BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Space Shuttle was better than Russian Spacecraft during the same period.

Ok, so I want to begin by simply paying homage to the space shuttle. The shuttle was, in a word, awesome. It was a cool-looking symbol of adventure and will be sorely missed. However, aside from aesthetics, and the spirit of adventure that it encapsulated, I believe that its achievements fell short of Soyuz for the following reasons: - Firstly, the elephant in the room with regards to the space shuttle program is what it actually achieved. It didn't take us to the Moon or Mars or to any asteroids. It took us into orbit. No more, no less. Arguably the shuttle's most high-profile achievement has been the construction and maintenance of the International Space Station. This being said, the ISS, in my opinion, represents a tremendous waste of money. Few experiments have been performed aboard the ISS that could not have been conducted under simulated conditions on Earth. The project has sucked up $100 billion so far with little, if anything, to show for it. This is money that could have been used to land a rover on Titan, put a sub into the oceans of Europa, send men back to the Moon, or to Mars. The list is endless. The shuttle worked for the last 14 years of its life in the service of a dollar-guzzling monstrosity. - Secondly, the intention of the space shuttle program was to create an efficient, inexpensive space truck. It was intended to make space travel easy and routine. In this the project failed enormously. It was incredibly expensive and difficult to maintain. The cost of a Soyuz mission is approximately $100 million. The average space shuttle mission cost approximately $450 million. - Thirdly, comparing the failure rate of the two vehicles sees a higher rate of fatality for the space shuttle. 228 cosmonauts have flown in Soyuz missions, of which 4 have died, representing a 1.75% fatality rate. The space shuttle has flown 692 astronauts and lost 14 of them, being a 2.02% fatality rate. Interestingly, since we are comparing the operation of the Soyuz and the space shuttle over the same period, the Soyuz had not a single fatality during the entire period the space shuttle was in operation. The last fatal failure of a Soyuz mission was in 1971, and the last non-fatal failure was in 1983. Soyuz has now 27 consistent failure-free years under its belt, with the space shuttle last failing catastrophically in only 2003.
Man Can't Know Theistic Truths

My first debate will be a quick one since it's more of a question. My only argument is this, 1) If God is all knowing, then only he can know of himself 2) Mankind are not all knowing 3) Therefore, Man can't know theistic truths Support for 1: In order to know anything about a being which knows all, we must be within that very same epistemic position, but if no other being shares such a position with God, then ultimately God is unknowable. Support for 2: Humans stand in very limited epistemic positions, we barely know calculus on a given day! So why think we would comprehend a being which calculates the most minuscule things? Thanks to anyone who can help me out with this argument, I'd like to formulate it better but this is the mere beginning.
Is it fair that despite being all powerful, God rarely helps the innocent.

Exactly correct.James 1:20"For the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. "This phrase is has correct, if someone is angry, they wouldn't like god, this is why god dosen't help the innocent, I'm happy to find you copy and pasting your stuff and searching them directly on google without looking at what you copy.That is right, even if the innocent hasn't done anything wronge, someday, god will give them a chance, it will always will. For example: Africian people starving, what does god do? He makes us donate to these people, like this, god does help the innocent, I don't think god would help you with dealing with your homework if you study. However he would if you actually put some effort into it, pray something that is essential, and something that you really need, not just act to god.
Is it fair that despite being all powerful, God rarely helps the innocent.

Just because your angry doesn't mean you should make it clear, that's just poor conduct. "You have totaly ingonred, my examples are stupid" "Now I will start off saying why god dosen't" "now if you don't listen to this, your gonna start making more example" Proverbs 29:11 "A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back. " Proverbs 19:11 "A man's wisdom gives him patience; it is to his glory to overlook an offense." James 1:20 "For the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. "
Is it fair that despite being all powerful, God rarely helps the innocent.

You have totaly ingonred, my examples are stupid, I'm sorry, and like I said, God plans this, now if you don't listen to this, your gonna start making more example. Now I will start off saying why god dosen't. Perhaps you prayer is a lie, you can't trick god, god can only trick you. I will give you an example: “He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord…Proverbs 19:17 (NIV)
Is it fair that despite being all powerful, God rarely helps the innocent.

