BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Print ( Books, newspaper, novels) is a thing of the past.

I myself am part of these 25 years you mention. And I am still not taken in by the fact that these years are irrelevant. Technology is bad for many reasons. The toll all these devices are taking on our eyes is immeasurable. Children aged 3 and 4 years have to use glasses that 70 year olds do. And once you lose these devices, then getting them back is usually impossible. Also, every country isn't so developed and rich. I am from India, and I know when it comes to reading, even millionaires here read newspapers brought fresh to them from the press. The smell fresh pages and printed newspapers have is something you can never experience with texts and technology. Everyone cannot afford devices and when it comes to educating themselves and making themselves aware, even poor people use books and newspapers. One will never wish to make their personal diaries personal Word documents. We all NEED paper to make us feel alive, to make us feel nostalgic seeing those slightly yellowed pages. Even people who I see having 5 Apple devices go to the stands and buy magazines. Roald Dahl used to only write on yellow pages in pencil. So does Ruskin Bond. Their writings will never be rich if they type. And when technology finally becomes too much for humanity, I am sure all of us will go back to our grass-root levels.
Print ( Books, newspaper, novels) is a thing of the past.

The internet first came into force around the 1990's. This means that the only children that have grown up with it are 25 years old. With this information we can day that the newspapers have not felt the full effect of this shift and therefore any facts about the non decline are irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that phones can read the text to you easier while you are driving, kindles are more efficient and use loses electricity then lights and these devices can store hundreds of books and still be portable. These devices are more durable and better then books and manuscripts. Overall the technology is leads likely to be wrecked and is easier to access. This means that the decline of the newsprint industry is imminent. There has been a transition. Playboy will no longer post nudes as I is too easily found on the internet. Mcleans and almost all modern magazines and newspapers at now available online. This spells the downfall of the newspaper and the rose of technology. It is for these reasons that this resolution will and must Stand.
Print ( Books, newspaper, novels) is a thing of the past.

I have gone to places and houses of people who have rich libraries and thousands of books on many subjects and by many authors. Moreover, I am not seeing the print industry dying in any way. In fact, it is flourishing and people still like to open 20-30 pages of their newspapers everyday. We read 10 printed words and we begin to see images. I feel print is beautiful and lively. And all this technology , Kindles and Apps are downright spoiling it. I am against them.
The United States should take "In god we trust" off of the currency

1. America has never been an Atheist country The reason we have, "In God We Trust" on our currency is due to the fact of the Cold War. In 1956, the U.S. wanted to distinguish itself from a communist and Atheist country such as the USSR. Everyone at that time was beginning to understand that communism does not work. The U.S. wanted to show to the world that they were not an Atheist country. Therefore, the 84th Congress passed a resolution declaring, "In God We Trust" our national motto. They later printed the motto onto money. A joint poll in 2003 commissioned by: USA today, CNN, and Gallup shows that 90% of Americans approve the motto. Due to a 2011 study done by Gallup, more than 9 in 10 americans continue to believe in God. Even the fact that the president must swear an oath on the religious book, "The Bible." The fact is shown that America has never been an Atheist country, and some of America"s most thriving moments were before we were having these types of debates over whether or not we should have our own National motto on our currency. 2. Why the Pro argument is not correct Here is a quote the Pro has said in his argument, "By saying, "In god we trust" is indicating that everyone trusts in god if they are in America. Or it would indicate that all atheists are second class citizens because of religion. We need to take it off." This is a begging-the-question fallacy. The fact that you have said that our national motto indicates that atheists are second class citizens is completely absurd. If we put, "Atheist"s rock" on our currency, would that make me a second class citizen behind Atheist? If so, this would be the caste system, and we do not have the caste system in America. In the separation of church and state, is declares, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This motto is not prohibiting an Atheist right to exercise there own personal beliefs. They still can believe what they would like to believe. Also in the Pro"s argument it states, "By saying we trust in god, the government favors religion," It is not favoring religion as crazy as it might sound. It is one of the ways that it is showing to the world that you have the liberty to believe what you would like to believe, whether your Christian, Muslim, or Hindu. Of course there was a small factor in this bill that congress might of had some members who believed in God, but America was founded with religious men, and why America has become so successful over the generations. 3. History In the Pro"s first argument, he states, "1. We should not lie on our currency, or imply that people are second class citizens on our currency." If "In God We Trust" a lie, why do Americans trust in God. America has had it"s currency with, "In God We Trust" on it for over 50 years. First of all, it is hard to keep a lie that long if you might agree. And second of all how is it a lie that Americans trust in God if Americans do trust in God. Also we are not implying on our currency that people are second class citizens as I explained in my second contention.
The United States should take "In god we trust" off of the currency

