BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States does not need any more laws. We need to abolish laws that aren't necessary.

The United States' government seems to be introducing new laws or at least advocating new ones all the time. I consider that a good thing, its a lot better then just having politicians sit on their a** and do nothing all day....Who is sitting down to read these provisions? Im going to go out on a limb here and guess.... People? They are the only species capable of reading words so thats my best guess....Do the laws really help and fix problems or do they just cause a different injustice? Sometimes one and sometimes the other, in some cases it can be both....When there are so many laws and regulations that rule our lives, are we really free? Well we still have the freedom of speech, assembly, bear arms, trial by jury in most cases, right to an attorney in most cases, right to drive, right to vote, right to not be a slave, right to run for office, right to protest, and a ton of ohter rights most people in other countries dont necessarily have despite the laws already on the books, so yeah im guessing we are still pretty free depite the laws.... In fact the reason why most blacks have any rights at all in this country is because laws were enacted to end slavery, fight against literacy tests and poll taxes, and segregation too....When somebody is telling you what you can and can't eat, grow, smoke, marry, sell, or buy, is it really for your own good? Its hit or miss. Selling raw milk is often illegal because the risk of contracting salmonella is massive which makes raw milk as hazardous as certain poisons.... Are you going to give an actual argument for why the US doesnt need any more laws or just keep asking questions?We need to abolish laws that aren't necessary.Well nobody is going to argue against that but the resolution is that the US doesnt need any more laws... Which I think it kinda does.... I along with most other americans think that the US should pass laws to clarify Gay Marriage, Coneal Carry laws, better background checks for gun purchases, reforming poorly performing agencies like the VA, legalizing Marijuana would be nice, restricing drone warfare would also be nice, laws on abortion depending on where your views lie, etc. There is still a need for laws to be passed in the US based on a wide variety of different topics, we shouldnt say 'no more laws' just because there are a lot of them already....
The United States does not need any more laws. We need to abolish laws that aren't necessary.

The United States' government seems to be introducing new laws or at least advocating new ones all the time. Who is sitting down to read these provisions? Do the laws really help and fix problems or do they just cause a different injustice? When there are so many laws and regulations that rule our lives, are we really free? When somebody is telling you what you can and can't eat, grow, smoke, marry, sell, or buy, is it really for your own good? We need to abolish laws that aren't necessary.
for human survival, more focus should be on expanding into space

While in the future it may become more feasible to create a populated space on Mars the likelihood of a catastrophic event is just as likely to happen to Mars as it would be on Earth. Your original examples of possible extinction events include an asteroid, the sun exploding or other natural disasters would all also apply to Mars as well as outside of this solar system. The storms that occur on Mars are much worse than those that occur on Earth and would likely be catastrophic to any type of colony on Mars. Not only would the same extinction possibilities apply to Mars and outside the solar system colonies, but the dangers, logistics, and funding involved with mass human travel in space are incredibly high and would not protect the human race from possible extinction events.
for human survival, more focus should be on expanding into space

Even colonizing Mars would likely not be possible for many generations. The atmosphere is less protective than that of Earth's so the Sun's radiation would be a major problem. Also, Mars's atmosphere consists mostly of Carbon Dioxide up to 95% in some studies. It would be very difficult to over come the problems with the Mars atmosphere and take billions if not trillions of dollars to fund and maintain a colony on mars. Yes, a manned mission to mars will likely happen soon but that is a long way away from an actual colony. As stated above, Voyager I took nearly 40 years to reach the edge of the solar system, not even to a location that we could inhabit. The issues of prolonged zero gravity environment exposure have still not been overcome and studies of rats born in space have shown the negative effects that go along with being born in zero gravity environments then returning to a higher gravitational environment. The mental issues that would go along with leaving Earth to form a colony elsewhere in or out of the solar system are a big deal. They go beyond keeping busy. If you look at any refugee situation where people have to leave their homes, belongings, and often times loved ones there is incredible amounts of stress and hardship that come along with that. Yes people would make the choice to participate in the colonization, but that would not take away from the stress of leaving absolutely everything and everyone not participating in the colonization behind.
for human survival, more focus should be on expanding into space

