BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Physics is not able to determine whether or not A or B theory is true.

Ugh, the formality is killing me. Speed run: 1. I used "universal present" because I thought "absolute time" would confuse some people. I apologize for being ambiguous in my terminology. 2. Space and time are scientific concepts, and they must be addressed as science if they are to be properly understood. Pro's claim that we are to use "pure logic and thought" to solve the problem is not just ridiculous, it is downright Aristotelian. This kind of methodology is how we got stuck with a Geocentric universe for over a millennium. 3. "It is also apparent that Con has not read the literature on the arguments." I also haven't read any Creationist literature, but am still qualified to say that the universe is more than 6,000 years old. If you know the facts, you don't need to read the fiction. 4. I don't care what "most A-/B-theorists" believe. They're not the ones having this debate, so they don't get a say in it. 5. "[Newton's Flaming Laser Sword, from now on abbreviated as NFLS] is viciously self-contradictory, for what experiment could possibly justify this principle?" Razors are not absolute statements about the nature of anything. They are heuristic tools that we use to sort the sensible arguments from the pointless ones. "That which cannot be decided by experiment is not worth debating." Debating the validity of this principle is an example of a pointless argument. "What about debates on politics, religion, ethics, or literature?" All are as pointless as debating whose favourite colour is cooler. "While I fail to see the relevance to the resolution..." I was making a point about how inadequate Philosophy is. 6. "It does not work with non-intertial reference frames, nor does it work on the quantum level." Neither of which are relevant, unless Pro can present a counter-argument involving them. "Therefore, it is only an approximation of physical reality, and is not strictly "true"." Given as we're working within that approximation, we'll regard it as "true" for the purposes of this debate. Unless, of course you wish to provide an example that only works with a "truer" theory. "For this reason, one cannot affirm a proposition to be false based on special relativity, but can only make the statement that if special relativity is true, then the proposition is false." Stop splitting hairs. This is a debate, not a Garnier commercial. 7. "At no point did I state that A or B theory could be empirically disproved." It doesn't actually matter. Despite being better with words, you're arguing an impossible position. A-theory is incompatible with Special Relativity, and Special Relativity is scientific fact. B-theory may or may not be incompatible as well. Either way, I've proved that Physics can determine that one or both of your "theories" is incorrect, and thus I have won the debate.
Stronger Gun Contol Laws

67% of Americans support an assault weapons ban. A mandatory waiting period to buy any firearm is supported strongly with 83%. So far, There has been no legislaton in favor of a ban on assault weapons even when more than half of Americans support the idea of keeping millitary-style assault weapons out of people"s hands. Assault weapons are categorized as such by states individually, What else could be done that would work other than banning assault weapons? Concealed Carry doesn"t work, The background check database does not work. What else is there to do than ban these weapons?
Stronger Gun Contol Laws

It is unfortunate that there are any school shootings, But the majority of shootings do not use assault style weapons. Using data from 2018, There have been 30 school shootings. Of these I can identify three that used assault style weapons, The rest were mostly handguns, And some shotguns. The second largest shooting of 2018, The Santa Fe High School shooting ended with ten deaths, And thirteen injuries. This shooting was carried out using a revolver, And a shotguns, Both of which would require a reload, And still was still very deadly. It does not take an assault style weapon to have a deadly toll, Any weapon can suffice. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting was more deadly with seventeen injuries, And seventeen deaths, And did use an assault weapon, Though the majority do not. Banning assault weapons may have reduced the school shootings in 2018 by three, Though that is assuming that the shooter would not be able to find an alternate weapon.
Stronger Gun Contol Laws

There was a ban on assault weapons from 1994-2004 and during that time were linked to less injuries by mass shootings. Background checks, Concealed carry laws, Called "nibbles around the edges, " do not curb mass shootings as a whole. They are ineffective and pointless. When the ban was in effect for 10 years, The number of school shooting victims was 54% less than when the ban was not in effect. So, How would a ban not help curb mass shootings that leave people scared to leave their house, Or go to school?
Stronger Gun Contol Laws

