You can still do other stuff after you get out of your car. You would think that waiting for busses, standing in lines, buying tickets, trying to find taxies, etc. tires you out more.Sourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org...
Public transportation is more efficient than driving one's own car and/ or any car.

The arguement questions efficiency. Efficient in general termonology is "Achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense". (google) or the definition you provided above "Efficient- performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary". Your "contentions" do not argue efficiency rather how or what a person may feel towards public transportation. You provided me emotions/ opinion that have nothing to do with the termonolgy efficient; "crowded" and "privacy?" to bad theres a price to pay in order to be more efficient. Contention 3 on the other hand may, however economical expenses supercede how many stops a bus makes being that you do not buy any gas nor keep up with it's mechanical maintainance, therefore you are saving a great deal of money and time, therefore being in a state of efficiency. You are then efficient, contributing to the fact that public transportation is more efficient. Final point: your car will not always be in service as much as public transportation may be. When there is public transportation available, the use of a car is a waste of time and of your effort as a human being because you are indeed using your self energy to get from point "a" to point "b" instead of not using all that energy and just being taking to either point and doin something more valuable and not a waste of time, as in school work or anything that provides a good to society.
Public transportation is more efficient than driving one's own car and/ or any car.

You are arguing the wrong subject. You are arguing if it is environmentally efficient. This debate is not about it being more environmentally efficient, it is about it being just plain efficient. Efficient- performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary. Contention 1: Crowded Public transportation is crowded, and that slows you down. Contention 2: Privacy Pretty self-explanatory. In the public, you do not have much privacy. Contention 3: Stops Let's say you are on a bus. The bus has to stop at several places, slowing you down. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Public transportation is more efficient than driving one's own car and/ or any car.

I am sorry, but you did not provide a definition.Efficient- performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary.This is the most common definition, and it is the one people automatically assume is being argued. You are arguing that it is ENVIRONMENTALLY efficient, which is different for plain efficient.
should genetic modification be tested/applied on humans

Genetic engineering is the process of manually adding new DNA to an organism. it improves the species by introduction of suitable desired genes,it has been used on certain plants and animals,Bacillus thuringiensis being one of them,its pest resistant variety of cotton.what if this was applied to humans ,it could help us in so many different aspects-healthcare,resistance,productivity,(control over our gene structure through which a person can decide what he/she want to be)introduction of desirable qualities.it could be world of superior species of human beings
Home-made cookies are better than the "tube" of dough.

Pro stated that in regards to time homemade dough can be sped up by freezing dough for quick cookies, but while this may shorten the second time and on that you make the cookies, you still have to go through the hassle of making the dough the first time, while using pre-made dough is an easy process every time. While cutting and slicing pre-made dough does not seem like a bonding experience, it can be a great way to make cookies to decorate with frosting and sprinkles, which can be a very bonding experience just like making home made cookies. Pillsbury pre-made dough is some of the best tasting dough that my taste buds have every come in contact with and I would again like to state that many people do not care about the healthiness of a cookie. If a person wanted something healthy they would eat a salad, not a dozen cookies. Also it is very easy to tell what ingredients are in the pre made dough when being precautionary about allergies because the labels always state the ingredients and usually say, "INCLUDES PEANUT INGREDIENTS" or something to that effect. When regarding cookies, the term fresh should not be used because items that are fresh refer to produce, poultry, things that were recently alive. Not all homemade cookies require physical exertion to make and making cookies is not meant to be an exercise or a healthy activity, nor an activity to strengthen the mind and demonstrate self-discipline. I don't know about you but I honestly have never been making cookies with the intent to get more in-shape, or to get smarter but rather to have a tasty cookie PERIOD. While some homemade cookies can be tasty, this is a generalization, while pre made dough is going to be tasty if you correctly follow the directions. All in all pre made cookies are overall better due to the easiness, quickness, and tastiness. Thank You.
Home-made cookies are better than the "tube" of dough.

