BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should use half of the US military's budget towards space exploration & technology

The more counties agree to the no aggression/peace pact, the more whoever secretly builds nuclear weapons, or a large army will, stand to gain. You cannot have an entire earth of peacefully nations because the massive benefit from attacking your now unarmed neighbors will be irresistible. It would be nigh impossible to get all counties to let go of their nuclear weapons, and many militaristic countries are not trusting of the United States. Counties such as Russia already have very strong nuclear deterrent, and will not hesitate to fight against unarmed, weaker nations. You will still need to militarise and the USA is the current world leader, changing it may catastrophic.
We should use half of the US military's budget towards space exploration & technology

We could convince other allies to help, and in return pay with money or other ways. Its all about diplomacy. We could share military powers with a trusted country such as Canada. If we join forces with other allies, it'll reduce the chances of nuclear war. And being peaceful will give other countries no reason to create more warheads. Any countries that oppose the idea of peacefulness and keep creating a military power, (warheads & etc) then we can stop them with either force, or diplomacy. Then we can work together as a nation to work towards technology advancements and space exploration with other allies and countries.
We should use half of the US military's budget towards space exploration & technology

It will indeed be a step forward for humanity, however, this is untenable. The United States of America is the primary "police" country. If the USA were to simply stop and remain neutral and peaceful, many countries would become embroiled on conflict. One likely would be Russia and the Baltic States. We cannot stand down, now that the US is the leading world power. Many countries are dependant on the USA for military protection, and we cannot justify abandoning them, and potentially risking nuclear war.
We should use half of the US military's budget towards space exploration & technology

I believe in this mainly because they are more important to us than military. If we strive in space exploration, and technology, it'll be a step foward in human achievement and discovery. You might think that we have some tensions right now with other countries, but we can prevent war from happening as well as tensions by being peaceful. Who knows? Maybe if we do this, we could be working with Russia in the next few dozen years. And of course, be in an exoplanet that is starting to be colonized or explored. Om the technology side, we could fund projects that could have a huge impact in maybe the medical field, society, etc. Overall, I think this will have a huge impact to the tensions we have with other countries. Instead of tensions, we will be working with them to explore the stars, and fund projects that will impact our life. Lastly, I hope whoever accepts the debate good luck! I want this debate to not be too serious, just more interesting. :D
The Universe is a Collective Conciousness.

Hi there @Ralph! Well, This sounds interesting. My question is, Are you exactly referring to things that exist, Or things that are conscious? Just for further clarification so I will not get off topic. Okay, I laughingly see your point. However, There are existences who do not have physical properties. For instance, Time, Time does not have actual physical properties, Yet it exists. Interestingly, Everyone says that particles have always existed, Yet that cannot really be proven, So that is a hypothetical. I agree that consciousness has always existed, Since the advent of humans and our world as we know it. The universe is made from particles. Here is a question for you, That actually cuts to the heart of your whole debate point. There are particles that exist without consciousnesses, Such as subatomic particles which only react to charge from magnets and other properties. These particles are not conscious in any sense of the word, Yet they are still particles, Are they not? Consciousness is a physical property as we know it, But there are things that exist without physical (conscious) properties. The universe is a collective consciousness: actually no, That is not true. I think this is what we will end up debating here. The thought of collective consciousness incites the idea that we are all basically on earth for the same reason and that we all "collectively" share the same idea, Concepts, Lifestyles, Beliefs, Attitudes, Knowledge, And other "concepts". Physical things are things that exist and can be physically seen in some facet or form. Physical properties do not have to be alive, Walking around, Or have organs to be "physical". Gamma radiation is a physical property because it can be physically seen in facet and form and can be demonstrated. Yet, Gamma radiation is not composed of particles, Just a product of particles. So, There is at least one thing that does not contain particles that exists. Gamma rays may be emitted by particles, But these rays are not composed of particles themselves. It is actually hard to. . . Argue with this debate, As just about everything you said is scientifically accurate. You are on the better, Winning side, At least I think. However, Even scientists are not exactly sure about certain aspects, Such as in the publication of the American Journal of Physics, Which tells that there are no particles, Only Fields. This article presents the fact that there is overwhelming grounds to conclude that the fundamental constituents of quantum physics are fields rather than particles. Quanta that we constantly refer to as particles are actually unified bundles of field universally. From that information @Ralph, You would be better saying that nothing exists without fields. . . Rather than particles. . . Or including both in your analogy. Your floor.
The Universe is a Collective Conciousness.

