BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
humans are fundamentally different than other humans

When we see this topic the first thing we should think is that how are they(human) fundamentally different than human?. Humans are fundamentally different in different ways but lets take a look at the language first.Mental symbols that characterize human language are not found elsewhere in nature.According to a evolutionary discovery at Harvard university The mental gap broadens when we compare human language with communication in other species.Like other animals,humans have a nonverbal communication system that conveys our emotions and motivations--the chortles and cries of the little babies are also part of the system.Humans are alone,however,in having a system of linguistic communication that is based on the manipulation of mental symbols,with each example of a symbol falling into a specific and abstract category such as noun,verb and adjective.Although some animals have sounds that appear to represent more than their emotions,conveying information about objects and events such as food,sex and predation,the range of such sounds pales in relation to our own,and none of them falls into the abstract categories that structure our linguistic expressions You might think,for example,that animal vocabularies appear small because researchers studying their communications do not really understand what they are talking about.Most vocal exchanges between animals consist of one grunt or coo or scream,with a single volley back.
humans are fundamentally different than other humans

I don't disagree with that statement necessarily, but I wouldn't disagree with the statement either if there was the name of any other species in the beggining. For example: "Snakes are fundamentally different than other animals" "Bees are fundamentally different than other animals" "Flies are fundamentally different than other animals" All species have their own each principles which makes them a different specie. A bee is fundamentally different from a bee because it is a fly. I hope that made sense. Now, I think there are 2 sides of the coin, and that yes, you can argue that all species are, fundamentally, the same. The goal of every specie is to avoid it's extinction. We are no different than any other on that regard, we are just one step ahead in the sense that we are not so focused on breeding but more on extending the life spam of our species and even assure it will have another planet if anything happens to earth. Our life style might have made things blurry and people tend to deny that they do many things out of a biological animal instinct, but we do practise a lot of the same principles that other species do.(WARNING: I AM NOT AT ALL AN EXPERT ON THE SUBJECT, JUST GAVE SOME THOUGHT TO THIS, IT MIGHT BE COMPLETLY RIDICULOUS, PLEASE, IF THERE ARE ANY BETER EXPLANATIONS FOR WHAT I DESCRIBE LET ME KNOW) When we feel insecure or nervous we tend, the typical human behavior is impulse shopping and hoard, just like creatures who sleep through the winter tend to hoard during the roughest time of the year to survive. Also, for as much as we try to deny, people tend to prefer healthy looking people (no glasses, good metabolism, etc) and,also something I noticed, with different genes (for example, blonde people tend to have a preference for people with dark hair and vice versa, and people with blue eyes tend to find brown eyes more attractive and vice versa), because that's what will generate the best genes and contribute towards the optimization of the species. The use of makeup and ornaments of the such could be compared to what males in many species so, such as peacocks, to attract other species. This last one may seem like a stretch, but don't forget that sexuality in the society we created is highly repressed, which can be the cause of many behaviours that currently distinguish us from other species. To sum up, humans aren't that different from any other animal. Maybe superior in intellect, but in the end, all species are ruled by the same biological code and have the perpetuation of their own species as main goal. Just their intellect allows them to mask the true reason for most their actions. Sorry if this was all over the place.
humans are fundamentally different than other humans

"When we see a cat purring or a dog wagging its tail in joy,we shouldn't expect that it"s feeling what we are feeling when we experience joy",Joseph Ledoux ,a neuroscientist at New York University,said on Feb.18 of previous year in a talk at the American Association for the advancement of science annual meeting."I"m not saying other animals don"t have feelings,just that they are different between different species of animals".With this quotes in mind I strongly affirm to the resolution:RESOLVED:HUMANS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM OTHER ANIMALS. Anytime you approach a topic it"s important to begin by defining the key terms.With this being said,I would like to give the definition of the following key words that will be use in today"s round frequently: HUMAN,FUNDAMENTALLY. Human: Defining living organisms has long been an area of scientific inquiry. One way to do this is based on their morphology or their physical structure.Human morphology is simply understood as being a bipedal [walking upright on two legs] primate.However,the history of scientific attempts to define animals shows why our physical structure is not viewed as the core principle of being human.When Linnaeus named each animal genus Homo he simply wrote "nosce te ipsum" a latin phrase meaning "know thyself".And this classification is going to be attempt throughout this case and with that being said saying humans are unique . With that being said,there are features of defining humans that we must consider in today"s mind.If they are unique or not? Or what made them fundamental? Fundamentally: my definition for fundamentally is categorized into three categorizes: vague definition, specific definition, and context-specific definition. Vague definition: fundamentally defined as "in a very important or basic way (macmillan dictionary) or "in a way that affects the essentials" (dictionary.com). Specific definition: fundamentally is defined as "belonging to one"s innate or ingrained characteristics"(merriam-webster),"serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function"(merriam-webster), and used for emphasizing for basic nature of something"(macmillan). Context-specific: In the late 1800"s,Charles Darwin posited one of his most famous claims in The Descent of man:"there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties" and that all the difference of degree,not of kind".
We are nearing an apocalypse (mass global destruction)

