BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheists cannot be Agnostic at the same time.

As many atheists falsely assume. Agnosticism is not the position of "i dont know." That's just..ignorance. Agnosticism is the position the "it is not possible to know." or "it cannot be known." And thus it is illogical to combine the two terms together, and Agnostic atheist is an oxymoron, or in the least redundant. if one disclaims knowledge, and prefaces with a "i dont know if your God exists"... then immediately follows up with a "but i dont believe your God exists." then they have made the first portion of their position of null effect. No? Thats the relationship between knowledge and belief that you overlook. They cannot hold the same place in your mind at the same time. When you say you dont know, you disclaim knowledge. That means you must believe or disbelieve, and there is no evidence either way. So when an agnostic atheist says, i dont believe there is a god, because there is no evidence. They are really saying "i think there is evidence to be had." If the absence of evidence is your reason to believe something did not happen, then you are assuming that if something happened, there would be evidence! If God existed...there would be evidence... So.. you believe its POSSIBLE to KNOW if GOD exists. Therefore, they are by definition NOT agnostic, by any true sense of the word.
capital letters

1) nouns and verbs; uncle jackI don't see how i used semantics. i first demonstrated how you could solve this problem using only standard punctuation, and potentially improve the sentence. then i showed why it would actually be quite rare for a sentence to occur where you could confuse names and verbs, witch i assume was the point of this sentence. was there some other point?2) separating sentences yes, there are other minorities who could hypothetically benefit from capital letters because of difficulty reading. but you seemed to have dropped my point when i said that if a person has difficulty distinguishing sentences they will probably have other reading problems. that's why i suggested large print books. and writing in all caps would not be an effective alternative to large print. capital letters are not generally that much larger or different from minuscule letters anyways.and as to your point about lack of capitals caused a misunderstanding: the misunderstanding had nothing to do with my failure to use capitals, it was simply do to poor word choice on my part. i said "since you capitalize every sentence, it's not as if it distinguishes certain sentences from each other." while i should have said "since you capitalize every sentence, it's not as if it distinguishes different types of sentences from each other." and i apologize for that, but capitalizing it would not have changed anything.3) the efficiency of english again, the misunderstanding here had nothing to do with my lack of capitals, it was just because of the way i wrote it and you read it. i said "(1) if i can convey the same idea with less effort, why shouldn't i? (2) getting rid of capital letters would make our language more efficient, something any language should strive for." i felt that i explained my reasoning by saying that by making writing easier without changing the meaning that it would make the language more efficient. so i made a joke about how obvious it seemed to me. 4) making a pointi don't think that fifty shades of grey is written in all caps, but i might be wrong. just because we want to be intense doesn't mean we need all caps to express it. generally, the person who writes in all caps is not all that smart because if what they had to say was relevant they wouldn't need all caps to get peoples attention. in this way, information doesn't need to be in all caps to be memorable, it just has to be memorable.so to conclude:caps are very rarely used at all to distinguish proper nouns from other words, and when they are there are simple ways around it using punctuation. there is no compelling reason to capitalize the first letter of every sentence, and capitals are often abused by the internet public. and in general, capital letters serve as an unnecessary burden to an already confusing language. finally, as a bonus example, my entire argument went unchanged without me using any capitals.also: can manatees really do that?
capital letters

what exactly are capital letters used for? the beginning of sentences, proper nouns, i. they have been a part of our language and many others for a very long time. but i can think of a few reasons why we would be better off without them. first of all, take my round one paragraph. obviously you get the same message from it, regardless of whether or not i used capitals. so if i can convey the same idea with less effort, why shouldn't i? getting rid of capital letters would make our language more efficient, something any language should strive for. secondly, consider the capitalization of proper nouns. one might make the argument that capital letters help us distinguish between what might be name for something between the name of Something. but how could one possibly think that in the sentence 'we are going to new york' that new york is a verb or general noun? if it was a general noun it would be improper grammar, and I don't know anyone who new york's. it's almost always obvious whether the author is referring to a name or a thing. also, using capital letters hardly makes a sentence easier to understand. how, exactly, does capitalizing the first letter of a sentence augment the sentence in a positive way? the period or punctuation mark already tells you that the sentence is over, and it's generally not too difficult to understand when the idea in the sentence is complete. and since you capitalize every sentence, it's not as if it distinguishes certain sentences from each other. its a pointless exercise. finally, and arguably most importantly, there's the new problem facing IMing and forums of noobs who talk in all caps. this is the event where some self important idiot talks with caps lock on because what they have to say is so important that it has to be in bigger letters then everyone else. this is an irritating problem that would be solved if caps where removed from our language. on the other side of the noob coin, their is the noob who actually has intelligent things to say but has poor grammar. simply because they forget to use capital letters, they are often shunned. i know I've done my share of ignoring bright young minds with poor education. in conclusion, capital letters do nothing but complicate an already convoluted language, do very little to add to the comprehension of a text, and provides opportunities for abuse, therefore making it beneficial to remove them from our written language.
capital letters