Banning assault rifles is not the answer to school shootings. A quick review of the worst school massacres in the world shows Russia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, And Kenya as having the greatest casualty counts. What is similar between the top five countries with casualties? Restrictive gun laws. The worst school massacre in the United States took place in 1927, Before the invention of so called assault rifles. Banning a rifle based on their look, Or an emotional reaction will not stop school massacres as it has not helped in the aforementioned incidents.
Stronger Gun Contol Laws

Over the past few years, Mass shootings have become all too common in American conversations. When a mass shooting happens, People often offer prayers for all involved and blah, Blah, Blah. This issue is deeper than a simple prayer; legislative action is not being done. What needs to happpen is a ban on asssault-style weapons categorized efficently by the government. For example, Australia took action immediately. What i want to know is who is challenging me, What do you think needs to be done?
why emos should be kicked in the nuts

to change a point care and love can only be givin to those who want it. an emo does not want it he wants every useless, lame-ducked, human being who like you seem to see through rose colored glasses at an issue like this. emos desurve punishment for leading us into a world where Goths and morbid people are seen as emos! who can sand for this but an emo, who cares not for others? I say down with emos and if they want to wine about their pointless lives they can kill themselves!
why emos should be kicked in the nuts

Really what you believe doesnt make it right. It doesnt matter whether whining solves anything because that doesnt mean you can kick them in the nuts. "at times in my life ive had my as* kicked and every single time i learned from it."- GAO You know what its cool if thats the way you learn but people that are deeply depressed need attetion and care, they dont deserve to be physicaly harrassed! " its not my fault you dont get it cuz your a pansy humanist weenie"- GAO Thats really immature and an ignorrant thing to say. Poor debating on your part my friend. I conclude that this debate is pointless as my debatee is."Emos" do not deserve to get kicked in the nuts.
why emos should be kicked in the nuts

Really this is a sorry view to have. "Emos" do not deserve to get kicked in the "nuts" just because they are unhappy with their lives and project it in a less than normal way. Just because they are different does not give anyone the right to "kick" them or hurt them in anyway. "because they whine all the time and it pisses me off."- GAO Well honestly if it upsets you that much, move away from your local "emos". They have a right to whine but you dont have the right to assualt them physically or emotionally. I must admit i dont find the whole "emo" fad great but people will do what they want and i cant stop them and i certainly try by kicking someone in the scrotum.
The asian culture is over-rated.

Thank you for this very odd topic. I would like to first begin by giving my thoughts, and then the general debate. /Notes/ PRO's case is based purely on slang terms, and for this reason, I will use UrbanDictionary as a source, as well as define all terms for clarification as PRO did not. /End Notes/ :: DEFINITIONS/SOURCES :: Overrated - Anything that is given too much credit and hype. (http://www.urbandictionary.com...) Asian teeny bopper - Asian people (usually males in their teens) who try to act cool by doing things such as smoking, dancing, and acting in a very asian gangster way. (http://www.urbandictionary.com...) Culture - The totality of communication practices and systems of meaning; a whole way of life of a people; the social production and reproduction of sense, meaning and consciousness. Culture does not express the way of life of a people, it actively shapes up that way of life. (http://www.urbandictionary.com...) :: OVERVIEW :: For the purpose of this debate having one round, and so much character space, I will attack each and every argumentative word of the PRO's case. "I personally believe that the Asian culture is over-rated." This shows that the PRO's opinion is taken into play. By referring to 'Asian culture', PRO has opened the culture of the largest continent into play. The definition, however, of 'Asian teeny bopper', is related to East Asian culture, according to 'How to be an Asian Teeny Bopper' by mychonny on youtube.com. Opening sentence is a opinion, in which no evidence or facts are provided. I have established a foundation from this, however. "1: In the malls, and in teen "hot-spots", you see 'asian teeny boppers' [MyChonny]." 'Asian teeny bopper' has recieved 53 votes on UrbanDictionary, declaring it not to be overrated when compared to 'overrated' things like MySpace. [UrbanDictionary] By using the foundation provided earlier, it is obvious that the PRO thinks that 'Asian teeny boppers' are overrated; and I will refute just that. :: ATTACK :: Contention 1[Argument to PRO's Contention]: Asian culture has not been given mass amounts of hype. I will use a very brief example for this contention. When have you ever walked into a coffee shop and groaned because, for the 3rd time, the shop was celebrating Asian-Pacific Islander Heritage Month? I do not believe many times. It is in our society these days, that many things go unnoticed. In K-12 education, Black History month is greatly celebrated, however, there is no sign of Asian appreciation in schools. Yellow On The Outside, Shame On The Inside: Asian Culture Revealed, an internationally-acclaimed e-book, by Anson Chi, a retired American politician and professor, shows how the Asian culture has not been given enough attention and attempts to answer popular questions about the Asian culture. So in conclusion, I believe that Asian teeny boppers, having 53 hits on UrbanDictionary, is not overrated. // As for the burden of argument, proving whether the ASIAN CULTURE is overrated or not, I believe I have won this debate. // I am quite disappointed that PRO did not write more. Please vote in favor of CON.
Mac Computers Good or bad