The reason the apocalyptic devastation would need to be nuclear is because this would be by far the most likely type of destruction to cause mass global destruction due to the lasting pollution it leaves behind. This pollution would ensure the inability of civilizations to rebuild quickly enough to avoid being destroyed. An EMP would indeed be much more sensible for China to use, but the US coming under Chinese control would not be considered mass global destruction. The argument that the US is facing economic collapse is a digression from the main argument, and besides that, oil is not a sustainable source of energy, and the current president has helped the US become a leader in renewable energy. Middle Eastern instability is nothing new, there is no reason to believe Israel will bring about an apocalypse, Europe's economy has suffered before, and it was much worse in the years leading up to WWII. As for Japan, it has a shrinking population and some economic issues but that is irrelevant to the debate. Even if Iran develops nuclear capabilities, the more advanced nuclear nations already have interception systems. This debate is not on whether WWIII will occur, it is on whether it will cause global devastation. ISIS is probably the most plausible threat to civilization because they really may seek to bring humanity back to the year 1000, but so have other radical Islamist groups, and they all failed. There is nothing that makes ISIS special. Even with the destructive power of modern day technology, global destruction is highly unlikely because it goes against the interests of the nations most capable of causing it. An apocalypse is more avoidable now than ever due to the lessons learned from the past. Nothing happening in the world currently makes it more likely now than ever before. Consequently, there is no reason to believe we are nearing such an event.
We are nearing an apocalypse (mass global destruction)

The United States is in debt and has a weak president that has made every effort to solidify and expound upon that debt. Most of that debt is owed to China. Although the Chinese presently depend upon US economy to sustain their economy, the US is so indebted to them that they actually consider the land theirs at this point. With the growing differential in male to female ratio resulting from population issues in the country hormone levels are affecting their judgement when it comes to a standoff where war is concerned. Who is to say the "apocalyptic" devastation will be nuclear. A nuclear war would destroy the land they believe they already own due to the debt that is owed. What better way to collect their land than an EMP? And, that is just China and US we are talking about. China and Russia are already the key players in collaborating replacing the US dollar for oil trade. Saudi Arabia is the country that has been the strength toward continuing to hold the US dollar as the standard toward oil trading. However, the US submission and appeasement of Saudi Arabia's greatest threat (Iran) has weakened that strength. The fall of the US dollar in oil trading will send the United States economy into an unrecoverable economic spiral. Take the above and add ISIS, Israel, Europe (Economy), North Korea, Japan, and the Middle East as a whole ... The writing is on the wall. You (and Einstein) are correct in that the apocalypse (WWIII) may not be in totality, but it is inevitable and it is near. The world will never be the same after. And the complacent USA isn't nearly what it was when WWII occurred. The US is a divided nation of selfish entitled vs. selfish entitled.
We are nearing an apocalypse (mass global destruction)

Throughout history, civilizations have risen and fallen. The Dark Ages were not considered to be an apocalypse, although the one you suggest is impending would not be so different. Even if war were to break out on a sufficient scale to destroy most of civilization, it would still survive along with technology in small pockets, and as long as nuclear weapons were not used in excess, these pockets would quickly expand to form new civilizations. The use of nuclear weapons would not benefit anyone, and since the US has superior nuclear capabilities, any other nuclear powers would have a severe disadvantage in a nuclear war, and would consequently be reluctant to use nuclear weapons. Russian aggression and suboptimal relations between the US and China are nothing new. The Cold War was ended without WWIII breaking out, and relations between the US, China, and Russia were far more strained during that period. China depends on the US consumer market for economic growth and stability, and this would be more than sufficient incentive not to engage in any direct military conflict with the United States. Russia's economy and population are shrinking, and their ability to do any damage is becoming increasingly limited. Conditions today are far less conducive to WWIII than they were during the Cold War, and since there was no global destruction then, it wouldn't be rational to assume we are approaching such an event now.
We are nearing an apocalypse (mass global destruction)