First off. This is not a tentative belief of mine, But rather a hypothetical argument. Here are my supporting arguments. P1) Everything that is known has physical properties. P2) Consciousness Exists. C1) Consciousness is a physical property. P3) Nothing known to exist has ever been known not to exist. P4) Consciousness exists. C2) Consciousness always existed. P5) Consciousness is a physical property. P6) All physical properties come from particles. C3) Consciousness must be part of particles. P7) Conscious beings experience a singular consciousness. P8) Conscious beings consists of many particles C4) Particles can share consciousness. P9) Particles can share consciousness P10) The universe is made from particles. C5) The universe is a collective consciousness.
The Universe is a Collective Conciousness.

Indeed. Let us close it out. So on the bacteria thing. I understand that they don't have the same dictionary definition, But that bacteria is made of a bunch of particles. In fact, Near as I can tell. Particles and any smaller parts derived from them are the only things that exists at all. I'm serious. I've been categorically going through and figuring out which physics terms describes physical things and which ones only describes abstracts. Once you pull everything else out, It's all just particles. Now don't get me wrong. There's more than one type of particles. So I ask. If everything in the universe is made from the same materials, How do we know they don't have the same properties as us? There's no way to know if a rock is conscious. It could feel everything we do and never move. Trying to mathematically figure out what happens to a person's consciousness when they day is as difficult as trying to prove infinity in the real would. They can't say it blinks out of existence. That would be something that has never before happened in science, So there's not evidence for it. I'm not saying it's a good hypothesis. I'm just saying it's the best one I've came across.
The Universe is a Collective Conciousness.

Well, To your point, Hypothetically, In a fictional fairy-tale world, Some particles could be alive. However, This is like the movie, Juvenile as it is, "Horton hears a who. " There is life in the dust particle! I will say to your analogy about the rock, That if a rock got up and walked off after being touched by a human, That human would crap all over himself. Now, This is very odd, Because scientists have been studying particles for quite a while, Yet they have not found life in them as of yet. To your point about humans being more than one life, Yes, The human is more than one life, But in the human are not more "particles" in that sense of the word, But bacteria, And micro-organisms, Not your average particle. Even the definition of particle versus bacteria/organism is much different, See here from Merriam Webster: Organism: a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole bacteria: any. . . Microorganisms that typically live in soil, Water, Organic matter, Or the bodies of plants and animals, That make their own food especially from sunlight or are saprophytic or parasitic, And include many important pathogens Particle: any of the basic units of matter and energy (such as a molecule, Atom, Proton, Electron, Or photon). The point is, Particle is not the correct word to describe what you are after. I think you are right though, Man, We covered a heck of a lot of ground in a couple debate posts. Really good debate though!
I can and I will out insult anyone

Basic fundamental in a debate: You can't change the resolution in the middle of the debate.Pro's resolution is "I can and I will out insult anyone". He argues this is a flame war, which he never pointed out in the first round. If the flame war was the case the resolution would be "Flame war; who can insult the other the best" but that's not the title.Pro is failing to uphold his BoP. I'm still alive. He hasn't confirmed the resolution stated in round 1 ""I am able to come out of my house and damage your bodily tissue" I'm still alive.In fact, I don't even feel insulted. I find this hilarious!! :D The only person who should feel insulted is Pro. He feels insulted because I don't understand his contemptible so called "arguments". Pro is failing miserable at this debate, because;
I can and I will out insult anyone

Oh my fuuck on a stick! A bitch accepted my challenge . I came running, as fast as my virtual legs would carry me, only to be disappointed like this . Read here you swollen wh0re . This is not a debate where you work out your critical thinking muscles, and score some points by pointing out your opponent's use of logical fallacies . This is WAR! Flame war : heated argument between two individuals, that results in those involved posting personal attacks on each other during or instead of debating the topic at hand. Your ' retaliation ' is contrary to the aforementioned definition . " I unsure how you would have a lump on your skull or head? I mean, your skull and brain would be in pieces, not a lump. Pro again, makes himself a fool by not knowing this basic fundamental. " Do you even know what qualifies as an insult ? No ? That's why you are a first grade moron, who takes everything literally . It doesn't really take an intellectual to realize that that statement was not meant to be understood literally. Stop selling your vagina in exchange for airtime and learn the difference between literal and figurative language, you cheap whOre . I've had to keep things simple for you thus far, but even simplicity escapes you. The fact that when you sit your breasts touch your knees is already known to us but what are you attempting at this arcade at which you are dismissing the fact that you are inadequate and industrially semoherical ? and at the stage of phoerrateria abolishing the establishment of incoherent attempts to direct yourself to the placedoishie that's assembled in your brain cell membrane to utilize the abhorrent injection of common sense that is at a level to which you cannot fathom , in either way banked against monotonous deranged nausectomy which slaps you every time you plan on making an incompetent attempt to prove a matter that is redundant in ephot oagainst aresiaxial momots clouded by the ephesus of futile conclusions which is remotely as stupid as you are in this moronic equation, just to abolish the chapter of this rebuttal. You're demolishing the purpose of your existence using two hands hence you should be out there fighting for PROSTITUTION rights with your mother, not trying to faze me in a flame war . I know the latter paragraph left confused as fuhk but that's okay . Well, whilst you hit your head against a rock trying to think of a counter, I'll be shaving your hairy vagina, hope it won't break the hair shaver .
I can and I will out insult anyone