1. I would challenge the statement that Macs sacrifice productivity for looks. In fact, the productivity of the Mac is enhance because the user is able to work without the computer getting in the way. Intuitive interfaces allow the user to accomplish tasks quickly without distraction. Good looks are not a liability. In fact, Windows Vista essentially has tried to emulate the appearance of OSX. 2. It is true that no operating system is immune to viruses. However, the absence of viruses on the Mac stems from much more that the larger installed PC base. The Mac OS operating system is inherently more secure because it was built in the era of computer viruses. Windows was conceived before viruses became the major threat that they are now, and has been playing catchup all along. A great example is first release of Windows XP, which came installed with the firewall disabled by default, guaranteeing that any machine turned on and connected to the Internet would become infested with viruses and worms within hours. 3. I run OS X TIger with ALL of its features on Macs dating to 2000. I think that no one could state legitimately that Windows Vista would run on a PC from 2000, even with all of its eye candy turned off. 4. There is absolutely no shortage of software to run on the Mac. Saying so is one of the most misleading statements that PC users have been making for years. For highly specialized software that is PC only, the Mac offers the best of both worlds: running Windows as a virtual machine. 5. Macs are far superior to PC's as machines for the average consumer. While the tech-saavy user can build a custom PC, the vast majority of users have no interest in such an endeavor. Macs simply work.
Mac Computers Good or bad

Macs are better than PC's because: 1. I would disagree that it was more user friendly, rather, it looks better. Macs sacrifice productivity for looks, which doesn't do well when a great deal of computers are used for real work. OSX is a network administrators nightmare. 2. The only reason why viruses are not a problem is because OSX is not popular enough for people to worry about writing viruses for it. This simply reiterates the fact that PC's are more popular. 3. Really, will OSx work on the apple II? What about the older computers? I'm going to think that's a no. For the mac computers, you would have to buy a whole new computer to upgrade it to be OSX compatible. For the PC's, you can easily upgrade for a much cheaper price than you could for the mac. 4. The PC allows users to choose exactly what they want. PC's are about the freedom of choice, while macs are about doing what you are told. The famous 1984 mac commercial is ironic, considering for macs, you must do exactly as you are told as far as what hardware to get, where to buy it from, ETC ETC. The PC's are fully customizable, from the ability to decide what you want and what price you should use for the software, to deciding exactly what hardware you need. For people who have any knowledge of computers, PC's are clearly superior. 5. Software for the PC is not generally very buggy. Third party software can, sometimes, be buggy- however, mac's lack this simply because it lacks a great deal of third party software. 6. Hardware and software sometimes do have issues, but this is a hidden good. The hardware on a PC is fully upgradable, changeable, ETC. You can easily find third party software, as well as other software you might want. 7. PC's can set up Virtual Machines as well, there are ways to duel boot /VM into OSX, All of the linux kernels, and all of the windows operating systems, DOS, etc etc. 8. However it still exists and is noticeable, especially when you compare building your own PC to buying your own mac.
Mac Computers Good or bad

Macs are better than PC's because: 1. The operating system is far more user friendly. 2. Viruses are not a worry on the Mac operating system. 3. The Mac operating system will run equally well on all current Macs, whereas Vista only will run with all its features on the highest-end computers. 4. The Mac operating system has only one version (with all features). The Vista operating system comes with a confusing choice of versions. The user has a hard time knowing what they need, or what will run on his or her computer well. 5. Software for the Mac is more bug-free and slick than the average PC program. 6. Mac hardware and software are guaranteed to work together well, since Apple makes both. PC's often have conflicts between hardware and software, such as missing or outdated drivers. 7. Macs can run Windows using Parallels or VMware if access to a particular PC-only program is necessary, so they offer the best of both worlds. 8. The cost-for-feature differential between Macs and PC's largely has disappeared.
Mac Computers Good or bad