Since you say god will only answer your prayers if you believe he will help you, can you explain the massacre of Christians in Egypt, is it fair that God almighty watched, and did nothing while his Christian followers get murdered in the streets Egypt. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Why would god not defend his followers, Shapur II had all the Christians murdered in Persia. A total of 1,150 dead Christians in 341 AD. In Sudan, it is estimated that over 1.5 million Christians have been killed by the Janjaweed, the Arab Muslim militia, and even suspected Islamists in northern Sudan since 1984. What about persecution from the Soviet Union, The total number of Christians killed, as a result of Soviet state atheist policies, are over 20 million. http://en.wikipedia.org... It's cool that you think all of these Christians were killed because they didn't deserve to have there prayers answered, but if even one of these followers that died was reasonable then your whole point is invalid. It's scientifically impossible that millions of Christians weren't reasonable people with families, love, kindness, and respect for god. Odds are some of these massacred in Egypt were deserving to be saved, but instead god watched them get slaughtered in the streets, and I guess there just no chance that the millions of Christians in other countries being massacred are all good people, if you're going to debate at least be reasonable. I'm not asking for my prayers to be answered I'm asking for the ones who need it.
Is it fair that despite being all powerful, God rarely helps the innocent.

"Quoated"you said "God can't help you if sometime is nearly impossible" this is not true for God nothing is impossible.Luke 1:37 For nothing is impossible with God."This quote is saying that for nothing is impossible for god, yes he is god, nothign is impossible, but it is the will of either he should help you or not.Look at this: Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. (NIV) 2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (NIV)You know what this has in common? These two things are important because if you pray, nothing will happen. If you pray, and belive in god, and have a humble heart, he POSSIBLY would help you.Read again, see if god listens to your answers, he proably don't even know that he answered it for you, he is friends to everyone, ugly, prisoner, most hated (Osama Bin-Laden). This is possibly the most known verse in the bible.John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. So if you belive in god, he would help you, he won't answer to all of your questions, but you will respond back to you.However if you must get your prayer, you must be very, very desperate, read this passage in the bible.Psalm 34:17 The righteous cry out, and the LORD hears them; he delivers them from all their troubles. (NIV)Psalm 91:15 He will call upon me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him and honor him. (NIV) In case if you were wondering, this is the reason why he dosen't answer your prayers.1• Disobedience - Deuteronomy 1:45; 1 Samuel 14:37 2• Secret Sin - Psalm 66:18 3• Indifference - Proverbs 1:28 4• Neglect of mercy - Proverbs 21:13 5• Despising the Law - Proverbs 28:9 6• Bloodguiltiness - Isaiah 1:15 7• Iniquity - Isaiah 59:2; Micah 3:4 8• Stubbornness - Zechariah 7:13 9• Instability or Doubt - James 1:6-7 10• Self-indulgence - James 4:3 Of cource, why would God answer things that would be unresonable, use your logic to think.
Is it fair that despite being all powerful, God rarely helps the innocent.

I would like to point of that pro has ailed to fulfill the job of Pro since he didn't post a argument, and only asked me to use biblical quotes, without several common sources. God can help us all with even trying he is Omnipotent The Bible teaches God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, : http://answers.yahoo.com... God has omniscience -He knows all-things Psalm 147;4-5 God has omnipotence -He is all-powerfull Matthew 19:26 God has omnipresence - He is present everywhere Matthew 28:20; Hebrews 13:5 God has eternality - He always has been and always will be Psalm 90:1-2 God has immutability - He does not change Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8 This means god has Omniscience- Having infinite knowledge. Omnipotence- Having infinite power. Omnipresent- The state of being everywhere at once. Eternality- Deathless and changelessness of youth Immutability- incapable of mutation. you said "God can't help you if sometime is nearly impossible" this is not true for God nothing is impossible. Luke 1:37 For nothing is impossible with God." I wonder if Caylee Anthony did something that meant she had to be brutally killed. http://en.wikipedia.org... Was the kidnapping of 3 Cleveland women for years part of his divine plan also? http://usnews.nbcnews.com...? Ariel Castro charged with holding three women captive for a decade impregnated one of them five times and punched her in the stomach until she miscarried, police said Wednesday in a chilling report on the kidnappings. The man forced one of his captives, Michelle Knight, to deliver the baby of another captive, Amanda Berry, in a kiddie pool, and threatened to kill Knight if the baby died, police said. Police made the revelations in a report that laid out a nightmarish captivity, including starvation and imprisonment in the basement. One official said the women apparently were allowed outside the house only twice, and briefly, in the years after they were captured. The Cleveland city prosecutor charged the man, Ariel Castro, with four counts of kidnapping " one for each of the three women and one for a baby that was born to Berry six years ago. Castro was also charged with three counts of rape for each of the adult women. Why would God not act during God act during the Holocaust it is fair that he didn't interfere with the Nazi's will to murder and instead let millions die. God nor the Bible can make us do anything, we choose to follow the Bible and Him or not. Its free will, if were all under the will of god do you think there would still be murder, rape, Stealing, Fighting. ETC.?
Is it fair that despite being all powerful, God rarely helps the innocent.