Albert Einstein once said that he had no idea what kind of weapons would be involved in WWIII. However, he was certain that WWIV would be fought with sticks and stones. There are many signs that WWIII is nearly upon us. ISIS, Russian aggression, Chinese aggression, Iran nearing nuclear weapons, North Korean aggression, and United States debt and eventual economic collapse. As a US citizen I've watched the population of my country become a very complacent people. Having never seen war on our soil and very distant from the great depression, the current generation does not understand the dangers lurking in the weeds. Unfortunately, we are nearing a dramatic wake up call in the near future.
Economic Understanding should be Acquired Before Exercising Union/Voting Powers

The topic simply means that people should have a basic understanding of economics and basic proficiency in financial literacy before being able to exercise voting and union powers. I am not going to argue about whether or not such an option is implementable, but only whether or not it should. By "basic proficiency" I mean that people should know how to compound interest, what government debt and deficit is, how a bank works, how a credit card works, etc. Things we will encounter in our daily lives as well as economics 101. DISCLAIMER: I am not challenging human rights. I simply believe that there are problems in the current US system. What these flaws are, I am not certain. I believe some discussion is merited in an attempt to find these flaws and amend them. Hopefully this debate will bring out some new ideas. First round is acceptance. Second round is opening argument. Third round is rebuttal and conclusion. I look forward to a civil debate.
The Bible is not Inerrant.

Here's hoping for a spirited and good natured discussion. My resolution is simple to prove without a doubt. I'll start with a few confirmed errors present in the Bible - (Cue Julie Andrews) Let's start at the very beginning; a very good place to start - GE 3:14 The serpent eats dust for the rest of his life. GE 6:4 There were giants on the earth at one time. No evidence exists to supports this assertion. EX 12:37, NU 1:45-46 The number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus is given as about 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably mean that a total of more than 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt at a time when the whole population of Egypt was less than 2,000,000. PS 58:8 Slugs and/or snails melt as they move. MT 4:8 There is a high mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen. (Note: This implies a flat earth. ) MT 26:52 All who take the sword will perish by it. And never mind that rabbits chew cud, that donkeys can speak, the flood wiped out humanity (except for the Egyptians and Chinese), or that Kings 7:23 says Pi is = to 3. Now, assume that we have a very old book, written in an ancient language, and it's been translated into English quite a few times, each time with different results, and often, wildly different meanings. There are also glaring contradictions in every translation. The book tells of magic, miracles, and fantastic creatures, and contains narrations of events, some clearly historical, others of dubious historical veracity. It contains some stories that can only be read metaphorically, and some that could be taken literally, and some that could be taken either way. It contains some stories that are highly reminiscent of stories told in earlier books, written by earlier civilizations. The primary character, in fact, so closely resembles a mythological character from another cultuer (Mithras, of course! ) that without attaching names to the characters, you could easily mistake one for the other. Now, which of the following is a logical conclusion? A) This book is a man made creation, containing myths handed down from previous cultures, and it is naturally a bit mangled after 2000 years of translation. B) This book, although it resembles other books of its time in virtually every way, is The Divine and Perfect Work of the Only God, and although it appears contradictory, it is actually perfectly accurate, but nobody in 2000 years has been able to translate it accurately enough to display the perfection. Furthermore, you must believe that it is perfectly accurate despite all appearances to the contrary. If you do not believe this, you will burn in a magical lake of fire for trillions and trillions of years, wasting away in agony. Because the perfect loving god who wrote the book wanted it that way. Me, I pick option A. And as I do not read Greek or Hebrew, and I am quite sure my opponent does not either, I use the KJV as reference. I'll stop here- and tackle some other Biblical doozies in my next round.
against welfare and minimum wage

Welfare just causes laziness because people are getting money while they're no working, and some people use that to their advantage. Minimum wage can be increased to ridiculous inflated levels by a government so that businesses, well, go out of business I'm sorry about this next off-topic question, but, aren't you thegodddfather's brother? Yes, we all know Fred the pug is cute.* *If you're not Mikedapimp, please ignore this paragraph.
against welfare and minimum wage

Why would you be against welfare so what do we do let all those poor people and there families starve I mean if there on welfare and they got jobs and they get jobs that are below minimum wage they could afford to eat and feed there families but if they have jobs below minimum wage and no welfare they are just gonna starve and die off and that is gonna happen to more then 40% of the US so you are inhumanily killing more then a huge fraction of this country if this went your way.
against welfare and minimum wage

