BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
god didnt build plants, because they are natural, plants dont need a mechanic

What are you saying? You make no sense at all. Please try to answer my arguments. "random is a pattern" Yes, the results of how your body looks and how plants grow are random WITHIN laws. I'm arguing that it's possible that those laws come from some sort of intent. You DID NOT answer my question about God. What's God for you? "Math is not natural" Maybe not. But we can understand how the world works with it. Thus, we can understand how nature works. Fibonacci, etc. "Math is only considered true based on reality or logic" What do you consider true? Isn't it true what is based on reality? "creation and destruction is impossible in reality, matter=1=1=transformation" True and False. In reality all we have is something being transformed into another thing, or an amount of things, etc. That said, things are being destroyed and created everytime. When something rises, something falls. It's the ultimate circle of life. "so science created plants if i believe it?" What the hell is your problem, man? I'm not saying science created plants. I'm saying plants follow a natural pattern which are based on laws of physics. Men did not "invent" laws of physics. These are known behaviors of the world we live in, based on experimentation and observation. Those LAWS are how we can know our world. I'm not saying science created plants. I'm saying nature, God, whatever you call it, operate under certain laws that makes the creation of plants possible.
god didnt build plants, because they are natural, plants dont need a mechanic

I did not say you have beliefs. I did not say a plant is a concept also. You said natural is random, not specified. Life is not random. Life follows patterns, which are known as the laws of physics, chemistry, maths... You can know plants are not entirely random because plants of the same species look the same. They have same attributes and characteristics as well. Natural is constructed randomly under well established laws through observation and experimentation. That said, it's random, following a specific set of rules. They can do anything as long as it's inside those rules. What I'm saying is: it all depends on your concept of God. If a God is someone who makes the laws of science, then plants, being under laws of science, exist because of God's intent. You also have to try to express yourself clearly. This is a communication and communications are two-ways based. You can't assume I will understand your message just by you saying random things. I contradicted your arguments and I want mine to be contradicted as well. Otherwise, it's not a debate, but an argument.
One Sentence Debate

This round is mostly for fun! First round is acceptance.Rules1. Can use only 1 (one) sentence in each round (after acceptance round)*2. No run-on sentences 3. No profanity; keep it clean4. No personal attacks5. Sarcasm is allowed, as long as use of it doesn't violate rules #3 and #46. Failure to adhere to rules results in forfeiture. *If your opponent violates one of the rules, you are allowed to use more than one sentence to address it.Debate TopicHere are three possible debate topics. Con will decide which to use. Pro (me) will be for the topic and Con will be against it. Please say which topic we will be using. :-)1. Time is more valuable than money. 2. Education starts after school.3. A little learning is a dangerous thing. Any questions? Please ask in the comments!
Sea lions are seals

Con’s argues that sea lions do not count as seals because sea lions are of the taxonomic family Otariidae as opposed to the taxonomic family Phocidae. Con states that “if sea lions belong to family Otariidae, then this, if anything, must prove that sea lions are definitely not seals.” Con elaborates on many of the differences between the taxonomic families Phocidae and Otariidae. Yet, Con provides no dictionary or encyclopedia reference to support his assertion that species of the family Otariidae don’t count as seals; nor does Con dispute any of the provided definitions for the word “seal”. All of these definitions are explicitly inclusive of both Phocidae and Otariidae. It doesn’t matter that there are differences between the taxonomic families Phocidae and Otariidae. Of course there are differences, but this doesn’t lead to the conclusion that species of the family Otariidae are not seals. Con’s contention that species of the family Otariidae don’t count as seals flies in the face of every dictionary definition and encyclopedic reference provided Additionally, there are many species of the family Otariidae that even have the word “seal” as part of the species name: https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... If Con’s argument is that sea lions are not seals because they are of the family Otariidae, then Con must also assert that the Antarctic fur seal, Galapagos fur seal, New Zealand fur seal, brown fur seal, and northern fur seal are not seals. Con states that seals and sea lions are different animals according to the NOAA, but doesn’t provide a web-link or some other way for us to evaluate his source. Con’s reference to the NOAA should be disregarded because Con did not provide us with enough information to verify his claim.
Sea lions are seals

