BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Child Prodigies are Discouraging People

Hello again. I would like to thank you, shooterboss, for pointing out an error. I can correct it, fortunately: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" -- Read Here: (http://erudition.mohit.tripod.com...) [(Part 1/Section 1) - Examples and philosophy about how not to condemn others or judge poorly.] [(Part 2/Section 5) - Examples and philosophy saying you can achieve by taking interest in others' hobbies, talents, etc. to get what it is that you want out of them. It may be business, friendship, and more.] [(Part 3/Sections 1,2, and 3) - Examples and philosophy teaching that: trying to ignore or put down others out of reasons like jealousy, won't get you where you want. Instead it teaches telling others they are correct, better, etc. will put you somewhere positive.] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discouragement is a choice. Nothing has to bother anyone, or at least not to a serious point. Negative feelings are either disorder, or weakness. Only little kids get mad at each other and jealous. No one's perfect, but anyone can practice and try. I strongly recommend reading "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. Thank you again, Shooterboss, for this debate. Good luck!
Child Prodigies are Discouraging People

Thank you, himilkyes for your response. Before I start, I have one message for the voters: by the absolute nature of my position in this debate, my arguments tend to have a negative tone whereas Con tends to have a positive tone. Please do not include this distinction in your votes. Con says that discouragement due to young prodigies is a choice, and discouraged people can decide not to be jealous of a prodigy. He states that getting "on the good side of others" is a valuable skill. Con also points out that many businessmen achieve by patting someone on the back. However, he does not offer an explanation or any examples or proof. I still cannot imagine how feeling happy for someone else's gift has any connection with personal achievement. Please expand on this argument in this round. Even though Con has raised a good point, I still don't believe discouragement is a choice. Some people aren't discouraged while others are, but you can't change your opinion of something easily. If you think a child prodigy makes you look stupid, that's your opinion, and opinions can't change, at least not instantly. For example, our politicians can't agree because their opinions cannot be changed. As this is my last portion of the debate, I wish my contender good luck in his last argument. Thank you for debating.
Child Prodigies are Discouraging People

Interesting. Very nice, shooterboss. In Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People," he talks about how people want to feel important, and think what they're doing is right. Also, he points out how much people value themselves so far above everyone else in the world (most of the time). Read for yourself: [http://erudition.mohit.tripod.com...] If a child prodigy occurs in the same category of a mature individual's talent, career, or hobby, then, as most people in their normal minds, he/she wouldn't swallow their pride. You are right about what you've said. You can read some of Marilyn Monroe's quotes that have to do with it - (http://www.goodreads.com...). But, nothing has to bother anyone. There's nothing wrong with being happy for someone with rare gift. Naturally and instinctively, human beings (and most other species) are selfish, and seek their own needs. You can go to this link, and find that answer anywhere: [http://www.google.com...]. Humans, though, do have a choice, but just about any other creature may not. It may be hard patting someone on the back, that beat you, but it's possible, and many successful businessmen achieve that way. It is a skill we can really use, to get on the good side of others. It's a very valuable skill to excel with. What's obvious, is that people let things bother them. That's their choice, so if they don't want to be discouraged, then they can decide so.
Marijuana is good

I shall over the course of the next three rounds, prove that Marijuana is not good. Which is not the same as bad (if I prove it bad all the better), merely that it's drawbacks at least cancel the benefits of it.Arguments:Perception:Being affiliated with the drug, has a negative impact on how people see you. Such an impact can negatively affect employment, personal relationships, and legal standing. It also puts you into the same category as those Legalize Pot protesters, and the Ancient Aliens guy. Side Effects:From WebMD.com "Use of marijuana can cause dry mouth, nausea, vomiting, dry or red eyes, heart and blood pressure problems, lung problems, impaired mental functioning, headache, dizziness, numbness, panic reactions, hallucinations, flashbacks, depression, and sexual problems" [1].In addition to suspected random fits of yelling (Ad Hominem of pro's case).Rebuttals:"Everyone says marijuana is bad for you lol shut up everyone."Self refuted."It's made by god.It's good in more ways than one."Catchy! Oh what about most types of poison that are naturally occurring in plants, and are also made by God [2]?God can be a real jerk, just look at all those earthquakes and the platypus."We would reverse our nations national debt within a decade if the government regulated and taxed marijuana."Please provide a source for this amazing estimate."it improves concentration and DOES NOT inhibit school performance"School is best when motivated to do so, and "people who smoke marijuana regularly over long periods of time tend to produce less of a chemical in the brain that is linked to motivation" [2], that chemical being dopamine."it DOES inhibit cancer cell reproduction and growth." If it caused remission in cancer so easily, I think it would have been legalized a long time ago. Yet users who have cancer, still seem to die."gateway drug"I'll leave this to the professions at the Foundation For A Drug-Free World: "The vast majority of cocaine users (99.9%) began by first using a “gateway drug” like marijuana, cigarettes or alcohol. Of course, not everyone who smokes marijuana and hashish goes on to use harder drugs. Some never do. Others quit using marijuana altogether. But some do turn to harder drugs. One study found that youth (12 to 17 years old) who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than kids who do not use pot, and that 60% of the kids who smoke pot before the age of 15 move on to cocaine" [4].Sources:[1] http://www.webmd.com...[2] http://io9.com...[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[4] http://www.drugfreeworld.org...
Marijuana is good