Yes, space exploration has lead to many of the technologies of today but, at the moment, funding for outside-the-solar-system colonization is not feasible. Voyager 1 was launched in 1977 and took nearly 40 years to reach the edge of the solar system. The transport of humans and the millions of pounds of required life support equipment, food, and other supplies would likely take much longer. Keep in mind that every bit of food and water would have to be packed from the beginning. Besides needing to pack every bit of supplies, with the exception of growing some plants, the effects of zero or lesser gravity on Earth organisms has proven to be troublesome. If the transportation to this outside-the-solar-system took the same amount of time or more there would be several effects on these zero gravity babies. They would have weaker muscles because of the lack of gravity to name two balance would be nonexistent when returning to a gravitational environment. Currently astronauts experience muscule loss in outer space even though they have developed methods to work out. Besides several physical issues with long term zero or low gravity environment exposure there are several mental issues as well. The mental stress that would be involved with those who journey to the colonized location would have to be willing to leave absolutely everything they know behind. Along with that , isolation issues would be incredibly difficult to overcome. Knowing that you could never see anyone you know not selected for the trip to the colony would weigh heavily on day-to-day life possibly causing people to not focus entirely on the task at hand. With several personal mental issues to deal with social issues would be exacerbated by being in space. If interpersonal issues arise, having people in close quarters to each other could be problematic. Even if people remain professional, it can be very difficult to overcome personality conflicts especially in close proximity all the time. Additionally, if someone is not performing their duties up to standards, there would be limited ways to counsel them or replace if need be. With the state of modern space technology, the funding of the colonization of outer space, let alone other solar systems is impractical. The likelihood of catastrophic events is much higher when traveling through space and attempting to colonize an unknown location or planet. Yes there is possibility of an extinction event, but the danger of an asteroid, the sun exploding or natural disasters is a fraction of that of space colonization.
Evolution and God

I will start with the mentioned problems of a literal reading of the book of Genesis. I noted that in translation, the words in Hebrew were quite literal. The definitions of the words that I noted were very precise, as Hebrew is generally a much more precise language than English. Such a precise language would have, by result, a more literal reading. Hebrew has its own syntax rules for non-literal writing and none of them are displayed in the documents we have. The same goes for the Septuagint, where there are even seperate words altogether for non-literal reading. Since we assume that the Bible, in its original languages, was written by inspiration, if God had meant it to be non-literal, He would have put in those changes. As to the reason so many Christians miss that is because, for the most part, a lot of those churches don't even have a standing on evolution. I have been to many churches under the denominations listed, including a Roman Catholic church. I learned something about Catholicism that is strange in its ways. Not EVERY Catholic church follows the standard Catholic beliefs. It varies from church to church. Because of this, you could have a Catholic church that believe you have to be stoned to death in the same town as one that believes that no punishment should be dealt for sin, and it could be likewise on any other belief in the church. As for Episcopaleans, I cannot speak for them, so I will leave them alone. Returning to the scientific side, despite the long, drawn out response, it could have been much more concise. Even then, it didn't contradict the possibility that if God created the first life, that He couldn't manipulate it. This means that we can question the main engine of evolution, that being natural selection, which does occur, if you ask me, to a limited extent. In closing, with no way to distinguish whether or not a supernatural being has worked upon this universe in its Creation, without the use of a time machine, which I assume you don't have one, we cannot say that evolution would allow the existence of a supernatural being. This is because of the previously noted inabilites of scientific testing, which can only test the natural world. You have to decide if it is natural OR supernatural selection, they are mutually exclusive engines.
Evolution and God

First, I noticed that you failed to respond to the scientific part of what I had said in the opening statements. Evolution, from the way it is described in the Mcgraw-Hill books "Life" and "Biology, 8th edition," finds its motor in natural selection. Natural selection, as the motor of evolution, basically weeds out weaker mutations and allows stronger mutations to become prolific. However, it assumes that it is, by definition, a natural process. Assuming that a supernatural being DID exist and DID create life on earth, as you might say, as a cell, there is nothing saying that this supernatural being would be unable to manipulate the way that cell and its descendants progress. He could, as I said, cause the biological processes to accelerate beyond what is normal without the harmful effects that would be caused if the acceleration were caused by a natural being or object. Theoretically, a supernatural being with the abilities described, could accelerate the processes so much that evolution could be completed, leaving age-appropriate evidence of natural evolution, in the span of 6 days easily. As to the Christian standings on there, I hail from the Southern Baptist Convention, who's stand on evolution has been quite clearly against it, and I was encouraged by professor David Kemp from Tennessee Temple University to make my own studies of the Bible include references to the Greek and Hebrew, the original languages of the Bible, to accompany my normal reading, so I am going to use said languages, specifically Hebrew, to explain why this part of the Bible is to be interpreted literally. Gen 1:5 is, in english: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Now, you would counter here with a statement about the sun not being created, however, the Bible describes God and Jesus as "The Light of the world" and some of the angels as "morning stars." As farfetched as it may seem, He could have ordered an angel to stay where the sun is and give light just like the sun, kind of like putting a temporary light there while he worked. The Hebrew used in the second sentence of the verse is transcribed below: Eloyhim qara' 'owr yowm choshek qara' layil 'ereb boqer 'echad yowm (transcription courtesy of www.blueletterbible.org) The words "'ereb" and "boqer" mean, respectively, "Evening" and "Morning." The standard accepted translation of the Hebrew and the corresponding Greek on the Septuagint is that of a literal translation, and most reliable translations have it as a literal translation. If modern translators are still translating the phrases in the Greek literally, then why should we interpret the English not literally?
Evolution and God

