BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
religion, god or not, and why cant we all be treated equally

Why wont people put aside their diffrences and work together, it really doesnt matter but at least we will be trying. If science and religion (God) work together then that might make a better place but if its the same well at least we tryed. Maybe we can make the world a better place. When Moses and the jew traveled to the promise land it 40years and each day mana fell from the sky but it didnt on every 7 days science can try to get great invention from the bible that could help man kind, but i also agree with you that there are two sides (theres two sides of every coin), but we should try puting two ideas together that has had alot of conflect. And thank you for wishing me luck.
religion, god or not, and why cant we all be treated equally

Why do we fight about if there is a god. If there is one then he would want us to try to work together and help the human race, but yet there are people that want to make everything complicated. One way is that religion can help science prove stuff that happen long ago and also help us be creative to make machines that can make food from water, please we should stop fighting who is right or wrong. Conflicts cause war. If there are any spelling errors or incorrect grammar, I am sorry.
religion, god or not, and why cant we all be treated equally

Poltics and relgion they can have debates but why cant they treat people with respect. Also after they debate they should say something nice like what whey do in baseball after the game everyone shakes each others hand and say good game. At least they can respect people and they will have diffrent views but they shouldnt say bad stuff about people, the extreme religious people should just keep it to them selfs that "being gay is bad". It doesnt really matter what they think. Also i like your profile pic of rainbow dash
Pencils v Pens for math homework

Crossing out can be done neatly with a single slash and keeps a paper organized. Also, my opponent mentioned in the first round, pencils can be "erased easily and completely". Pro later stated that "The teacher can see the amount of effort that went into getting the final answer by all the erasing". This is a solid contradiction. Additionally, if a student's work is not readable, that is a problem dealing with the students handwriting and cannot possibly be blamed on the writing utensil. Pro also mentioned that teachers have preffered pencils over pens for at least the past 100 years. That is not a fact, merely an estimation. Combined with the fact that wooden pencils have been around since the 1700s, this does not seem like a valid point. Also, teachers may see the short term benefits of pencils, though the students do not because graphite smudges and fades at a much faster rate than pens.
Pencils v Pens for math homework

I find it interesting that my opponent chose actor Lucas Grabeel to provide their quote for this topic. I don't have a problem with the quote, it's just interesting is all :) While certainly poetic and bringing out the beauty of math vis a vis the "language of the universe" it doesn't get to the resolution at hand. While certainly crossing out can be done with pens. But let's face it not everyone's work would be readable then and I think this is one of the reason's primary school teachers prefer math homework be done in pencil. I find it odd that for at least the last 100 years teachers have instructed students to use eraseable writing utensils (pencils, chalk, etc. ) when pens have been around for much longer. The teachers see the benefits I'm speaking of. Thank you Con for accpting this lighthearted debate and for this discussion.
Pencils v Pens for math homework

I will assume the con position for the duration of this debate. Merriam-Webster (m-w. com) defines mathematics as "the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, . .. ". Lucas Grabeel once said, "I dislike math, yet I respect and appreciate the fact that math is the language of the universe. " Math is the language of the universe. You can find perfection solely in numbers. In math, all of the figures fit together like clockwork. Math is the language of the universe, and math makes up the universe. There is math all around you, especially in nature where there is total equilibrium and balance. With this said, no eraser is needed in math. We are human and make mistakes. Rather than erasing, crossing out what is written shows the teacher exactly what steps you took and the effort you put into completing the mathematic puzzle and finding the perfect solution.
Pencils v Pens for math homework

Easy debate of only two rounds (24 hour turn). Let's keep it lighthearted and fun and the Pro side will make arguments for why pencils are better and Con will make the case why pens are better for math homework.I have three reasons I believe pencils to be superior for math homework:1) They can be erased easily and completely. Sure there's some erasable pens but it looks sloppy and it's still quite visible after erasing. 2) Previous work like simple math can be erased and make the mathematical proof easier to understand.3) The teacher can see the amount of effort that went into getting the final answer by all the erasing. Pens only show the final work but the teacher would not know how much effort that took.Thank you. Look forward to your reply.
Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school.