Everyone says marijuana is bad for you lol shut up everyone. It's made by god.It's good in more ways than one. Not only is it good for people being used as a MEDICATION for: nausea, insomnia, pain, depression, epilepsy, glaucoma, cancer treatment, and MANY other ailments... It would also be good for the economy/governments to regulate and tax it. We would reverse our nations national debt within a decade if the government regulated and taxed marijuana. Contrary to popular opinion, it improves concentration and DOES NOT inhibit school performance (unlike OTHER man-made substances which DO). However, it DOES inhibit cancer cell reproduction and growth. It is NOT a "gateway drug" that's like saying if you drink water you'll have to move on to moonshine. People who say that are STUPID. It DOES NOT kill brain cells, (lack of oxygen kills brain cells). And to top all of this off: IT WAS MADE BY GOD (not man- thank god). So which is better? A man-made chemical which alters mind-state? Or a god-made plant which does much more than altering mind-state?
GODS EXSISTENCE

Well I have already explained to you why I believe that God exists it is because that is where are morals come from and God is the only one who makes any sence there is no way Agnostic people or Atheist people could rule the world and actually teach what they believe because if that were true we might as well go back to the stone Age. All you people do is avoid the the question hoping to hold on by the range of your vocabulary and not your real skill to debate. Your debates are full of contradictions and stupidity yet I honestly think you dont even know it. Well it was nice debating with you even though we deffanatly have are differences thanks for accepting my challenge and God Bless.
GODS EXSISTENCE

I am getting really tired of repeating myself. You can't ask me why I believe in something and then when I answer say that that's not what I believe. You can contend my opinion but you can't say that my opinion is not my opinion. Yes, that is exactly what I wrote in the previous round because you asked me the same question. You keep asking me to say why I don't believe in God, and I'm telling you that my beliefs aren't as straight forward as that and then explaining why. I didn't come here to prove God doesn't exist, I came here to prove that you can't prove it. You say that I "wouldn't believe anything that ridiculous without any proof". I believe the thing your referring to is agnosticism because if its atheism then I've already explained that I'm not an atheist. Yes, I can believe it because the proof is that there is no proof. I have never seen truly concrete evidence as to whether God exists or not, and therefore I can't logically take a side. "did you just come to disprove the things that I said" Yes. That's what I've been saying and doing this whole time. "I would HONESTLY like to here from you why you belive there is no God and Im sure everyone els would. As well." As I have explained above, and in the previous round, and in the one before that, I do not believe necessarily that there is no God, just that you can't prove it and that your argument is flawed. I'm sure everyone else is actually getting the point I'm making, since I've made it so many times by now. Please do not ask me to tell you "why God doesn't exist" because I've already given you my answer and instead of debating the topic you seem intent on debating what my beliefs are for me.
GODS EXSISTENCE

All I ask is why you believe that there is no God and you cant even give a good answer all you give me is I cant prove that he is or isnt real. You wouldn't believe anything that rediculous without any proof. And did you actually come here to prove hoe God does not exsist or did you just come to disprove the things that I said now I would HONESTLY like to here from you why you belive there is no God and Im sure everyone els would. As well.
GODS EXSISTENCE

You can't ask me why I believe in something and then when I answer say that that's not what I believe. You can contend my opinion but you can't say that my opinion is not my opinion. Agnostic is different from atheist; atheists deny God's existence completely while agnostics say that it's possible that he exists but not definite. I am an agnostic, although I lean atheist sometimes. The reason I am agnostic is because I have never seen any proof of this statement: "Genesis 1:1--"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." To me, it is the same as saying "I saw a pig fly the other day". You can't outwardly disprove it, but you can't prove it either, and there's no reason for me to believe in it. I don't think having religion is wrong, but I don't follow it because I don't want or need to. That is the answer to your question. However, I do believe firmly that your argument about morality is totally illogical, unlike other arguments for God which just can't be proved.
GODS EXSISTENCE