I am hoping that everyone here knows the basics of atheism, theism, evolution, Creation. Assuming such, I take a skeptical approach to the evidence posited for evolution. Now, from an atheist's point of view, one has to assume that no God exists. However, atheists will concede, for the most part, that we can't prove his nonexistence or existence. I have heard it said in debates prior to this one, that God COULD have created life, but He didn't do so in the 6 day period described. However, that leaves a lot to chance, because that assumes that a God was apparently motivated enough to cause life to begin. Next it assumes that said God would be either uninterested or unable to cause it to progress. If a God did create life, would He not also be able to manipulate the way it works, speeding up biological processes such as evolution in such a way that it all occurs in a week? If Evolution allowed that possibility to be possible, it would put into question the theory of natural selection, because logically, we have no way of testing if a mutation was caused by a supernatural being. Therefore, all mutations are thrown into question, from small mutations of genes connected to hair and eye color to genes such as the genes behind scaly skin or gills and such. How can evolution not exclude the supernatural with that can of worms?
On moral and sustainabilty groungs as te population increases we need to start to converting tom ve

Firstly, I would like to argue that eating animals is not immoral. Humans were not meant to be vegetarian, as seen in the fact that we posses canine teeth which are meant to help us consume flesh easier. Also, there are organizations such as the American Humane Association and the Humane Farm Animal Care which see to it that farms they sponsor conduct safe farming/livestock practices. With organizations such as these, it is likely that the animals face a kinder end than they would in the wild to predators. Now from a health perspective. Without meat, humans can also suffer from protein deficiencies. In fact, a British study involving nearly 8,000 subjects showed that that children born to vegetarian mothers are up to five times more likely to be born with deformities and other birth defects. The scientist leading the research stated "there is a clear association between child deformities and vegetarianism, and this is a cause for concern." (1) Lastly, I could find no studies or scientific evidence that stated that ceasing to eat animals in "wealthy western countries" would lead to the end of world hunger. 1: http://www.consumerfreedom.com...
On moral and sustainabilty groungs as te population increases we need to start to converting tom ve

its obvious that the mass of civilisation is divorded from the morals of Killing. We buy our bacon, steaks,chicken breasts and mince neatly packaged from the foos store. We dont even know its animals killed inside these neat little packages, in the sense that we dont ever have to contemplate the deadly suffering our purchasing actions are causing. Can you imagine how different it would be to walk into a store and pick out a steer or cow and ask for the runp of that animal to be cut off and packaged for you ? The move along to the chickens and point again to some shickens and describe what parts you want to eat ? Round 90% of the food we grow is fed to animals so we can eat them, If killing animals in wealthy western countries was out lawed then we could feed 90% more people or solve world hunger.
There is no such thing as God.

I am really sorry, but I can not believe what I am reading in 21st century. There are millions of planets in the universe, why should God create ours? You are really funny to think that way. And since the universe is so big, it would be really dumb to think we are the only habitated species in the universe. Please, re-think that. And of course, there is no such thing as God. I'm sorry you've been told that way as a child, but you really should read more reasonable stuff and educate yourself that way, and not the Bible, lol. Life on earth has a long evolutionary history. 1. Don't you think, if God would exist, 'HE' would first create us, as you call us habitated species and not some celes that first lived in water for 3, 2 billion years? What did God do at that period? Play poker with Mary? Come on, haha 2. How can you believe in something, NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE can prove his existance? 3. How do we move our arms? Are you seriously asking that question? Okay, I agree with you on that one. God studied on Hogwarts, school for wizardry (he was a schoolmate with Harry Potter) and with his magic wand, he gave us the ability to move our bodies. He also gave men the ability to use their penises, including the priest... Why is he using it only on children? It's in our nature to have sex, so how did Mother Mary made Jesus without having sex? AND, if God created EVERYTHING, how come is Mary his mother? LOOOOOL !! He also have us brains, but not to everyone the ability to use it, i see. Xoxo, mrs. Artpop
There is no such thing as God.