I negate the resolution. Patriotism should NOT be taught to children in school. This round will be brief. Patriotism reduces self-confidence, firstly. It creates a system in which people doubt their abilities as citizens to change the country or have their say incorporated into governmental affairs. Patriotism causes people to be criticized for questioning authority. Less questioning of authority essentially means the government is making decisions for the nation mostly by itself. The questioning of authority, even of governmental status, must be encouraged, rather than discouraged, as it leads to the bettering of the decisions made by the government. Having a government that admits that it is not always right on every issue and is willing to listen to the will of the citizens is much more superior. In response to the arguments made by my opponent, people can still support their country without having to be 100% loyally adhering and devoted to each if its decisions. While there are some economic benefits of said patriotism, it is still a concept not worthy of being taught in schools. It is far more important to have a system in which the government listens to the doubts of its people, rather than blindly supporting any turn they choose to prescribe. Patriotism, as described, defies this. I also reserve the right to make further arguments in the next round as necessary. Thanks to judges, any audience, etc. for reading this debate. Cheers, Oboeman.
Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school.

===DEFINITIONS:=== Patriotism: devoted love, support, and defence of one's country; national loyalty. ===================================================== PRO ARGUMENT #1: PATRIOTISM INCREASES INVOLVEMENT IN NATIONAL AFFAIRS ===================================================== When someone loves their country, it increases their interest in current affairs regarding the country. - It can increase voter turnout, something which isn't high (61.6% in the 2008 elections) [http://www.politico.com...]. Schools already aim to achieve this therefore, patriotism would make it easier or even accomplish the task alone. - It increases involvement in National politics. ===================================================== PRO ARGUMENT #2: PATRIOTISM HAS ECONOMIC BENEFITS ===================================================== - When someone is patriotic, they are less likely to emigrate to foreign countries. This obviously helps the economy. - Patriotism increases goods bought that are made in one's country, therefore boosting the said countries economy. I reserve the right to make further arguments and wish my opponent a good debate. I thank the judges and readers for reading.
There is no God!

It appears you are angry at religious people who keep telling you about their gods and then quote the scriptures to try prove to you that these gods exist. Well I agree with you that their gods DON"T exist because they only exist in their imaginations by reading words in a book. Anyone can read a book and pretend they know something such as reading a biography of a former U. S. president and pretend they know all about being a president. or reading a Superman comic book and pretending to be Superman. However, the God who came into my mind on December 8th, 1979, while I was still a bad alcoholic, wasn't joking with me when He spoke these words, "I AM YOUR CREATOR". From that point on, I've been obeying all his commands in my mind for over 34 years now. Not only did He remove my desire to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes three years later, He forced me into Christianity in 1984 to start reading the Bible for a couple years, but only for two years. He only wanted me to get symbolic terms memorized for when He began having me write for Him 24 years later on June 16th, 2008. During the time He forced me into Christianity, He had me witness five pastors of churches I attended get the boot for having sex outside of their marriages. One of them was having sexual intercourse with his three daughters while they were living at home. All these things I witnessed, including my own selfishness and sexual relations with other women was to show me that there was no truth in this world, especially when He had me study about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the first three months of 2006. Soon after spending hundreds of hours trying to figure out who attacked our country, God let me know there was no truth in this world. My 34 year story about my obedience to God's commandments can be a very long one but if you don't believe me, then it's not worth my time trying to tell you this story. Besides, it's kind of boring to most people who have no clue who our Creator is. So let's get to the point of who we are. It was our invisible Creator who I've been obeying for 34 years who has taught me all about how we were created. He has let me know that not ONE Christian has ever been used by Him to speak from His invisible knowledge which no man can ever see. That's because His knowledge is invisible vibrations that we know as energy today. In order to talk about the things I've been taught by Him, I have to go deep into quantum mechanics that most physicists don't even know about yet. If you don't understand quantum theory, I can teach this to you by using similar analogies that God used in my mind to help me understand what invisible vibrations are all about. If you're here to try argue with me, then you better understand quantum mechanics deeper than any physicist has ever gone before. Are you ready for the challenge?
There is no God!

