BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A breakdown in communication create segregation within our existence creators name.

One of the greatest gifts you can ever bestow upon another. If someone is in the need, lend them a hand. Do not wait for a thank you. True kindness lies within the act of giving without the expectation of something in return. My dear friend of segregation, I was going to consider that you know more than anyone else on the planet. Marilyn Vos Savant was born in 1946 in Missouri. In 1986 the columnist and author made history when she was named in The Guinness Book of World Records as the person possessing the highest IQ, with a reported score of 228. It must be awful knowing that your name hasn't the recognition that it justly deserves. So on a parting gesture, A breakdown in communication create segregation within our existence creators name. All I can say is be careful what comes out of one's own mouth as of course, you might just have to eat them. As to eat one's own hat or to eat crow. Peace be with you and for the sake of any misconceptions praise and glory belong to our existence creator. whatever be that name.
A breakdown in communication create segregation within our existence creators name.

Bananas are still weapons of mass destruction. What is it with this no no no but a bunch of bananas. Speak sense lad. Meditation is supposably ascension used by the Zen Buddhist meditation towards ascension ascending into a supposed state of YOLO and come back as whatever you have ascended into for your next life here on this rock. If you think that meditation leads to a life within the heavens well who knows you could be onto something and maybe awareness is a key for the key to the tree of knowledge that we should have left alone, to begin with. Are children aware are the meek aware is anyone aware? Well, I don't think that being aware helps much it seems to get us into more trouble then it is worth. As ignorance is bliss and arrogance is but ahead ache away. So be it awareness is grasping for bananas instead of straws. What can you see if you are aware are you a witness to a greater power then the likes of this rock hurtling through space at the rate of knots. Can you meditate with your eyes wide open? While the masses scream I'm hungry and cold. Action speaks louder than words. Maybe we could feed them bananas, but most likely as that are shaped like a banana they would only come back upon us and give us all a good old forehead slap and maybe even a slap up the back of the head while another hits us on one side of the face while another slaps us upon the other just as we should have done upon ourselves, to begin with as we are supposable aware as awareness seems to be wearing its self out.
A breakdown in communication create segregation within our existence creators name.

you know those type of things when nature is one of the closest ways of describing what created life but than you messed up anyways when you say that the word nature is the closest because of the fact that the closest word for the creator of the universe is actually awareness?? no?? no?? because universal consciousness is the thing that created life and this is why you become a spiritual master when you meditate, when you meditate you are aware of every thought that can be in your awareness while your aware of life in front of you to no?? no?? awareness is the creator because its the dead end of life, if its not the dead end of life than how come your awareness never dies and it stays in the present while thoughts go by?? when you die your still aware because there is an afterlife no?? no?? i know you know these type of things you know those type of things when Jesus Christ isn't the only son of god because you seem like your aware of how language works like me so you should see that the word god came from the Germanic language and it means to invoke on the source or call on while the genesis chapter in the bible is called "GENESIS" while genesis means source no?? no?? this means that gods are co creators and universal participators like Jesus Christ which is why Jesus Christ was trying to teach people to meditate so that they become spiritual masters like him and become a god like him no?? no?? now the word god means to invoke on the source so what do they mean about this?? it means they are calling on "THE SOURCE" which is universal awareness that controls reality so when you call on this source you can do magic no?? no?? you don't SEEEEEEEE!!!??? HAHAHAHAHAHA >> XD << and you know those type of things when to correct you with the name of Jesus Christ his name is not Jesus Christ its Yahshua while the letter J didn't exist when he was around and let me tell you something about this Jesus Christ your talking about, he's just a prophet he's not the only son of god WUUUUUHHTTT!!! HOW!!! if universal consciousness is a so called father or mother while being a mother is the closest thing because the mom carries the baby and gives it the birth so if life is the son of god than how is Jesus Christ the only son of god if universal consciousness gave birth to life?? life is the son of god while we are all composed of awareness or consciousness no?? no?? no?? HAHAHAHAHAHA >>> XD <<<
A breakdown in communication create segregation within our existence creators name.