ATHEIST: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Wow what do you know that sounds exactly like you a person who denies that there is a higher being. So you may be Agnostic but you are also an Atheist. So sence coomonsence tells us that you are both Agnostic and Atheist then you need to answere the fallowing QUESTION: "Genesis 1:1--"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." "Pretty simple. If you feel you can present reliable, true, and convincing evidence to the contrary, I would love to hear from you. I do not want to debate with someone who blindly denies everything in the Bible simply because it is in the Bible. I want an intelligent debate with someone who understands the subject, and who can use facts and data, not just bias and dogma." So please tell me why you do not belive in God?
GODS EXSISTENCE

I would first like to start off with thanking Miserlou for debating me if he ecepts my challenge and that i will try my hardest against you. part 1 if there is no God then who decides who is rite and who is wrong. Is it our concious? Is it the person who is in power over us, is that who we listen to. Well if it is the person who is in power over us then i guess it was ok for me to listen to Hitler or to Stallen because they were men who were in power. Oh yes they were in power killing people left in rite. And if you still think that you can judge what is rite and what is rong off of your concious then listen to this if you havnt already guessed it. It was STALLENS concious that had him kill a reporter for spelling his name wrong in the news paper. It was HITLERS conciouse that told him it was ok to kill 6,000,000 jews. So clearly we cant base it off our conciouse or the most powerful man at the time. We have to base it off a Supreme being some one who has dominion over all creatures. part 2 Do you see how chotic it would be if there was no God. I mean there would alwys be 2 rites to 1 problem and thats what atheism does, they will say that Hitler is wrong but they will say he is wrong not because God judged him but because its just wrong to kill 6000000 jews. Well who said it was wrong to kill. You know Al Sharpton a guy I dont like vey much do to his viw on the war on terror and other things like that, did a pretty good job debating christopher hitchens. He asked Christopher hitchens the very Question i am about to ask you and if you ask any atheist this question all they do is avoid the question and start blaming Christians for the stuff they did in the past or the real stupid ones will just sit there an twidle there thumbs. part 3 PLEASE ANSWER THE FALLOWING QUESTION IN YOUR DEBATE: If there is no God, no supreme being to judge Hitler then how do we Know what hitler did was wrong?
Why did God(Christen) create Homosexuals, and Bisexuals

Well first off you spell "THEY" with one "t" and with a "y" at the end of it, not "tthe". Anyone that can't spell "they" shouldn't be allowed out of grade 1, let alone trying to per sway someone's beliefs their views, in any debate really. I have never met someone who is so incompetent of even spelling "they". My opponent has made remarks of why should you believe anyone that claims to have bare witness to God, because they could be lying about it. My question to you is, have can you believe anyone? about anything? How do you KNOW that they are not LYING? everything you have ever been told by someone else could be incorrect. The way i look at how i can determine if someone is telling the truth is based on motive. For example with the disciples, the reasoning behind believing them is "Why?". Why would they go spread the word of the Lord? And for what reward? It wasn't a popular thing to do, they faced threats, right from the beginning, and in the end, all died in very painful ways. So unless, you truly believed that Jesus was the savoir, why would you go through all that pain, and suffering, with no popularity being won either. So how do you know your sources are not "LYING" to you? What is your proof?
Why did God(Christen) create Homosexuals, and Bisexuals

http://epistle.us... Notice how this is speculated and some of it might not have been true as there was no actual direct evidence but stories. Now claiming to own how i believe in my god is wrong. Just because i believe in diest principles doesn't make me a non christian but a different from you christian. CHRISTIAN. that's how you spell it by the way. Someone who doesn't know how to spell a religion should not be able to define it to another. Also i never said i was a christian. And like philochristos said, this isn't really a debate but a question. You didn't state your belief in round one and you haven't in round two so i have nothing to rebut. Can you prove he is active in our universe with logical, factual proof. Not someone saying they saw him because tthe might have not if they were lying. https://www.gaychristian.net... Someone saying how god might not care about homosexuality.
Why did God(Christen) create Homosexuals, and Bisexuals

God is very active in our universe, by saying that he is not, you are contradicting everything you believe in as a believer of Christ, he is active in everyone, he is the all powerful, he is the creator of me, and you, and with regards with saying that there are no scriptures saying anything about Homosexuals, you are completely wrong, even though, Jesus never did touch on the topic.
Why did God(Christen) create Homosexuals, and Bisexuals