There is no God! Clearly, the abrhamic God oft the bible is a SICK JOKE!! "The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." (Hosea 13:16 NLT) How can something like this be from a GOOD GOD??? good god, that's ridiculous!! Answer my questions, pbornofgod!!! It takes COMMON SENSE to know that anyone who commands such DISGUSTING things is a sick deluded HUMAN BEING, and not a divine deity!! Is this god's divine will??? When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) Clearly a madeup imaginatory disgusting being!!!!
Gun Rights (in america)

L e a v e T h i s W e b s i t e If you had took the time to read my argument, i specifically stated that, "Almost every mass shooting that has taken place in the US has been committed by a mentally ill person, who does not have the ability to legally purchase a gun anyways.". The meaning of this statement is to explain that regardless of the current laws in place, crime committing people find ways around laws such as the black market. Any laws to ban guns wont affect criminals, it will affect GOOD PEOPLE. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, "gun free zones" (areas where guns are prohibited) have been the target of more than 98% of all mass shootings. This staggering number is why such designated areas are often referred to as "soft targets," meaning unprotected and vulnerable. https://www.dailywire.com... Imagine the amount of mass shootings if there were no risk for shooters. Shooters target unarmed areas, and if the whole nation is unarmed, we have a real problem. Shootings are unavoidable, but the severity of them can be controlled. If we armed school security guards, we would have less shootings overall (At schools). Just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean they will use it on a person. Families own guns as a great equalizer against criminals. You shouldn't worry about getting shot unless you either A. Break in to somebodys house B. Attack a police officer C. You dont know how to handle a gun This is a debate, not emotionally spouting info about your life.
Gun Rights (in america)

That's an interesting argument, but i have a rebuttal for every one of your arguments. 1. Its not just "some gun control", its how our nation functions. The amendments are fundamental rights. The second amendment is as important as the right of free speech. 2. Under 18 U.S.C. " 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person "has been adjudicated as a mental defective according to this logic, the argument of your father with mental illnesses owning firearms is illogical. 3. Ignoring the abortion comments cause its irrelevant to the current debate. i support abortion if there is a reason for it. 4. Felons are not allowed to purchase firearms legally. 5. Mental patients are not allowed to purchase firearms (as stated in point 2) 6. cops kill criminals. either way this line of argument (cops) is unrelated to the true topic of the rights of ordinary citizens, and i wish to not continue. I have yet to receive a real argument that is not factually impossible. Im still open to talk if you have any other arguments about peoples' rights to guns.
Gun Rights (in america)

I hope you are not trying to be prolife and freak out over some gun control. I am a centrist, so I do believe many people have the right to own a gun, but I believe like many rights, guns are not an absolute right, and should be restricted for some people. I don't have gun rights because I have four mental illnesses, and so did my gun owning father, and close. Many so called gun rights advocates are also against abortion, and for the death penalty. If it is a human life from the time pregnancy begins, until death, why NOT do something about gun violence from cops and civilians and mental patients and violent felons? What a convoluted logic we have on the far right.
Gun Rights (in america)

Guns are one of the fundamental parts of today's society. The ability to defend yourself against an attacker is very important. Argument against mass shootings - - Almost every mass shooting that has taken place in the US has been committed by a mentally ill person, who does not have the ability to legally purchase a gun anyways. Arguments against ban - - Stripping people of their rights will not solve anything. If a criminal plans to do harm, they will do everything they can to get ahold of a firearm, regardless of if its legal or not. a ban would only affect the law abiding citizens Change my mind :-)
There is no Observable Evidence for Macroevolution