2. " This round is when I state the rules, and the opponent (Con) will state his or her opening arguments. In the last round, he or she will put: "This round is meant to be empty"" Con has failed to meet the second rule of this debate. We can just forget rule two then I guess... Even though it should be a Ff. 1. We should not lie on our currency, or imply that people are second class citizens on our currency 2. If there is a lie, or some sort of indication that someone else is a second class citizen, we should take it off. 3. There is a statement on our currency that is both a lie, and it implies that atheists are second class citizens. 4. Therefore, we should take this statement off of our currency. By saying, "In god we trust" is indicating that everyone trusts in god if they are in America. Or it would indicate that all atheists are second class citizens because of religion. We need to take it off. http://dictionary.reference.com...... citizen I'm not saying we need to take every dollar bill and erase the statement. Only that we must stop printing it on our bills. The Government is getting involved with religion, and- that's a problem. This brings us into the law of separation of Church and State. "Separation of Church and State: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State" -Jefferson. http://www.loc.gov...... The actual rule: "The principle that government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. Many view separation of church and state as required by the First Amendment. The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice, but also prevents the government from officially recognizing or favoring any religion" http://dictionary.reference.com...... By saying we trust in god, the government favors religion. The government is supposed to be neutral on this subject, meaning it should not have any statements regarding god. Therefore we must take god off of our currency.
The United States should take "In god we trust" off of the currency

RULES: 1. Serious debate. You can joke around a bit if you'd like, but voters will vote based off of arguments, not mirth. 2. This round is when I state the rules, and the opponent (Con) will state his or her opening arguments. In the last round, he or she will put: "This round is meant to be empty" This is only because I am taking a round to state the rules. 3. FF'ing a round will be conduct. FF'ing two rounds is a full FF. 4. Voters MAY BE counter voted if a voter has a horrible or no reason they voted. Please don't let this get out of hand, I don't want a vote bombing session in this debate. 5. Failure to oblige with all the above rules is a 7 point FF.
J&K should fully accede to the India

I'll be starting with what my opponent says, then proceed to sum up my argument and conclude my argument. I'll begin with the China thing. If China does feel it should claim Kashmir, it is most impractical logic. Roughly 1% of the population consists of Tibetan Buddhists, the other 99% are Hindus and Muslims. China has only a practical claim if the population of Tibetan Buddhists was a considerably large portion of Kashmir. The United States is very ethnically diverse. The United States I can't say is a great country as "great" is a bit ambiguous, but yes the USA is very powerful if you consider the amount of nuclear weapons at it's disposal. The difference between Kashmir and the US is that the ethnic groups of the US do not quarrel for power. Ethnic nationalism is very high in that area. Hindu nationalists want full integration with India. Muslim nationalists would only fear persecution, but as I had said previously, Sheikh Abdullah says otherwise. Kashmir seems to prevent conflict between the Muslims and Hindus of India. Thus, when Kashmir becomes entirely part of India, then Hindus and Muslims in India will most likely NOT dispute. In response to the-reason-India-and-Pakistan-march-into-Kashmir argument, I say: India never marched into Kashmir without adequate reason: Pakistan invades and the Kashmir Government asks India to defend their lands. Note here that PAKISTAN not India was the one that marched right on in. Pakistan did not have adequate reason to march in either. I believe I have already mentioned this, but the Muslims in Kashmir do not want to be a part of Pakistan. Furthermore, if Pakistan wants to rescue the 4 million Muslims in Kashmir from "the tyranny of a handful of Hindus," then Pakistan is obviously willing to sacrifice 100 million Muslims in India. I would like to stress that the number saved is a mere 2.5% of the number lost. And, in my opinion, that is a very bad reason. Onward to my opponent's argument. That sounds good, but I find it flawed. If Kashmir became a part of Pakistan, millions of Kashmiris would die; so, Kashmir will not choose to accede to Pakistan. China's claim is impractical, and most countries would agree. If China was to assert it's claim when Kashmir chose to accede to India or Pakistan, then the UN would be called upon. The UN would then proceed to point out how 1% of the population does not give enough reason for China to make a valid claim and call the land its own. But if Kashmir chose to accede to India; then Pakistan would not bother as it would mean almost certain defeat, and China, as I mentioned before could not make a strong move. I believe that was also a fairly good way to conclude my own argument, so I will leave it at that. The source of all my information is: India, Pakistan, and Kashmir: Antinomies of Nationalism by Ashutosh Varshney. Lastly, vote for me (pro/aff).
J&K should fully accede to the India