ROUND 3 CLOSING ARGUMENT: I thank Con for offering a nice rebuttal and discussion. I hope to make a short closing argument. Knowing that "tasty" is highly subjective, I render the heirloom home-made recipe, basically mapped to direct palatable happiness to the client"s mouth, is a self-evident point. With regards to time, the same possibility that applies to the preservative-laden dough can be done to the same home-made dough; by freezing the home-made dough into a rolled up amount & a quick cutting it up when wanted with no mess yet with all the benefits of home-made. Addressing freshness, ingredients though, store-bought still are fresher than the processed, plastic wrapped, frozen and shelved for six months. Many rural areas have a small farm & livestock. In my area, they have access to fresh eggs because they have chickens. Home-made is better because the ingredients are fresher, tailored to individual taste, needs, minimal mess, and possible quality bonding time with someone is usually more preferred than vacant drivel on TV. The processed cookie dough may seem cheap and easy yet how good can they really taste, especially with something processed? There are hidden benefits with home-made cookies such as learning to wait for something good consequently shows a better disciplined & smarter individual [1]. The physical work energizes the body and sharpens the pioneering spirit, without genetically modified ingredients or allergic reactions. This all comes with the home-made cookie, the better cookie. 1 https://rochester.edu...
Home-made cookies are better than the "tube" of dough.

To begin I would like to say that the rebuttal that the pro used on the first fact was not to the whole point but rather to a fragment of that point. While homemade cookies can be made the same every time, this does not mean that every recipe is going to be tasty. Secondly, Con stated that cooks can clean while the cookies are cooking, but if there is no mess to be cleaned there is no hassle of cleaning and it is common sense that no mess is better than any mess. Besides, if a cook was given the choice of cleaning or watching t.v. for ten minutes, the latter is obviously the more entertaining choice. Con stated that older recipes' nutritional values can be used via Internet assistance, it just backs up my point of time and quickness, because with already made dough the nutritional values can be found by looking at the label rather than Google searching "The nutritional value of 2.5 cups of flour" etc. Also, doing basic math to exercise the brain is just another hassle when making cookies from scratch, and if people wanted to exercise their math skills they would print out a math worksheet. Con argued that homemade cookies can render a better outcome because they use fresh ingredients, while butter and flour and are both produced and manufactured by other companies rather than self-ground flour and self-churned butter and there is no such thing as fresh sugar and fresh salt, so really the only "fresh" ingredients used in homemade cookies are milk and eggs. It was stated that homemade cookies can substitute sugar for a sugar substitute for healthier cookies, but I would like to point out that there are also healthy pre-made cookie doughs such as Wholly Wholesome Oatmeal Raisin Cookies, which only have 120 calories per dozen cookies and with only 5 grams of fat. As you can see, pre made cookies are easier to make, quicker to bake, and taste just as well as the best homemade cookies and better than most mediocre homemade cookies. Sources: http://www.health.com...
Home-made cookies are better than the "tube" of dough.

I thank Con for their acceptance in this debate & look forward to the outcome. In rebuttal of Con"s first point: That pre-made dough is produced the same way every-time is true however that very same point can be applied to the home-made cookies which is why some family heirloom recipes are jealously guarded: because of their specific taste. Number one point is inconsequential. In rebuttal of Con"s second point: While time is definitely on the side of the processed, plastic wrapped tube of cookie dough debate, many cooks clean as they go, which makes any cleaning quite efficient. There is always about a ten minute lull while the cookies are baking in which a person may use to clean up. And finally addressing Con's third point: A good recipe will have the caloric break-down or if it is an older recipe, they can be figured out by a rough estimation of the individual ingredients and Internet assistance. Admittedly, that may be rough. To further this thought: Substitution of all the sugar or halving the sugar & adding the remainder with stevia (acceptable sugar substitute) can assist in lowering the chances of diabetes in loved ones. And other variations can lower the calorie content. In adding to the Pro-side that home-made cookies are better: By using the home-made method one can scale up (double batch) or scale down (half batch) the amount of cookies desired which assists in exercising the little grey cells for math. Using math practically embeds the basics whereas mindless slicing of the dough cylinder doesn't fire off too many impulses in the brain. Many Americans (not all) have weak math skills so this can only help. Plus the home-made cookies are cheaper by the dozen, literally, than store bought even when processed is purchased in bulk (the tub of cookie dough like from Sam"s Club). I concede that one must purchase the ingredients in bulk (having left over flour, eggs and such) yet those ingredients can only assist in helping other meals. In closing my Round 2: There are hidden benefits to making home-made cookies; such as: use of a little bit of math, and extra ingredients for future meals/cookies. And for all that Con states it is quick, easy & tasty. Quicker, perhaps, yet easy is dependable on the cook since there may be some minor mental skills involved (such as reading the recipe & watching the time). Tasty are quite debatable since fresher ingredients render a better outcome.