Macroevolution - Evolution that results in the formation of a new taxonomic group above the level of a species. (1)I'm going to break down my argument into four simple primary points that any layman can examine:1) Fossil - If we were to hypothesize that there is common descent between species, when we study the fossil record as a whole we should see an apparent and gradual change over time between different distinct species. For example, if we presume species X evolved from, or shares a common ancestor with species Y, over the course of Z years, we would expect to find fossil forms that change from X, to appearing to be X less and less like X and gradually more and more like Y, and those fossils should be independently dated and fit within the current hypothesis in terms of timescale.2) Morphological - If we were to hypothesize that there is common descent between species, when we study currently living organisms, we should find various parts of the body that are "left over" parts, remnants from presumed previous ancestor species that those older species would have used for various specific purposes in their specific habitats, but currently have no known use or existing function for the current species in it's current habitat, or would have current uses that might be drastically different than their ancestors and were co-opted for other uses to adapt to different environments.3) Genetic - If we were to examine the genomes of all living things, we should find patterns and similarities connecting different species and they would be related to the extent that the species are related. Like the fossil evidence, we should find patterns over time that fit into their respective time scales, and presumed relatives should share parts of their genomes that correlate to the combination between each species genetic rates of change and the amount of time between the divergence of those species. Oversimplified example: Species X's DNA is known to change about Q% each generation, and we think that species X diverged from species Y approximately Z years ago, we would hypothesize the DNA of species Y to be at most Z * Q% different.4) Convergence of Evidence - If we were to hypothesize that there is common descent between two species, we should find this hypothesis is supported by the genetic evidence, fossil evidence, AND morphological evidence, and that each provides strength and independent verification to the others. If macroevolution occurred, we would expect to find evidence supporting the aforementioned hypothesis, as well as each distinct area supporting the others. While this is only an extremely small and oversimplified part of the overwhelming evidence for macro evolution, providing independent and converging evidence that supports each hypothesis would be very strong evidence for macroevolution and therefore your premise, namely "there is no observable evidence for macroevolution" would be demonstrated to be false.(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
There is no Observable Evidence for Macroevolution

I am asking for observable evidence for macroevolution (i.e., molecules-to-man type evolution). I want actual evidence that I can observe, not evidence I have to except by faith. I do not want evidence of microevolution, but macroevolution. If there is no evidence for macroevolution, then it cannot be considered science because science is a system of knowledge based on observations and experimentation.
Abortion should illegal

For the sake of clarity, I'm using "personhood" and "human being or individual with moral status" interchangeably. I define both as having all the fundamental rights of another citizen in your respective country. Abortion should be illegal for the same reason that murder is illegal. We are all endowed with natural rights including (1) the right to life, (2) liberty and (3) property. But rights are not inherent within individuals, rights are responsibilities. My right to speech is your responsibility to allow me to speak freely in public. In the same way, the right to life is the responsibility of all the individuals not to kill. This is a basic social contract that we all share as human beings that is codified into our legal system. This is also why we have the responsibility not to kill an unborn child. Some might argue that a fetus is not a human being. But it is impossible to provide a standard that determines when a baby reaches personhood or not. For example, let's say I were to make the claim that after X amount of time or X amount of days a fetus reaches moral status. Does that mean at time X minus 1 second or X minus 1 hour the fetus is not a person? This is not a valid argument to make, that today a fetus is my child and 10 seconds ago that same fetus is just an organism that has the same moral status as a plant. As a result, it is impossible to have any standard that specifically states when a fetus reaches personhood without using some arbitrary moral standards regarding life. Here's a better way to look at the abortion debate. Rather than inductively trying to find a line as to when personhood begins, we can work deductively from an established premise that we can all agree on. I am a person with moral status, my opponent is also a person with moral status. Since we can't draw a line in the sand for personhood from the moment of conception to our current state, then logically all instances of existence since conception we are an entity endowed with moral status. Unless my opponents wants to make the claim that he has an arbitrary standard for personhood that allows him or her to murder other individuals through mob rule, I believe we can both agree that a fetus is a being with moral status. Therefore fetuses have the right to live like all human beings. This right is just like any other right, all members of society must adopt the responsibility of allowing a fetus to live and this must be codified into a legal system to be enforced by the government. In short, abortion should be illegal. Thank you Bryan for accepting this debate. I look forward to your rebuttals.
Hitler was one of, if not, the most evil being in history

The actions of the English and Danish empires have resulted in more suffering, oppression, massacres, rapes, etc, than any death Hitler took. England and Denmark had slavery, and have always been way more snobby too. lol Jim Crow came from the English. And oppression of blacks in the America is not over, just that now instead of blacks being lynched and openly harassed, many unfortunately live in the tragedy known as housing projects, as pioneered by racists such as Lyndon Johnson. Abraham Lincoln also led vicious wars against the Sioux people. Then you have Danish atrocities against the Inuits in Greenland. To call Hitler the most evil is a massive mistake.