Let us consider how many names our existence creator has? I have been trying the word Nature seems to fit. Well, I am sorry but one is enough for me and it goes our existence creator. Convince me different please apart from saying the same in another language as I would like to hear and see them. http://mentalfloss.com... So many say that Jesus is our existence creator but I beg to differ and be sure of it so does he. "If Jesus said "No one is good but father alone"Where does the word father come from as this was over 2000 years ago and we have come a long way with literature. http://www.answers.com...
Donald Trump is a bad president

If in fact he had oppressed these rights, Why would he remain in office? If he had revoked and ruined these basic rights he should have been impeached immediately. There is an entire country watching his every move. Some of these people criticize his every move, Others praise all of his deeds. The first mentioned people look at him biasedly and let their personal opinion sway their decision. Actually, On seocnd thought both do. Long story short I don't think that either is right. Not everything he has done is either good or bad. I would argue that he tends to make more mistakes then right choices, But he is not terrible. He is not the best. He is mediocre.
A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

Ah. Closing argument. My opponent is exploiting the smallest, trivial flaws within my argument and blowing it way out of proportion. My opponent has been constantly creating hypothetical situations and, in a real world situation, has been posing questions on the justification of the punishments. My definition of a just society is not proved by the analogy, but applied to the analogy of the grocery store. We need to backtrack on the definition department. Again, A just society is a group of individuals living in a community that are guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness. It does not necessarily mean it serves it perfectly. It is guided by it. Hypothetically, it can't make a pinpoint decision because IT CAN'T MEASURE. And through reason, and not the barbaric "eye for and eye", it can be concluded that less punishment, not excessive means, is more reasonable. My analogies were to prove this point, and the point of the analogy is to describe the impact, consideration, and consequences of a smaller act in comparison to one that is even more unmeasurable. Creating an analogy that is directly proportional or even exponentially greater in proportions is highly unreasonable and mundane. In his counter argument, he is again using another hypothetical situation- in this case an utopia. Of course a just society still has laws, it is one that serves justice, not one that doesn't need to serve justice. My analogy to the United States was not to prove the United States, but to prove the situation and how it applies to this subject. The US was created in response to unfair treatment. My opponent is trying to counter my argument by relating the subject of my analogy to the ongoing events the nation is involved in. He is straying from the topic at hand. My argument is far from narrow, and my opponent failed to rebuttal the justification of the death penalty. He pointed out my weaknesses, and did not attack my strong points. Hard-hitting morality is what he missed. My point on vengeance is unaddressed and instead he decides to make attack after attack on my use of analogies and its application to the resolution. My argument in this debate is completely relevant. Capability and guidance are two different things. In a just society, there is a guide, but no answer. Death and murder are unmeasurable, it is incalculable. Less is better than more, in this case. All these arguments are justifiable, but my opponent points out any small flaw. No ideology has a perfect basis. Still, he failed to attack the motive behind DP- vengeance. Because of this major gap, he failed to make a finished feel on his argument. In conclusion, the lack of consideration, the enormous availability for unmeasured circumstances, and many alternatives are just few of many solutions to this topic. My opponent did NOT refute every single point, but only touched the surface of my argument- analogies. I have justified every one of my arguments and most have stayed strong throughout the argument. Because of these reasons, I vote affirmative on the resolution. You should do the same.
Should I be allowed to develop a game in school that contains guns

I believe that schools should allow their students to design and develop games with violence that does not lead into the extremes such as intense blood and adult themes. But students should have the permissions to depict guns in their games, writings, and art. I know that in schools today, they are in heightened security mode when someone mentions the word 'gun'. But that is not the case in history classes where I see videos of WWII soldiers mowing each other down with machine guns. You would see dead bodies mutilated by gunfire in those films as well. Not just history, but in English and science classes too. In English class last year, I watched a movie called Romeo + Juliet, which is a remake of Romeo and Juliet but in a modern sense. It involves gangs with guns and people getting shot. That is another example of some places that are more hidden within schools and usually not made public. In science classes, the teacher in physics would talk about the recoil of a gun and all the forces about guns and other weapons. I don't see anyone complaining about that. A few years ago, in the seventh grade I watched The Last Samurai, a rated R movie. People were being shot in the movie as well. Gun talk is prevalent through schools and should be freely discussed because it already is behind closed classroom doors. It shouldn't really be much of a big deal to become more public about depicting guns. It is too much of a big deal in today's America to have this as a rule. In Canada, according to a friend who went to school there, the schools are more lax about talking about guns and they have almost no problems with gun violence. He often complains about why there are many school shootings in the US. I believe allowing talk about guns at schools is good for the community at reducing violence by bringing more awareness to the topic and allows more freedom of speech.
Our World Would Be Better Off Without Religion