God can't help you if sometime is nearly impossible, and if you were referring to the bible, tell me what chapter, verse it is in, tell me if it is the old testiment or the new testiment, if you had to go on this thing what you call wikipedia or wiki answers, you are total wrong. Many people can change naswers, many people can make fake answers, these citations are wrong and you know it, you can not just get info from legit websites, I don't even think that the bible said that. Unless you prove it. God odes help you, he is in your heart, that is called the trinity, God, Jesus, and the holy spirit. The holy spirit lives in your heart, soul, he is always by your side, but however, you can't just pray to god when you have been raped or something, its either you have done something wrong in the past, or it's something that god planned to do.
Is it fair that despite being all powerful, God rarely helps the innocent.

In this debate I will argue that it is unfair that god lets people be murdered, raped, robbed, assaulted ETC. I don't expect him to get rid of all evil, I expect him to aid those who are being killed, because there death's are pointless. He allows terrible acts to happen though he could stop it effortlessly.He's omnipresent meaning god almighty watches these terrible acts happen. In the bible it is clear he says he doesn't act because he wants us to have free will, but this means he cares more about the murderer right to murder and the rapists right to rape, than the lifes of the victim's. In addition whether he aids the victim or the murderer, someone's free will is affected, a murder victim may be killed against his/her will, only because God would rather protect the murderer's right to murder, so his inaction is action that protects those who are evil. He also claim's that it's fair because they will burn in hell for all eternity, this doesn't unrape or unmurder the victim's however. How is knowing your assaulter is being tortured suppose to make you feel better about being raped. God know everything, so why doesn't he simply put actions into motion that would make them notice what they do is wrong. Before video cameras existed, he was parting the red sea, turning people into salt, and constantly ordering followers around. This is why I believe god is unfair, Christians please vote and comment fairly. For more information visit http://answers.yahoo.com...
The Christian/Jewish God (Yahweh) most likely exists outside of peoples imagination.

I will be representing the "Pro" position. I will utilize this round, as my opponent has, as a vehicle for acceptance of the debate and an introduction to my position and how I will format its presentation. I, of course, posit that we have good reason to believe that Yahweh is a present aspect and initiator of reality outside of imagination. In order to accomplish this, I will present in each of the next two rounds a reason to believe God exists and then a second reason to believe that Yahweh is the best candidate for that God. In total, these will be four arguments. I will use whatever available space I can to address the arguments and rebuttals of my opponent. Finally, depending on the course of the argument, I will use the fourth round to more fully address my opponents arguments, defend my present arguments, and/or introduce another separate argument, as the situation presents itself. In closing I plan to use the fifth round for closing arguments and a call to action from the voters.
The Christian/Jewish God (Yahweh) most likely exists outside of peoples imagination.

My opponent forfeited the last two rounds. I hope he is well, and that sickness or some tragedy hasn't been what's kept him from further competing at this debate. I proposed four arguments in the course of this debate: two in defense of a God's existence, based on morality and based on causation at the beginning of the universe. My opponent only addressed the moral argument, for which I responded to his concerns. Likewise, I proposed two arguments for why that transcendent being should be viewed as Yahweh, based on fulfilled prophecy and the resurrection of Christ from the grave. He raised a few concerns with prophecy which I addressed, and provided in-text or hyperlink citations to each point. The second argument again went unaddressed. I commend my opponent for a thought-provoking debate at the beginning, however I must implore you to vote 4SCOREand7 (PRO). Even if you don't share the same persuasion of opinion as I do on this issue, I strongly feel that I provided the better argumentation in this debate, answered every concern of my opponent, and raised unanswered concerns. Aside from this, the CON position forfeited two rounds. Thank you for your time, 4SCOREand7 Romans 5:8
Resolved: Christian Faith and Reason and/or Science are Fundamentally Irreconcilable.

I have heard prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Ayn Rand attack the Christian faith because they claim it is unreasonable or unscientific. This argument is a growing theme in the "New Atheist" movement, and is the case pro will be making in this debate. Let's get down to a few definitions. Christian Faith- the belief in the fundamental precepts of Christianity, mainly the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus, the son of God, as atonement for sins, the belief in the Trinity, the belief that salvation is obtained through faith, grace, and repentance, and the belief in the reliability/authority of the Bible. Reason- Logical thought: or making judgments and understanding the world through logical thought Science- The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: [1] or conclusions derived from this activity I would like to thank my opponent in advance for what promises to be an interesting debate. Pro may begin his argument in the 1st round but must not make new arguments in the last round. The burden of proof is on pro. Good luck! Sources 1- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The Bible holds more virtue than any other book!