full resolution: the use of capital letters is unnecessary and it would be beneficial to discontinue their use. i will be arguing that capital letters are unnecessary and that our language would be better without them. this does not mean that i will be debating that we actually should remove capital letters from our language, but that it would be better if we did. what i mean by this is con cannot use any argument based on the difficulty of actually getting rid of capital letters, only on their usage and purpose.
Al Gore is a Contemptible Person

You cannot truly offset the carbon you entered into the air but you can help reduce carbon emissions in other areas by funding clean air programs... these websites just make it easier for you to help make the world a cleaner place... You make erroneous statements but have no proof to back it up... This debate will start and end as a measure of Al Gores character... Al Gore did not make the a film about global warming for the money because he was already well off before the film... He did it to give us a glimpse into the future and asks us to change our lifestyles completely... Things like this take time and effort, Al Gore has said that he is working to make his home have less carbon emissions... Wait a year or two... then see what you have to say!
Al Gore is a Contemptible Person

Al Gore may have a $20,000 energy bill, yet it is completely carbon nuetral. Gore pays companies such as www.earthpreserver.com and www.carbonfund.com to offset his carbon waste by supporting clean energy programs. About the Zinc Mine... no proof has been found that any damage to enviroment has been done... Al Gore saying he "invented the internet" has been chided as being a hoax with no proof to back it up...
Al Gore is a Contemptible Person

Well, Al Gore says to everybody to "ride a bicycle," while he flies in his Gulfstream. He has a fleet of SUV's which are "owned by his family." He says to conserve electricity, yet he has a $20,000 electric bill, and he lives in Tennessee, where electricity is relatively cheap. He says we shouldn't pollute, but what about that zinc mine that he owns? He really wouldn't be polluting there. Oh, and carbon credits. How about Pope Albert I handing out indulgences that go to companies that receive the money, but don't do anything after they're paid? And Bono going to receive penance from His Holiness, and was "religious." You bet your a** it was. Oh, and there's the "I invented the internet." What a childish lie. You can find all of this information all on the internet, and it's not made up. Look it up. You're rebuttal?
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1A

I affirm that God exists. "My opponent can list the attributes of the metaphysical Supreme Being in his Round 1 is he/she wishes." The only attribute that is relevant for debate is the attribute of existence. ----------------------- Contention: 1. There is an old saying that I find to be particularly pertinent to my first argument: The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument. If stood before a jury and gave my experiential testimony for the existence of God, is it equally as reasonable for you to come forward and give your experiential testimony for the nonexistence of God? Similarly, if I witnessed the murder of a man, and you did not, does your testimony really rebut my own? I dare say it does not! "Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction." God must exist for me to experience Him. If I experienced God but God does not exist, there is a contradiction. The logical conclusion is to believe that God exists. It would be absurd for me to deny the existence of pyrosis given my habitual experience of it. By the same reasoning, it would be equally absurd for me not to believe God exists. This experience by itself may not be much, but consider the following statistics: A recent survey showed that approximately 75% of youth (globally) believe in god and many contend that it was their experience that led them to such a belief (1). The global statistics show that there are approximately 80.58% people who believe in god (this excludes Buddhism entirely given that it does not explicitly worship any deity, though most adherents probably do believe in a type of deity)(2). Your burden, therefore, is to rebut approximately 6.5 billion experiential testimonies for the experience of God. This should suffice for now. My opponent has quite the burden – Godspeed! 1. http://www.csmonitor.com... 2. http://www.adherents.com...
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1A

Once again, I am deadbeat bored. So I decided to start another one of these! Note: the "1A" notation in the Topic title is simply for searching purposes. [Definition - Existence] http://dictionary.reference.com... 1. the state or fact of existing; being. *NOTE* I am not debating whether or not a God exists in one's MIND, but rather in REALITY. [Definition - Valid] http://dictionary.reference.com... 1. sound; just; well-founded 2. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. *NOTE* Stemming from the second definition, I don't intend for my opponent to create a syllogism. Simply put, my opponent needs to construct an argument of which I can't successfully defeat (of course, this is to the opinion of the voters). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is how the debate will play out: Round 1: This is my Round 1 for clarifications and guidelines. For PRO, he/she will either state that his following arguments will affirm a specific god (i.e. Christian God, Muslim God, etc.) or a metaphysical supreme being. My opponent can list the attributes of the metaphysical supreme being in his Round 1 is he/she wishes. THEN, my opponent will LIST his/her ARGUMENTS with at least a brief EXPLANATION for both (I don't want just a line of titles). Round 2 - 4: I will refute his/her arguments and it will go back and forth as such. I hope we have a good debate!
Logan Paul will destroy Cris Cyborg in an MMA fight