Thanks to karthegeld for the debate! I hope one of us will become more enlightened on the subject. Now, for those of you thought Kashmir was only a really nice fabric, The Kashmir conflict actually refers to the territorial dispute over Kashmir, the northwestern-most region of the Indian subcontinent. Many people claim Kashmir: China, the inhabitants of Kashmir, India, and Pakistan. *I believe Kashmir should become an independent nation.* MY OPPONENT CLAIMS: //First and foremost, J&K, due to its ethnic diversity would suffer from internal problems. There would be constant disagreement on what actions should be taken because there would be 3 sides to the argument (2 of which almost always contradict).// Is not the United States a melting pot of ethnicities, cultures, and religions? Is not the United States a great country; it is one of the most powerful! Kashmir is full of different races, you are correct. Most of the violence you describe here, though, is due to the people of Jamma and Kashmir expressing their want to be a free country, MY OPPONEnT SAYS: //J&K would need constant military aid as Pakistan, which has demonstrated the want to use military options to "liberate" the Muslims in J&K, would invade every so often. The constant military need would also lower the money available for the government to do other things for the benefit of the State and its people.// Pakistan needs a loophole, as does India. They need a reason to march into Kashmir. There reason is the Muslim population. Pakistan has enough to worry about -- namely China and India. Pakistan knows if it invades Jammu and Kashmir, they will spark a major conflict -- so they will not do so. The money made by Kashmir would be sufficient, especially when you subtract Indian taxes. MY POINT is, that if Kashmir were to become part of one of the main three nations that want it (China, India, Pakistan) it would spark major conflict between countries who already hate each other. Just imagine three nuclear powers getting closer and closer to the tipping point.
This debate will not result in a tie

< > "It is undecided," is another way of saying 'a tie'. < > This also weighs heavily on your biased opinion. What if I come back in a week and see the votes are tied, then I die. Guess what? The voting period would be over as far as I was concerned and I would have been right yet again. But this might not satisfy you, so to give one final point, I will give you a vote and myself a vote, which will make me right, as I am the only one who can now make a fair and informed decision about this debate having seen it all in it's entirety. I, officially, cast one vote for you and one vote for myself, even though the debate is not officially over, while the voting period has yet to officially begin. You see? A tie. Thank you for the debate.
This debate will not result in a tie

My opponent is insisting on saying that the end of the debate is at the conclusion of round 3. However, it is not a tie at the end of round 3. It is undecided. The only way to tell who wins is by voting, which is what the voting period is for. The only time when we can tell if there is a winner, or a tie, is at the end of the VOTING period. Seeing that the voting period does not end, I win. Thank you.
This debate will not result in a tie

< > Then you defeated yourself in your opening of Round One. At the conclusion of this debate is a result of 0 votes to 0 votes. The voting period is completely separate from the debating period. If it were all one period, I'd be able to vote right now, but I cannot because the debate is not over yet. <> If the voting period never ends, that simply means that people can continue to vote and change their votes indefinitely or until the format for the site changes, which brings me to my next point. The format of the site has changed since it has launched, so to use words such as "never" is ridiculous. You cannot made such claims because you are not the webmaster; nor do you own the server that houses this site. Your claims are based on assumptions that do not have a constants supported by reality. << If this debate cannot result in anything, it cannot result in a tie.>> How so? This statement does not make any sense. The debate immediately results in a tie at the conclusion of Round Three. < > No, because you do not get one point after I submit my argument for Round Three. We will both have ZERO. This is why I win... because this debate will result in a tie. This is why I win.
This debate will not result in a tie

I appreciate your take on this topic and look forward to arguing Con. <> This is where I believe you have made an error. At the conclusion of this debate, the result will be a tie, as the voting period begins. < > If I'm looking at the sky, and I see clear blue skies to the east, but you are looking to the west and see storm clouds moving in, we can both be right. If I can convince some to look to the east and convince them that the sky is blue and you convince others to look west and convince them that the sky is gray that would make us both right. If I can convince more folks to see things as I see them, it doesn't mean that you're wrong, it just means I've convinced more people to see things my way, thus I can be right while maintaining the tie. If .9999999(repeating) can equal one on this site, I'm certain this debate can and will result in a tie at the conclusion of Round Three, as the voting period begins.
This debate will not result in a tie