In your argument, you state the following: "Encyclopedia Britannica [1] any of 32 species of web-footed aquatic mammals that live chiefly in cold seas and whose body shape, round at the middle and tapered at the ends, is adapted to swift and graceful swimming. There are two types of seals: the earless, or true, seals (family Phocidae); and the eared seals (family Otariidae), which comprise the sea lions and fur seals." The family difference should be enough to settle this. In taxonomy, the family is the third-lowest rung on the taxonomy ladder, per se. A family can split into many genera-the most notable examples of this are the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), the Hawaiian Monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi), and the Northern Elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris). Furthermore, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), while seals and sea lions both belong to the order Pinnipedia, they are indeed different animals. "Oxford Dictionary [2] A fish-eating aquatic mammal with a streamlined body and feet developed as flippers, returning to land to breed or rest. Families Phocidae (the true seals) and Otariidae (the eared seals, including the fur seals and sea lions). The latter have external ear flaps and are able to sit upright, and the males are much larger than the females." Please refer to the last sentence in this definition. It states that the latter (Otariidae) have external ear flaps and are able to sit upright, with the males being much larger than the females. Three crucial differences were stated in that sentence alone. "American Heritage Dictionary [3] Any of various aquatic carnivorous mammals of the families Phocidae and Otariidae, found chiefly in cold regions and having a sleek torpedo-shaped body and limbs that are modified into paddlelike flippers." According to the New World Encyclopedia, family Phocidae are also known as "earless seals". In my previous argument, I said that the family Otariidae possesses external ear flaps-a fact so basic that looking up images of "Otariidae seals" will prove it-as well as a search of Phocidae seals. This is a crucial difference-and if sea lions belong to family Otariidae, then this, if anything, must prove that sea lions are definitely not seals. "Collins Dictionary [4] any of two families (Otariidae and Phocidae) of sea carnivores with a doglike head, a torpedo-shaped body, and four webbed feet or flippers: they live in cold or temperate waters and usually eat fish see also eared seal, earless seal." This time, the dictionary goes on to say "see also eared seal, earless seal.", acknowledging their differences. While the two animals are very much similar (carnivores, doglike head, torpedo-shaped body, four webbed feet or flippers), the difference in the presence of ears within the two families is the chief difference. I have said what has needed to be said about this topic and I await your response.
The Cytochrome Flux Theory of Individuality

I'll also point out that since Pro is making a very wild claim, he very much needs to support this claim with evidence and reasoning. The Burden of Proof lies 100% on the Pro's shoulders for that reason. Additionally, Pro packed a bunch of information into one paragraph. I recommend that in Round 2 he structure his case similarly to the following format:1. ClaimReasoning, reasoning, reasoning. 2. ClaimReasoning, reasoning, reasoning. Etc. This will insure that the debate is readable and that every intracy of your argument is clear and well-explained. I look forward to your case.
The Cytochrome Flux Theory of Individuality

Energy is eternally conscious by its creations, differentiations, which are inevitabilities. The infinitesimal point nothingness, . , is rastered by time into timespace, U , which exerting its oneness in one direction, / , stirs closed circuitry, O , that all going the same way, vO^XvO^, clashes, X (a Big Bang), that forces confluency, = , whereby individual circuits undifferentiate back into nonexistence. In the one substance, energy, motion, differentiation, can only be in closed circuitry, that there be something to move out of the way and fill in behind. Our being is a closed circuit, of the one substance in the one substance, called a magnetic flux, maintained in the arising reticular formation of the medula oblongata of our brains by substance P neurons, pain neurons. The latest research has shown that the closed circuit that constitutes our self is only one of the magnetic circuits of the iron of a cytchrome on one neuron in the arising reticular formation of our medulla oblongata. Each magnetic circuit on each cytochrome of these neurons is a person just as much as you are. That means that there are thousands of individualities in our brain alone. You could totally undifferentiate back into nonexistence, which is the complete satisfaction of all desires, known in the East as "nirvana", and the thousands of other circuits would continue just as if you still existed. Each of these thousands of selves still have the memories you had and all the same equipment. Differentiation takes place by being pushed by repelling circuits into confluent circuits. Total undifferentiation takes place when the Planck's volumes of both circuits align, and all is pushing for that. The magnetic circuits of the iron of the cytochromes that are the motors of the doors of every cell are, outwardly, counterclockwise in males, and, clockwise in females. But, when a cell dies and decomposes the other side of the circuit, which is flowing the other way is exposed to go confluent with your opposite flow. Counterclockwise and clockwise are the basic polarities of the universe. Confluence to undifferentiation is their cancellation back into nonexistence, both losing their individualities.
Parents should be allowed to keep track of their child's Facebook accounts.