Since giving insults isn't an argument I guess I officially win the debate by default. Secondly you are absolutely right a man should never pick a fight with women, The reason I made this debate was because a lot of dumb mma fan boys on the internet thinks that a 145lbs woman can beat up a 200lbs man which physically impossible, It's basically the equivalent of making a debate against flat earth theory despite knowing very well that it goes against all logic but there will always be those idiots trying to defend it. I'm glad you're not one of them.
People Never Pooped Before The Toilet Was Invented... 2!!!

Thanks to Rami for choosing to appose me in this debate :) My argument for why people never pooped before the toilet was invented goes as follows: The term "poop" comes from the onomatopoeia poupen or popen, which originally meant "fart". "Poop" didn't come into its current meaning until sometime around the year 1900 A.D. Were toilets invented before the year 1900 A.D.? If so, then the statement "No human ever pooped before the toilet was invented" is a true statement. Well, I happen to be in luck because some of the first indoor toilets can be seen in civilizations as far back as the Indus Valley civilization (2,600-1,900 BC) where streets were built on a grid pattern and networks of sewers were dug under them. That's a good 4,500 years before 1900 A.D. and that just accounts for the toilets which used running water. The truth is we actually don't know exactly when the toilet was first "invented" because a toilet can be defined as any apparatus that is used for defecation and urination. Technically, that means that anything you use for peeing in or on would be your proverbial toilet. So the person who invented the toilet... was the first person who ever pooped :P
People Never Pooped Before The Toilet Was Invented... 2!!!

I am a master debater and I'm here once again to show off my master debating skills! I'm now certain that my skills are so good that I can even prove the impossible! Just the other day, I was sitting on the commode while reading Dilbert and thinking to myself, "Ya know... This would be really uncomfortable if this toilet wasn't here." Thus, I came to the inevitable conclusion: No human ever pooped before the toilet was invented. Having come to said conclusion, I created a debate called "People Never Pooped Before The Toilet Was Invented." unfortunately, some complications arose and I was not able to finish the debate so I'm going to "re-do" that debate and do it properly this time around. Think you can prove me wrong? Do you think that you are"all that?" Well then, take me on in this quick little game of wit and I'll show you that I am, hands down, the number one debater in town... again :)
Should High Schools offer Home Ec and Shop classes to Junior/Senior students

Ahh...I understand now that I 'looked around'. Perhaps when you reach the job market and are on you own you might realize that common knowledge of basic skill such as how to change a light switch, or a light fixture...repair a cabinet door that doesn't close completely, or a door hinge that squeeks, etc. Of course you might get into a well paying job, with those tech skills you are going to acquire, but not everyone will be able to do that. Not everyone leans toward the tech side. Some people don't have the apptitude that you seem to have. Should they be denied that opportunity to learn those skills just because someone doesn't think they are necessary? If you took Shop, as you say, then you didn't learn as you should have....probably since it wasn't tech enough. As for those "expensive machines" you talk about...I do happen to have some of them in my garage and I use them. And the argument that you didn't learn how to measure in Home Ec since they gave it to you step by step, again, you didn't take the opportunity to expand on that and learn from it...you just took the steps and did what you had to do to pass. Taking a recipe for6 and have to adjust for 2 or for 14 calls for more math than you are wanting to admit. Again, there is room for both and Tech Courses are important...and everyone should be required to have one or two courses so that they are familiar with the technology out today...but Shop and Home Ec should be available for those who want to study that. Thank you for the argument and I hope that you agree that there IS a place for Shop and Home Ec in today's schools.
Should High Schools offer Home Ec and Shop classes to Junior/Senior students