Oh, so your point is, Aliens believe in God? Me, myself, I believe in aliens more than I do in God's existence, LOL. 'Why would God create us first in the universe of no oxygen? To die?' Wasn't God a man? A human being, before he died for our sins? (I can not believe I just wrote that as if it was true). How did he survive without oxygen? Come oooon, I'm starting to feel stupid in this debate, really. 'But if you are talking about heaven,...' No, dear. I was not. There is no such thing as heaven. There's only birth (you know, when two people f*ck and produce a baby, and death, of course, which comes naturally, because we're all just a piece of meat and brains. LIKE ANIMALS - ANY OTHER LIVING BEINGS!?) I truly reccomand the documentary Zeitgeist for you. I assure you, you will be grateful when you open your eyes and start thinking with your own head and not what church wanted us, people to think when we had no education. Peace. Mrs. Artpop
should school start early or not

Allow me to get right to the point. As stated in round 1, Pro states that school should not state early. I will presume this implies the normal time that school does start which is between 7:00 and 8:00 on the average. During this debate, we will use high school as the scrutinizing level of education because Pro mentioned high school in his introduction. Pro then mentions that students skip school to do other things, which I will also presume is an example of his position of why schools should start later. I will provide my arguments below. I am the opposer to the notion that school time should begin later. Premise 1: Schedule interference Schools starting later result in after school activities and extra-curricular activities becoming later as well. This may interfere with the participants, whose other jobs begin early in the morning, such as the staff, parent volunteers, and others who assist in the activities. This may hinder evening time that these participants use for preparing for the next day and personal time. Premise 2: Irresponsible behavior Schools should not have to cater to kids being irresponsible and not prioritizing a consistent bed time. Rather than using night time as time to play video games, chat with friends, party, or other miscellaneous activities, students should use it as time to recover via sleep to prepare for the following day. If a student his/her bed time as 9:00 Monday through Friday and has a 6:00 a. m. arise time Monday through Friday, this allows 9 hours of quality sleep. Students also have the option of sleeping extra on Saturday and Sunday mornings. Premise 3: Poor diet/Sedentary lifestyle If we examine an individuals activity levels and nutrition through out the day and even week, a correlation is observable between those that display higher activity levels and a more diverse diet with an increase in quality sleep. A student being tired during the day may not only be due to insufficient sleep the night before, but also inactivity, poor diet, and stress. Starting school later would not solve the problem alone, as a multitude of factors contribute to students becoming more lethargic during the day. Pro, please proceed with your arguments.
Shelby Mustang or Camaro zl1

Well, the ZL1 comes with launch control ofR01;its own, integrated into the race setting of the five-mode Performance Traction Management system. It, too, offers consistent launches, although experienced drivers can do better. Like we said, those tires make everything easier. The Eagle F1s offered a good experimental control and helped to demonstrate how and why the ZL1 delivers a more involving driving experience than the Shelby. That this is an about-face from previous Camaro SS"versus"Mustang GT tests is not lost on us. The ZL1 feels more like the Cadillac CTS-V than one of the lesser Camaros. The steering responds to corners with properly modulated, steadily mounting weight, and the front end is more responsive than the Shelby"s. In the ZL1, all the controls are fine-tuned and well matched. The clutch is light and engages progressively throughout its travel. You can move the shift lever with your fingertips. In contrast to the Shelby, the Camaro does almost everything with more refinement and with more empathy for its driver. One"s a gorilla, the other"s a racehorse. Which one would you rather ride? The Camaro is more comfortable, too; its magnetorheological shocks do a great job managing wheel impacts and overall ride stability. It"s also fairly quiet and transmits the deep engine rumble to the interior without other unwanted racket. The ZL1 delivers more of the sophistication expected of a $60,000 sports car than does the GT500. Admittedly, creature comforts are not the primary aim of these cars, but the ZL1"s unstressed vibe enhances the driving experience. It"s more relaxed and approachable, and ultimately more fun to drive. R01;At Grattan, the Camaro"s front end seemed like it would never wash out, and a handy dose of trail braking quelled any understeer. The shocks and multilink rear suspension helped the ZL1 use more of R01;its power around the track. Going onto the main straight, the Camaro negotiated the final turn without scrubbing speed. Elsewhere, the linear throttle response that makes the Camaro feel relatively docile on the street helps to keep the car nudging softly against the edge of its handling limits. That the ZL1"s lap times are identical to the lighter and more powerful GT500"s shows how much more it does with less. R01;And our times were more consistent in the Camaro.
Shelby Mustang or Camaro zl1

Mustangs are superior due to the fact that the 2013 Shelby GT500 has the most powerful production v8 in the word is less than $70,000 and is a legendary icon. the GT500 is the base model of Shelby innovations the Shelby super snake has 850hp and had a wide body kit with super wide tires to aid in handling. to top it off the Shelby 1000 is the king of them all with the 2013 edition topping 1200hp that is street legal. A mustang having this much power was Carrol Shelby's dream before he passed away. plus the Shelby mustangs are sexy.