My opponent claims that the benefits of religion outweigh the negative effects. However, I have some more negative effects to debate. 1. Religion makes a virtue out of faith in God In the past, when science was not advanced and the world seemed a confusing place, religion provided answers for those who asked. Now that science has developed an extreme amount and evidence-based facts take up territory once occupied by religion, traditional beliefs continuously tell their followers to block out the science and trust the Lord. Religion trains people to listen to what the Bible tells them, preventing them from having their own capacity to think. 2. Religion redirects generosity to support itself I'm sure our audience has seen one of those gigantic church campaigns that tell them to donate to their local chruch if they want to help the people recovering from the disasters of a hurricane. How does giving money to the church help the now homeless civilians? I'm still confused. Why not directly donate to a fundraiser supporting the actual disaster recovery program? Religious people are told to promote the church itself rather than the general welfare. 3. Religion teaches helplessness Why try to find a better way when you can simply pray to the Lord? He'll fix things. As a very young child, I prayed everyday in hope that the Lord would help me when I felt hopeless and distraught. I eventually learned to get up off my knees and find a way to help myself. Religion teaches its followers that disasters, death, and diseases come from the will of God rather than from natural causes or bad systems and decisions. As a result, believers wait for God to solve problems they could solve themselves. They are taught that these problems can be ignored as long as the believer is kind to others and believes in the Lord. This attitude harms society at large as well as individuals. Sometimes, we don"t recognize the strong connection between religion and resignation. 4. Religion helps its followers assume that THEIR religion is always right Most of our world"s major religions each assume that their faith alone is with no doubt the absolute truth and teach their followers to assume there is no way those traditions may be mistaken. Many religious persons have no problem understanding the irrationality of others' beliefs, but are unable to apply the same logic when observing their own. Instead, every effort is made to justify why it is their religion that is free of any plotholes. If they were to observe their own religion with the same set of scrutinizing eyes that they use when criticizing others' faiths, maybe they would understand what many of us have already concluded: all religious texts were written by people, not gods. They are the stories and traditions that humans, not holy beings, created in order to explain our world in the past.
Our World Would Be Better Off Without Religion

Just as a note, I would like to say that I believe in religious freedom. In no way am I saying that people should not be allowed to have their beliefs. It is only my opinion that we would be better off without religion. Our world would be so much more peaceful without the unnecessary conflicts religion has caused. To begin with, religion has instigated many wars in the past. Some religious persons just cannot seem to accept the fact that others do not have the same beliefs as them. They find it necessary to either change the beliefs of those who do not agree, or use other techniques, such as enslave them, or kill them, or torture them-and then kill them. I think it can be agreed that wars are not exactly peaceful. Wars involve many deaths and injuries, as well as huge amounts of money that need to be spent on weaponry, soldiers, and other supplies. For those who dream of world peace, let it be known that religion is definitely not helping. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org... Additionally, religion has been one of the most immense obstacles for LGBTQ+ equality. Homophobes and such use religion as the reason for why they cannot accept people who fall in love with the same gender. Religion, they say. God would not want them to fall in love. Love is not okay if it's same-sex love. They don't keep these ideas to themselves either. In the Holy Bible, it was stated that homosexuals were stoned to death. Imagine a world where the Bible claimed heterosexuality to be a crime. Christians probably wouldn't be using the Bible as their reasoning then. Homosexuals are claimed to be "Ungodly and sinful, unholy and irreligious" by the Bible. (Timothy 1:8-11). Had religion not existed, the LGBTQ+ community might've received their respect by now. Furthermore, many religions identity women as inferiors to men and even go as far as to state that it is totally fine to perform sexual intercourse on a woman without her consent, also known as rape. By the time of Jesus, women no longer had freedoms and status. Society had become very much male-dominated. Women were considered to be inferior beings and were assigned almost the same status as slaves. They were not educated, not allowed to take any leadership roles, and confined to domestic duties. As a female myself, I am infuriated by the fact that women were seen as such second-rate beings. Religion is one of the obstacles that has prevented women from realizing their full potential. In the Quran, women who have been raped actually need to have four male witnesses to get a trial. Since it is quite unlikely this will ever be the case, sexually assaulted women are simply identified as adulterers, and punished for their "crimes". This clearly supports the ideal we are teaching youngsters today about how it is not your fault if you get raped. Wearing suggestive clothing doesn't mean you're suggesting that you want to have sex.
Intelligent Design should be taught in mandatory education in the appropriate science classrooms.