Cooking is a skill that does not require the classroom. Think about it, do you remember much about what you learned in Home Ec or Woodshop? I took Home Ec one year ago, (Because I took a tech class elective prior semester), and they gave us every single step to cook the food, which reduced the chances of mis-measuring. Also, we never sewed much because the starter kit to make an apron was 80% of the work already given to us. Aside from my experiences, I believe Home Ec is not effective in teaching you life skills like sewing and cooking. Woodshop also is not necessary in high school. Most of what you learn in Woodshop requires the usage of expensive machinery that many people will never use outside of the classroom, like a band saw. Although it does have slightly more importance than Home Ec, it's still is not really applicable in daily life, whereas classes like computer science (due to large job market) and mathematics, are ever more present in daily life. Another point against Home Ec and Woodshop is that the internet makes those classes obsolete. Why waste a semester of school to learn how to cook, when you can just go on YouTube? One might say the same thing about Computer Science. However, Computer Science gives you tools that many people would pay for, such as creating a website. Most website creation help requires paying money, whereas cooking is common knowledge. Same could be said about Woodshop. Pro stated "One just hires someone to come in and put up a child gate". While I do agree it's not necessary to call someone to put up the gate, websites like YouTube could provide a tutorial giving the steps to build a children's gate. Also, people won't knowingly use their prior knowledge in Woodshop to put up a child gate. Here is a perfect example of a video tutorial: Pro stated, "So, while technology classes are VERY important for today's society, there is a large deficit in people who can work with their hands that needs to be closed." I disagree with this statement in terms of the job market. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, between 90-95 million unskilled workers will no longer be needed by 2020. There is no deficit of unskilled laborers, and in fact, we are facing a lack of people interested in STEM. Pro also stated, " to quote...Not so fast my friend...I didn't say anything about doing away with the technology courses" I didn't accuse you of wanting to get rid of technology courses. I simply stated that Home Ec and Woodshop are not needed in today's technologically-oriented job market. Thank you for your time. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Should High Schools offer Home Ec and Shop classes to Junior/Senior students

Hey, thanks for taking this one. Good to hear from you. Pleasantries aside, to quote...Not so fast my friend...I didn't say anything about doing away with the technology courses (except perhaps tech kids how to interact with each other without using their phone). But you must admit that we have a generation of folks who seem to have a hard time spelling, if u no what I mean...they know more about acronyms than using real words...SMH, ICWYDT, ICYMI, LOL, LMAO, etc. While it is very cool, it doesn't seem to be very impressive. Also, while advocating the Shop and Home Ec classes be optional, a student does learn things there other than how to operate a saw or cook an egg. There is a lot of math involved in both carpentry and cooking...mis-measruing in either creates something entirely different than what you started with. I have two sons-in-law, neither of who can do anything around the house. One just hires someone to come in and put up a child gate when they had children...the other has decided to let me teach him a few things and does do things around the home now. Both very smart guys...one is a lawyer and one is doctor of Physical Therapy, but not so smart in everyday living. So, while technology classes are VERY important for today's society, there is a large deficit in people who can work with their hands that needs to be closed. Who knows....perhaps we all may need that skill at some point.
Should High Schools offer Home Ec and Shop classes to Junior/Senior students

Hello, I will be debating against the idea that high schools should offer home Ec and Woodshop classes to juniors/seniors. While I do agree that Common Core is bad, Home Ec and Woodshop classes are no longer useful in today's society, where technology is the center of life. The point of school in general to train young people to prepare for the job market. The job market of today is controlled by companies specializing in technology. Today, the United States is facing a lack of people interested in the STEM field, slowing economical and technological growth. Skills in technology is becoming increasingly important. Classes like Computer Science and different types of Mathematics should be offered, not Home Ec and Woodshop classes. Although learning to cook and build things is important in life, it will not help you get a stable job in today's modern society where it is important to have the knowledge to utilize modern technology, like computers. Woodshop and Home Ec classes are simply obsolete, which is why it shouldn't be offered in high school, a time period in your life where you are preparing to go to college to find a job. Thanks for your time.
Is Trump doing a better job than Hillary would have done.

I would appreciate it if you didn"t use personal opinions because if you do that will result in your entire argument based around the opinion, pointless and will not be counted. I want to start this debate wit where I stand. Even though my family voted for Hillary but we can agree she wasn"t the best candidate ever, she is, by far, better than Trump. Keep in mind I wasn"t using this as an opinion I"m just saying my part in this. Here are problems I will hold during the debate: 1. His intelligence/education 2. His plans 3. His behavior I look forward to this debate.
Is Trump doing a better job than Hillary would have done.

I personally think Hillary should be thankful that she isn't the President of the USA. She didn't have many strong ideas, but nor did Trump, but he mae sure that the public would remember them, and consider them whilst voting. Despite being a non-American citizen, I can still easily say that the USA is more divided politically since the Civil War. The worst thing that Trump has done is try to abolish Obamacare, which is natural as a new President wishes to run things his own way, but Hillary Clinton was "The Worst Secretary Of State in the history of the United States" Trump said in a 2015 interview. Many speculate that Hillary would start a war with Russia or China, including Nuclear Weapons, and so far, Trump hasn't done this yet!