First, lets define some definitions; [1] Can- be able to. [2] Will- expressing the future tense. [3]Out- moving or appearing to move away from a particular place, especially one that is enclosed or hidden. [4]Insult- an event or occurrence that causes damage to a tissue or organ [5] Anyone- any person or people. Provided by the definitions, Pro is trying to make this statement "I am able to come out of my house and damage your bodily tissue" Pro makes a statement, in order to make his statement true, he must prove he *can* do this to me. After the 4th round, if I'm dead, I have won. Pro states "Son, I'm going to smash you into oblivion, leaving you conflagrated into nothing but dust and ash to trample on, because you're an arsehole with sh1tty brains . Your " intelligence " peaks below that of a domestic turkey, which happens to be the dumbest animal to ever roam planet earth . " First off, if anyone has a sh*tty brain, its you :) We know this because Pro lacks proper grammar skills and is unable to spell correctly. Pro is simply a hypocrite. He talks big, but yet, he's really making the fool out of himself. Pro states " And, perhaps the best way to lure everyone into a belief that you have a proper brain is if you bash your head against a pavement, till you grow a lump which will make people to actually think you've got SOMETHING in your skull . " I unsure how you would have a lump on your skull or head? I mean, your skull and brain would be in pieces, not a lump. Pro again, makes himself a fool by not knowing this basic fundamental. Pro states "And, so if you would like a size ten boot shoved up your anus ,accept this challenge . However, I will not put up with pathetic rants, like my previous opponent . Either type something worth reading or simply crawl back to the vagina that vomited you out, and play with other embryos stuck inside your mothers hole . " I accepted. Does this mean you will shove a boot up my a**? If so, you have the BoP to show this is true. If not, you loose. Good luck! Sources; [1] . https://www.google.com... [2] . https://www.google.com... [3] . https://www.google.com... [4] . https://www.google.com... [4]. https://www.google.com...
I can and I will out insult anyone

I'm going to insert my steel cap far up your asss, it will eventually protrude out of your ears, until you seek refuge under your mothers dress , to the amusement of all possible readers of this flame war . Son, I'm going to smash you into oblivion, leaving you conflagrated into nothing but dust and ash to trample on, because you're an arsehole with sh1tty brains . Your " intelligence " peaks below that of a domestic turkey, which happens to be the dumbest animal to ever roam planet earth . And, perhaps the best way to lure everyone into a belief that you have a proper brain is if you bash your head against a pavement, till you grow a lump which will make people to actually think you've got SOMETHING in your skull . And, so if you would like a size ten boot shoved up your anus ,accept this challenge . However, I will not put up with pathetic rants, like my previous opponent . Either type something worth reading or simply crawl back to the vagina that vomited you out, and play with other embryos stuck inside your mothers hole . Retaliate as you have already accepted .
Possessive Impulse vs Creative Impulse

to pursue materialistic success. Creative Impulse-Impulse that relies on the compassionate qualities that cause humans to share and pursue the benefits for the society at whole. This debate will focus on the two impulses Bertrand Russell explicates in his book Political Ideals. Russel makes claims about how the possessive impulse has affectively abased our physical labour force, and that the progress made by Capitalistic societies is abrogated by the work conditions and destitutions of the middle class. In this debate, Pro will be defending the possessive impulse, and specify the many advantages a society is capable of gaining if the possessive impulse was an impulse embraced by all. My adversary will defend the creative impulse, and form claims of the benefits the creative impulse bestows society.
Divergent is WAY better than the Hunger Games

All I have to say is that based on facts and reports, Hunger Games is better than Divergent. As far as the Christianity aspect, it is there in the movie and my opponent even agrees that Christians do what they believe in. Which as i stated is what Katniss does in the movie. Due to my earlier arguments going un answered I would have to say that the Hunger Games is better than Divergent.
Divergent is WAY better than the Hunger Games

Does sales really matter? In the modern world people are going to be drawn to things that are evil, and don't have anything to do with God. We are so lost that we don't look at the good qualities of movies. Like God. We look at Christians and say "Ew. He's not cool! He is a Christian." So again, I'm not sure if sales matter. If we just look at the violent and evil qualities then of course there is only going to be bad things in the movies we see today!
Divergent is WAY better than the Hunger Games