Firstly, I would like to make some clarifications on the premise of this debate before I begin with my main arguments. The premise is "Mac Computers Good or Bad" I am forced to explain the reasoning my opponent may have had in making this, as it is not a proper proposition, and I hope he does not contest my new version of the proposition I will- well, propose to him. It will change nothing but clarification. He claims "Mac Computers Good or Bad" nor "Mac Computers are Good or Bad", it is clear is is not arguing that they are either good or bad and that con should have to argue that they are neither good or bad. I believe he intended something of the sort of "Mac Computers: Good or Bad?", in which case pro would argue that they were good, and con would argue that they are bad. Unfortunately, this is still not a declarative sentence required for a debate of this nature. Pro further argues that macs are better than PC's, so it is clear that his main intention is to argue that PC's are better than macs. SO THEN, if this is entirely uncontested, I ask that we both accept the new premise "Mac computers are preferable to PC computers." as this appears to be the main point of the debate. Now to more important matters, before I make any of my main arguments I must make some rebuttals. While macs may be 'blooming', they are by far not more popular than PC's right now. While it is true that mac's might get less viruses, macs have several other problems that impede their workablity. There are more PC's than simply the gateway brand, and I feel that you are simply arguing from personal experiance. In my experiance, if you use the correct parts, a PC can last quite a long time and do very well. The PC is very popular. This is a benefit of the PC's to begin with. While this might initially sound like an ad populum argument, there is a valid reason why popularity would make it good, at least in comparison to a mac. Compatibility. You can go to just about any business, and know that it will have some sort of windows operating system for their employers. You know that windows files will run on their system. While this may have some consequences, like viruses, for people who know what they are doing with their computers these problems are null and void. Macs cost more, and there is less freedom to buy new materials. You need to buy pre approved mac materials for macs, whereas with the PC, you simply can use any component that will fit into your motherboard. Macs focus more on looks than productivity, macs look very cool but in general, I find them to be less productive than PC's. Macs can not play many games without running windows software behind them. I will expand on all of these arguments later if needed, of course. I'm being very brief right now.
The Christian God Is Immoral

Numbers 31:7-197 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.19 “Anyone who has killed someone or touched someone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify yourselves and your captives.Deuteronomy 2:33-3533 the Lord our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[a] them—men, women and children. We left no survivors. 35 But the livestock and the plunder from the towns we had captured we carried off for ourselves.***********************The Old Testament contains passages in which God commands the Israelites to exterminate seven Canaanite nations, and describes several wars of extermination that annihilated entire cities or groups of peoples.The God of the Old Testament was a bloodthirsty warmonger.Killing men in battle is one level of ethics. Killing women and children in their homes, blood running in the street, this is unconscionable.
It is inhumane for animals to be kept in a zoo

* I will give my opponent the credit that there may be a licensed zoologist on staff but it is irrational to speak to the zoologist being able to provide consistently accurate care all the time. Inhumane practices occur often in a zoo, water doesn't always get changed, feces are not always cleaned and some times Animals are not fed the right food, or the right amount, whether or not this is the faul of the zoologist remains to be seen. Anybody can implement a standar or a rule or a law but all too often it happens when someone does not abide by these guidelines and it is very, almost often plausible that this occurs in a Zoo. Zoos can be defunct and mismanaged and are still not shut down, instances occur everyday that spout irresponsiblity towards the care of the animals in a zoo and the government agencies are not always there to ensure that these situations are rectified. * If indeed animals do live longer in captivity we must measure their quality of life after living in a zoo. Do they have necessary interaction, are they properly stimulated throughout the day etc. Though this is a hard thing to gauge we, the humans must be responsible for the 'feelings' if you will of the animal. I'm not some animal rights activist or whatever but I will say that animals do have the mental capacity to feel and due to the fact that they do not walk on four legs or are able to verbalize their wishes we must do whatever necessary to make their quality of life better though I disagree that this occurs in a zoo.