If the parent is blocked then they will figure this out and have it changed. If the parent is overly invasive when the child isn't doing anything wrong it is even worse. It shows the child that the parent doesn't trust them, thinks less of them, and will just anger the kid. These things put the relationship of the child and parent in danger which has bad long-term effects. If the child is messaging someone they shouldn't and the parents catch them, they will not regret what they did and they will learn nothing. They will only see that the parent is being overprotective and probably continue doing things like that. If the parent is protective and is friends with the child on facebook, screens phone calls, keeps track of where the child is, then the child is not in much danger. If the child does have a bad experience with a sketchy person they have been messaging without the parent knowing, serious or mild, the child will learn what they did is dangerous and never do it again.
Parents should be allowed to keep track of their child's Facebook accounts.

Some parents may be over invasive with children, but if a child is not hiding anything why should the child care what the parents see? Being friends with your child of facebook may work for some, but in my experience a child with block a parent from seeing posts and pictures, simply by using their privacy settings. Also, most children are not friends with the sketchy people they message. Most of the time (in my experience) the person messaging the child will not be friends with them. Though it may be uncomfortable for the child, it will prevent them from saying/posting something they will later regret.
Parents should be allowed to keep track of their child's Facebook accounts.

The problem is that I doubt parents would stop there. They would read what the kids posts, their personal messages, and lots of other invasions of privacy. Also, to do what you propose, all parents need to do is be friends with them on facebook. They can then look at all of the kids' posts to other people that are on walls, they can see all the pictures of their child, and look at every friend the child has. If they see some post or picture they deem innappropriate then they can make the child take it down. Also, if they see they are friends with someone who they think is sketchy they can ask the child about it. None of this requires invasion of privacy because any conversations the child wants to do with others can be done in a personal message. Also, if a kid is posting innapropriate pics and things, they are probably doing it on more than just facebook and it is a more serious matter entirely. There is no need for parents to be able to take control of a facebook account.
Parents should be allowed to keep track of their child's Facebook accounts.

Facebook is a great way for people to stay connected with each other. But on a more serious note, there are young kids posting inappropriate status' or picture, which can get them into trouble in the future. Friends of mine have posted inappropriate pictures of themselves, while the parents believe the kids having nothing inappropriate on their profile. I am not saying parents should read private e-mails. But maybe check who the kids are e-mailing, and see what pictures are up. From the age 15 and younger.
Parents should be allowed to keep track of their child's Facebook accounts.

I see this as a violation of privacy. People say important things through facebook. For instance, I know several people who came out to their friends on facebook. Maybe their parents wouldn't be ok with that. Personal information gets said over facebook messages all the time and it is up to the child to decide when to let the parent know. Parents should educate their children about internet safety and let them learn about responsibility instead of invading privacy and worsening the parent's relationship with the child by being overbearring.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Industrial Hemp.