LOL I know Thegodfather is very stupid and you are too but don't get me mixed up with they infected gene listen here if you don't believe in minimum wage people can be getting psyed 10 cents an hour and welfare is not just money its discounts on powdered and milk and all the cheap chemically enhanced foods now you might say yes to alot of people taking advantage of that but it doesn't pay u that much so you have to have money to begin with to be lazy and watch tv or something while the poor people as you say take advantage of it are sick wounded or mentally ill. So if you don't support welfare ok but if you don't support minimum wage the people who are not taking advantage of it are being payed very unfairly probably being abused or in any way working many hours a day for just pennies... O and BTW I accidently put this in the comment spot because I am kinda new at this
CM Punk is more powerful than God.

If we define god as the being who created the universe, we see that we are not talking about anything know to man, we are talking about an ALL POWERFUL being who has the power to create universes. Proof of his existence? Does the universe exist? Therefore must then assume that its creator exists or at least existed at some point. Ok now on to the lies. Confidence does not mean truth can confidently say that i am lord master of the universe but does that that i am? no. it means that I am lying confidently. All the proof we have of CM punk's "higher power" his statement and nothing else. So he can fake punch and kick another actor? So what? The creator of the universe CREATED THE UNIVERSE. That is proof of power right there. Ok so now we shall move on to um how did you put it? how straight edge "God" is. By stating that "God" is "half straight edge" brings him down to the level of someone who is not the lord supreme creator of the universe, which "God" is Now I'd like to state my final remark. Basically as "God" created the universe and the universe created CM Punk, we can assume that God has some sort of file on CM Punk which, as creator, he can edit, which would mean that "God" has power over CM Punk, which of course means that he is more powerful than the flimsy-speedo-wearing-actor-man that is CM Punk
CM Punk is more powerful than God.

I'd like to remind my opponent that it is not up to him to define anything, as he is the contender. God shall be defined as a being who created the universe.Who is there?Nobody really even knows if God is actually existing, and you can't be powerful at all if you don't exist. This is a major point in favour of CM Punk being more powerful than God. First, Con will have to prove that God exists.CM Punk told a lie? OMG!Not really, but recently, CM Punk stated "I am a higher power" [1]. But how do we know if he was telling the truth or not? Well, lies skyrocket when someone's self-esteem is threatened [2], but CM Punk said it confidently, so it's probably a fact. We don't really know whether God is a higher power or not, so we'll compromise and say that God is half a higher power. This means that CM Punk is more powerful than God.CM Punk doesn't drink!As it is understood, CM Punk is straight edge, meaning he doesn't smoke, drink or do drugs. All of these can make you less powerful (e.g. being drunk and breaking your limbs). Since we have no evidence for or against God being straight edge, we will compromise and say he is half straight edge. This means that it's likely that CM Punk is more powerful than God.CM Punk isn't an old geezer!There isn't any evidence for or against God ageing, so we'll say he half-ages. Scientists know that the universe is well old, so if God created it, he must be well old too. Plus, everyone knows that old people are very weak, so God must be weak too. Whereas CM Punk is something like 34.ConclusionI have given very good arguments to support my case. Sources[1] https://www.facebook.com...;[2] http://www.livescience.com...
CM Punk is more powerful than God.

CM punk; although he maybe a powerful human, cannot possibly be more powerful than the omnipresent, omniscient and Omnipotent God. First off you cannot perform a GTS on an omnipresent force. As you obviously have the intelligence of a 9 year old i shall explain these terms to you. Omnipresent means that he is in all places at once, meaning he is behind you, in front of you, next to you, above you and below you (yeah that's right you're floating, see how powerful this guy is?). Omniscient means all-knowing, he knows what moves you will make, how you will make them and most importantly, how to counter them. Omnipotent means all powerful, seriously even without the other two God could still beat you with this you want to try to grapple him? Pillar of salt. You want to kick him? Pillar of salt. Punching? Pillar. Moving out of turn? LIGHTNING. I bite my thumb at you sir
CM Punk is more powerful than God.

I haven't been watching WWE for very long, but when I first watched it I knew that CM Punk was very macho. "He must be the most macho thing ever!" I thought to myself. That would mean that he'd be more powerful than God.Con may point out that CM Punk lost to the undertaker, but everybody knows that CM Punk let the undertaker win because otherwise he would cry. I thank you.