Divergent is better than the Hunger Games because it has some Christianity and shows that it's okay to be different and stand up for yourselves. While the Hunger Games has no Christianity in it and shows that you have to fight it out every time. The characters do have hope but it really doesn't mean anything. what are they hoping for? that someday they will be happy? hope comes from God, and God only. If they were Christians then they would already be happy. They might be struggling but they wouldn't be completely lost.
Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Stormcloak Rebellion (Con) VS Imperial Legion (Pro)

I apologize for my lack of response, as I was at a convention for the weekend. Regardeless, I will continue with my closing. The real question behind each side is where will the path of that faction lead. As the instigator mentioned, the Argonians have both seceded and attacked without the Empire intervening, due to the Great War, but what is to say that the Argonians will not attack other locations too? The Empire could at least bring unity after it defeats the Thalmor (which it can with the Dragonborn) and prevent this occurring again. The Stormcloaks will still have to deal with the Thalmor, only with a smaller army, as well as the threat of the Forsworn's return and the still existant dragon problem. Even with Dragonborn's help, war will continue under such a self absorbed leader such as Ulfric, rather than the Emperor who only surrendered to the Thalmor because he knew victory would come at a cost. I thank you for your participation and patience in this debate, and may Talos favor the best debater.
Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Stormcloak Rebellion (Con) VS Imperial Legion (Pro)

As my opponent has pointed out at the beginning of his last argument, Jarl Ulfric is racist and he does mistreat the other races of his city. Jarl Ulfric is a just man, however, because he will give a chance for any outsider or non-nord race to prove their honor and gain his trust, as he does with the Dragonborn. This also means not all holds will mistreat races because not every noble nord is racist and agrees with Skyrim's racism. The Helgen incident is an example of how the Empire's system is failing. Yes, it was the execution of Jarl Ulfric and anyone Stormcloak was to executed for their "treason. " However, Jarl Ulfric was suppose to go the Cyrodiil to probably be trailed but General Tulius decided to take matters to his own hands and see to it that Jarl Ulfric was executed personally. Actually, he probably disobeyed the Empire because the Thalmor told him to do so, which tells us that General Tulius probably can't do anything without the Thalmor's consent. Another proof of this example is the fact when the Dragonborn is trying to make a temporary peace treaty between the Empire and the Stormcloaks, General Tulius showed up with a representative of the Thalmor and the Altmer wasn't even suppose to be part of the meeting. I would also like to point out the fact that the Empire is weakening anyways. Tamerial was united during the Oblivion crisis until the Thalmor saw the chance and seize power of the Empire, basically usurping it. Also, The Black Marsh and Eslwyr successfully seceded from the Empire and the Empire failed to keep them part of them. Then the Argonians of the Black Marsh attacked Morrowind and the Empire was unable to help protect their province, which forced many Dunmer to become refugees, even among Skyrim, and are forced to live in slums. The fact that they are even fighting the Rebellion could be a desperation to keep control or is the will of Thalmor because the nords want to bring Talos worshipping back.
Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Stormcloak Rebellion (Con) VS Imperial Legion (Pro)

I will accept the role of Imperial Defender with honor and integrity as requested by my opponent. You see, my fur clad foe, it is true that Ulfric may be doing what he feels is right, but the road to Oblivion is paved with good intentions. Ulfric has forgotten that while under Imperial "oppression", he oppressed and attacked the native Forsworn, and mistreats any non-nords who dwell in his city. I have fought both paths, and I have come to the arcane revelation that Jarl Ulfric has been speaking through his dwarven convector. He makes speeches on so many occasions it almost seems rehearsed, and most of his side of the war is his soldiers attempting to justify the atrocities they have committed during the battle for Whiterun. In fact, the imperial end of the war ends with General Tulius deciding to break free from Thalmor control. My final reasoning for this round is from Lokir the horse thief from Rorikstead. He testifies that the Empire was lenient until Ulfic's uprising, which means that Talos worshippers only began suffering when the rebellion began. This counterproductive action has only led to suffering and death in Skyrim, and also in the event of his victory, leads to the entire Thalmor army marching on Skyrim, now dependent on its Dragonborn to defend. On the other side of the field, the Empire may seem to be malevolent at first, as you are given a poor impression of them upon arrival. However, without Ulfric's intervention, they did not require investigations upon Talos supporters, and many leading figures are true nords in behavior, including the High Queen herself and Tulius' second in command. With this reasoning, I find the Empire to be the preferable side in the uncivil war that a self obsessed Jarl with a power fantasy and an excuse. I will now hide my amulet of Talos and promptly ask the instigator to return with his response.