My opponent made the statement that said this resolution was failed because the Federal Government does not have the power to do this, but when we look at what the Federal Government really is we see that yes they do have this power. The Federal Government is broken up into three branches the legislative, executive, and the judicial branch. Through a system of separation of powers and the system of "checks and balances," each of these branches has some authority to act on its own, some authority to regulate the other two branches, and has some of its own authority, in turn, regulated by the other branches. The policies of the federal government have a broad impact on both the domestic and foreign affairs of the United States Therefore the Federal Government does have the power to change this law. My opponent also pressed for some evidence on how hemp is better than other alternatives. Here are a few reasons why hemp is better than the alternatives. One, Hemp can be made into paper! As many of you know, we use a huge amount of trees each year just for paper production it is said that we cut down 16.32 million trees a year. (1) One acre of hemp paper is equivalent to 4 to 6 acres of trees. (2) Not only that, but hemp paper is much stronger it does not crack, it does not yellow, and it can be recycled many more times then regular paper. Also after we cut down a tree it takes about 40 to 80 years for that tree to mature and be able to cut down again. It takes hemp four months. So even if hemp is not good for anything else (which it is good for other things) we should pass this just so we can cut down on deforestation. Two, hemp can be used as oil. Farming 6% of the continental U. S. acreage with biomass crops would provide all of America's energy needs. Hemp is Americas number one bio-mass it is capable of producing 10 tons per acre every four months. Biomass can be converted to methane, methanol, or gasoline at a cost comparable to petroleum, and hemp is much better for the environment. Hemp can produce 10 times more methanol than corn. Hemp fuel burns clean. Petroleum causes acid rain due to sulfur pollution. The use of hemp fuel does not contribute to global warming. (3) So yet again another example on why hemp is better than the alternative. Three, hemp is used in thousands of products and we have to spend millions of dollars to import this from Canada and other countries. So why not grow it here so that people can make more money with it. Yet another reason my we need to legalize hemp. There are multitudes of reasons on why we should legalize hemp these are just a few. If I have not answered anything that my opponent has asked for I am sorry. Thank You again . http://www.triplepundit.com... . http://www.hemphasis.net... . http://www.hempcar.org...
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Industrial Hemp.

The resolution is that the US Federal Government should legalize industrial hemp. I oppose this resolution. My opponent contends that the Federal Government should do something that the Federal Government has no power to do. Section 8 of Article One of the Constitution of the United States names the powers that the US Congress has. There is no power in the article that would allow the Federal Government to legalize industrial hemp throughout the United States. The government cannot have a moral or social (or ANY) obligation to do something that it has no power to do. It cannot be asked of the Governmnet to do something it has no power to do. Consequently, the resolution that the Federal Government should legalize industrial hemp should fail. Secondly, my opponent has not shown any benefits of industrial hemp over its alternatives. I contend that the onus is on my opponent to show such benefits as it is his resolution.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Industrial Hemp.

Guess what we could give millions of people the nutrition that they need, cut down on deforestation, bring back the agricultural industry, and you won't even get high in the process. It's time that America faced the facts Hemp is a vital and needed resource that America needs to use much more efficiently . Here is the funny thing we are allowed to import hemp and use it in our products, but farmers can't grow it. So we spend millions of dollars a year importing this hemp. Makes a lot of since you know because were not in a economic crises or anything. The agricultural industry is falling and fast and hemp could easily bring it back. There is no reason why hemp should not be legal to grow in the United States!
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Industrial Hemp.

My opponent has continued and continued to say that the Federal Government can not legalize hemp, BUT THEY CAN. My opponent says that the states are the only ones that can do this, but there is this thing called Concurrent Powers! The powers are powers shared both by the Federal and State Government. These powers are: collect taxes borrow money (not to be confused with Coining Money) establish and maintain courts make and enforce laws The Federal Government can make laws. So therefore they can make a law saying hemp is not illegal. Next I have showed to express which Congress could use to change this. My first one was; "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. " This clause of the Constitution allows Congress to legislate to promote the progress of science and arts and invention. With hemp being illegal we are not letting and scientist from any part of the nation be able to research anything about hemp for anything length of time. My next express power was; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes. The obviously fits because we import hemp; by making it legal this would change the amount we import and things of that nature. My third point was even if hemp doesn't fall under any of these cat orgies (which it does) we still have the necessary and proper clause. This clause expands the power of congress farther then the express powers allow. Otherwise what is the point of the clause. As long as it is for the good of the country this can be used. The Federal Government can do this. And if you notice my opponent does not give any sources when he says things like hemp wont fit under those express powers or that the necessary and proper clause doesn't expand the powers of congress. I have given specific sources on the necessary and proper clause that say they can do this. The Federal Government can do this. This is the amazing thing about our government the constitution allows flexibility. This entire debate round has been over wording in the constitution. And the constitution wording can be argued all day and neither one of us well get anywhere. Our nation as been arguing the wording of the constitution since the day it was written. This debate round we should have been arguing the subject weather or not hemp should be legalized.