That depends on your interpretation. If Jesus is god, and God is Jesus than God must not hate them as Jesus loves and forgives. Buts that's going by a many year old book. As of now you can't know if he changed his mind or not. The ten commandments were supposedly sent down in ancient Egypt. There are no direct records of homosexual behavior. So he could have changed his mind. As we can't ask God right now. Also there are diet principles which say god is not active in our universe. So he couldn't create them.
2nd DDO Census Debate: Syrian Refugees

Unfortunately I was unable to get a hold of my previous adviser (bsh1) before this debate started so Donald. Keller, the tournament host, was gracious enough to offer me his advisory assistance during this debate. We agree with the definitions provided by our opponent in the opening round, and feel the need only to clarify the resolution. We feel it is assumed the refugee acceptance stated in the resolution is thought to mean specifically mean during time of civil war, and that at such time that these refugees" home country (Syria) has settled down, that the affirmative would support sending such refugees home. As the Con in this debate, me and Donald. Keller will be making arguments for the devil"s advocate position on this topic, arguing that Syrian refugees should not be accepted at all into the United States.
2nd DDO Census Debate: Syrian Refugees

The Resolution: The USFG Should Accept Syrian Refugees. Summary: With the threat of ISIS in the middle east, and the civil war in Syria, a number of refugees have sought nations like the US to call their new home. However, as the threat of refugees being used to hide terrorists finds it's way into the thoughts of Americans following a number of shootings from France and locations within the US, the debate over allowing them in has become a hot topic of discussion. Rules: - No wars (source wars or definition wars, etc. .. ) - No kritiking. - No Conduct or S&G votes. - Proper formatting must be used (and consistent. ) - First round is for acceptance and clarification only. The winner shall receive a choice between a $25 gift card to Amazon or Walmart. Pro side is represented by Whiteflame, and advised by Skepsikyma. Con side is represented by TUF, and advised by Bsh1. Definitions: USFG: The United States Federal Government, specifically those departments concerned with immigration policy. Should: Implies a policy and the need for a lens to view the success of said policy. In this case, the debate will focus on a comparison of the net benefits of upholding and negating the resolution. Accept: In this case, to accept means to allow these individuals to live within U. S. borders under refugee status. "Refugee status is a form of protection that may be granted to people who meet the definition of refugee and who are of special humanitarian concern to the United States. " [. http://www.uscis.gov...] This is akin to being granted asylum, and each results in the following: "Once granted, both statuses allow you to stay in the United States indefinitely. Asylees and refugees are given permission to work and are allowed to apply for a green card (within one year of either entering the United States as a refugee or being approved for asylum). " . http://www.nolo.com... Syrian Refugees: This designates the individuals who will be discussed in this case - those from Syria. "Refugees are generally people outside of their country who are unable or unwilling to return home because they fear serious harm. " [. http://www.uscis.gov...] The full legal definition can be found in that link. With that, I await our opponent's acceptance, and the start of this debate.
The government should cut taxes for everyone

The government should cut taxes across the board. Every taxpayer should get tax cut including the wealthy. Here's what will happen if they cut taxes. 1st: People will have more money because of the tax cut and they will spend more money 2nd: As people are spending more money businesses will make more money. 3rd: As businesses are making more money they will pay more tax dollars. 4th: Government revenue will increase in result of businesses paying more tax dollars 5th: Businesses will hire more employees because they have more money. This will also result in more government revenue because more people will pay taxes because more people will have jobs. The wealthy should get a 10 percent tax cut because they will spend more money, invest more and the ones that own a business will hire more employees in result of a large tax cut. The middle class should also get a good size tax cut to make it easier to pay back loans and to spend more money. The wealthy should get the largest tax cut because they create most of the jobs in this country. The wealthy also worked very hard for their money so therefore government should not take a lot of money from them. The government should also eliminate income taxes for the poor because every dollar matters for them. Finally they should cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and eliminate the estate tax, Alternative minimum tax and capital gains tax. To make up for these large tax cuts, the government should cut spending by as much as they cut taxes and eliminate tax deductions and exemptions. This tax plan will create many jobs and result in additional government revenue.
Feminism and Catholicism: The Church is not Misogynistic, in fact the polar opposite

There are a large number of misconceptions about the Roman Catholic Church, it's history, it's teachings, and it's nature. I hope to combat those misconceptions, one of which is how the Church views women. The church celebrates women, celebrates their femininity, celebrates their ability to bring life into a world of death, and in fact holds that the FIRST and perhaps GREATEST Christians in history were in fact, women! There is a biblical and historical foundation for all of these ideas. This is in contrast to popular misconceptions about how women are viewed in the church, in that the are "subservient" to men and not as important. This is a gross over simplification, and I have never come across an institution that wants to protect, cherish, and celebrate women more than the Catholic Church.