We teach evolution not in the sense of it being "true," it is a theory. I agree it is falsifiable, defended by science and experimentation but "truth," isn't the purpose of pedagogy. Now I will make 3 arguments - First, ONLY teaching what the scientific, religious, or any other community holds to be true, to a certain degree, entrenches "group think." The purpose of a school is not to DEFINE for the students what is the "correct" way of viewing the world, but rather to expose students to useful knowledge. Considering only a fraction of students will enter into a scientific field, it is as important to teach science as it is to teach politics, history, and religion. Religion has as much sway on global politics, media, and financial institutions as evolution. Second, I will question what a "good theory" is. Just because a theory is capital T true doesn't mean we must follow it. ESPECIALLY in the case of education even if a theory is untrue, many times, pursuing it is worthwhile. As long as the theory teaches values conducive to society, is internally consistent, and holds up to the test of time, who cares if it is true or not? For example, evolution ultimately ends with us recognizing that there's no such thing as "conscious" choice. We have no ability to sway the world, it will unfold as it should. EVEN IF that is true, we shouldn't believe it to be true because that breeds laziness, fatalism, and irresponsibility. Third, you are "con" on the side of Intelligent Design "should" be taught in mandatory education. This complicates how the resolution is worded, but making normative statements about intelligent design is the same as many of the reasons you will produce as to why teaching it is bad. If we shouldn't legislate or teach morality - then let the schools decide themselves. Saying they should NOT be taught in science classrooms is in itself exclusionary.
Intelligent Design should be taught in mandatory education in the appropriate science classrooms.

Aristotle: scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained Merriam-webster: : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding Your definition of science is one way of looking at it. My definition is another way. The reason my definition is more predictable/better for THIS debate is that you'd be hard pressed to find on this forum or anywhere else someone who will actually defend that Intelligent Design is a SCIENCE class in the way you explained it. This is not a legitimate concern, this is not something people debate about. The only way this debate even makes sense is if we debate it from my side - Intelligent Design, the study of it and where it cam from is a type of knowledge that can be explained logically (however unpersuasive that logic is). Thus it is a "science," just not the subset of "natural science." As I joined this debate thinking that was the most predictable definition, then I think any judge MUST vote for the pro. Any other vote would be unfair and illegitimate. Back to the voting issues 1. Conduct - I'm not saying swearing doesn't matter but why is that a separate consideration? Have you ever thought about this: going into every single debate saying absolutely nothing and then just sounding really good. And winning EVERY OTHER ballot other than "convinced?" I think that is a terrible way to "judge" debates. 2. Spelling and Grammar - A. spelling/grammar does not equal "clear and concise" B. You cares if you're unclear but are still clear enough to win the debate? Having a separate section for this just pushes those who are not comfortable with English out of the activity. It's not just a question of "just say so," they won't be here in the first place. That's extremely exclusionary. 3. Who was more convincing - I'm not saying I find this irrelevant, just that it is the ONLY consideration. However I think separating "convincing from "who do you thin won," doesn't make sense. 4. Reliable sources - if someone "bsed the entire way through the debate" didn't use sources, then they will just LOSE the debate. they don't need a separate section to tell them that. If, however, someone used no sources but pointed out the opponents logical inconsistencies, does that mean they should lose a point? Heck no. My question for your last little "quote" thingy - do you not think you won this debate? This is fine...