I was blind-sided and mis-worded my debate. That is my error. Anyone with any sense knows the Bible has alot more virtue in it than a matchbook. Far and away. But Con came hard and I salute him. Very creative and interesting, Sir. To conclude: 1. The Bible without a doubt has reached more people than a matchbook. It has tranformed lives, I doubt a matchbook has ever. 2. The world continues to display virtue that is written inside the Bible. 3. The Bible gives unmeasureable hope and Faith. 4. The Bible gives and continues to give for thousands of years long before a matchbook was thought of. My opponent says that his matchbook is 1 point ahead this far, I see it as tied. Because the Bible is also Conformed to standards. There are mnay Bibles and I think that many have been conformed to man's will and not God. So in this man has given the Bible conformity. As my opponent used the same in his arguement, the matchbook like the Bible can not conform itself it was conformed by a man by obligation to law and standards. The matchbook did not change itself. A man changed it to conformity. I do appreciate this discussion and tip my hat to my opponent. The final result in my book is a draw or the Bible far passes the matchbook. Thanks Con and readers. Vote Pro~!
The Bible holds more virtue than any other book!

I am Pro/For that: The Bible holds more virtue than any other book! Rounds: 1. Acceptance 2. Arguement/Questions 3. Rebuttals/Answers 4. Rebuttals 5. Rebuttals/Conclusion Rules: 1. Opposition must provide the book they claim. 2. Debate must be respectful. 3. Debate must stay on topic (Both books) 4. Both sides must provide questions about the oppositions side. 5. All questions must be answered and explained. 6. Pro/For provides the resolution. I declare the Bible as my book! The resolution is: To provide the most documentation from within both books to determine which explantion displays characterisitcs of virtual morality more appropriately.
Moter-boats should be banned.

First off, I note that my opponent has completely dropped the economic argument at this point. Secondly, I'd like to point out that the main reason motorboats are better than sailboats is not speed, but durability, it will break in the oceans such as the pacific due to heavy storms, therefore it will need to be made of steel, rendering the sail useless due to weight. Another fact is that the capacity of a ship is defined by it's buoyancy, which means that a heavier ship can carry more due to having more air pockets, also, a device has to be powerful enough to start the movement due to inertia, sails aren't, you can attach an engine as a start-up device, but that is much to inefficient to use due to obvious reasons.
Moter-boats should be banned.

I admit that my opponent has supplied very good reasons. Although, these reasons are in my favor. 1. Con said that motor boats ARE bad for the enviroment, which is not in any way good for his sake. He is agreeing with me even if he did not like how I said it. He also said that it would be davestating to the fishing econemy if we don't use motor-boats because they go faster than sailboats. Sailboats as well have engines, but they are not as big because sailboats are not as heavy. That means they can actually carry MORE fish per vessel.
Moter-boats should be banned.

1."First, motor-boats should be banned because they are horrible for the environment. They pollute the water and infect the fish. Think about it, if you eat fish as a meal often (like me) do you really want oils in it? This would be disgusting and horrible for your health." Motor-boats ARE bad for the environment, but not quite in the specified method, oil will in no way actually REACH the fish unless there is an unlikely event of a leak, in which case the fish will most likely never go to the market. While it's true, ships are extremely polluting, don't forget that the majority of pollution is actually from energy production and agriculture, not transport. 2. "Also, sailboats are better for your learning. Motor-boats are dangerous and you can get cut-up in the prop from tubing, wake boarding, and swimming which is what the main percent of motor-boats are used for. Sailing, you always have to look forward and that is a very important skill to have in life, especially when you get a job, like me, and you have to be able to spend your money wisely, especially in this economy." While I agree with the point of using sailing boats in the private sector, it will be devastating to the fishing economy to have to change back, and for several reasons. Reason 1: Sailing boats are much slower than motor boats which means that they will produce less fish food product per boat, which would mean more boats will be needed to be built and will therefore hamper the economy. Reason 2: Sailing boats movement depends on the wind, this means that sometimes boats may be stuck in the midlle of nowhere with nowhere to go, while the fish rot in the holding bays. Reason 3: Durability. Sails can't move an iron boat very well, so certain types of mid-oceanic fish and food products, such as crabs, will never be seen in stores ever again after the banning of motor boats. 3. "Also, motor-boats are very expensive to manufacture and using my reasons above, I say that there a waste of money for the consumer. In this economy, this is a very bad thing because it is practically throwing away money." Earlier you made a point of buying a sailing boat, is this not a waste of money as well? Unless someone does something profitable from sailing it can be considered a waste of money. I am not saying that you should not buy a sailing boat, I am saying that your definition of wasteful needs correcting. Also, any form of sales lowers the price of the base components only strengthening economy in the long run, in fact ANY purchase of ANY object which can be seen physically, even if virtually, strengthens the economy, what weakens the economy is when people take loans from banks to buy these things and then not paying back. That is my point made.