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, I am for the motion that this debate will not end in a tie. As a matter of fact, this debate will not end at all, assuming the the voting period is indefinite. Let us take an example. Say at a certain time there is a tie. However, the opposition is arguing that there will be a tie, so he is right. If he is right, then there is no tie. ARGUE THAT!!! thank you
The God exist

Let the rookie show what he he has! What makes you thing the holy Scripture is made by god? I agree with you Everything is Man made (Not everything i mean the so called holy scripture). But who created the super atom?Now we believe in big-bang does big-bang state about origin of matter? The origin of Everything? Who created the origin of Everything? Who created the origin of life?Do not mix up God with the holy scripture. What makes you think Holy scripture will defend god existence? If you believe in science Please explain with science. The reason for creating us maybe unknown. May be Universe recycle itself. If you know about " G". The range of G infinity. also the range of g is infinite. Please explain with the science if you can. Thanks
The God exist

My opponent has the burden of proof in this debate. He claims that God exists despite various holy scrpture(s) being flawed and inaccurate. In that case, I invite my opponent to discuss how or why he can know God exists, how he is defining God, and what proof he has that God exists. Otherwise I have nothing to respond to considering I have no idea what I'm supposed to be arguing doesn't exist if holy scripture is not reliable to define or describe God and Her alleged entity/actions. Thanks.
The God exist

The God exist. But HE did not made any religion. So if any religious text is saying what is not true that means it is created by the humans, Not by the GOD. The theory of big-bang does not say that there is no creator, but proves that the holy texts are made by humans. I don`t want to debate about the holy scripture i want to argue about the presence of GOD. He made only one religion and that is Humanity. The properties of human though some people have little humanity. Our MRCA ( most recent common ancestor) proves that evolution is true.
The God exist

In the last round, I asked my opponent to: 1) Define God 2) Discuss how or why he can know God exists, without relying on scripture 3) What proof he has that God exists Pro has failed to address any of those 3 questions, so again I don't have much to respond to. My opponent has the burden of proof. I can't argue against the evidence that God exists if he doesn't provide any evidence for me to refute. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To respond to the few points Pro makes, he mentions: 1) What makes you think the holy scripture is made by God? Response - I never said that God created holy scripture. 2) He says he agrees that "everything is man made" (which I never suggested), but asks who created the super atom. Response - I have no idea who, if anyone or anything, created the super atom. He has to prove that God did. 3) He asks if the Big Bang is the origin of matter. Response - Science suggests that it is; however, the evidence is not concrete. Still, just because I do not necessarily KNOW the origin of matter (or the origin of everything) doesn't mean that we have to attribute the creation of everything in existence to God, especially if my opponent cannot define or describe God. 4) He asks what makes me think that holy scripture will defend God. Response - Of course, I never said such a thing. 5) Finally, Pro says that the reason for creation or everything in the universe is unknown. Response - I completely agree. Pro has to prove that we should attribute it to God, but I submit that we have no reason to suppose that we should regardless of scripture.
Contraction Debate

This is my first time on this end of a Contradiction Debate.Con must ask questions trying to make me, PRO, contradict myself.**This debate has a 1 Hour response time.**Rules:Rounds 1-3 are Question and Answer rounds.Round 4 is for my final answers and if Con is stating any Contradictions.However, Con may state when he/she believes a contradiction has been made at any time. (I suggest to continue asking questions, if applicable, in case it is proven no contradiction was made)***If a contradiction is not mentioned until Round 4... I, as Pro, am allowed one response in the comments to state why I believe I did not contradict myself (assuming this is the case.) I am to start that comment with: "CONTRADICTION REPLY:"Up to 6 questions may be asked in Rounds 1-3. Round 4 no questions may be asked.Questions are encouraged to be Yes or No, but you may use other types of questions if it has multiple choices, or other simple answers. ***** Not Applicable, or N/A, is a viable answer if the question and/or the answer choices to do not apply to me, which I must explain how they do not.I.E. "Do you have a wife?" 'no' ... "Do you beat your wife" 'N/A' as I do not have a wife"Good Luck!
Contraction Debate

Con has admitted defeat. And then continued to make a case for a contradiction. I would assume this means I am the winner, but i will refute his points. "For example, question 2 should have been answered My name is Dominic Richard Groth. Notice the emphasis on 'is'. Very important. This new answer is now confirmation instead of the basic answer. He is stating that his name is in fact Dominic Richard Groth. However, my opponent didn't do this. "My opponent is stating I am supposed to emphasize my answers as he has emphasized his questions. This would be invalid. He stated he emphasized words in his question for clarifcation that the question is understood. I understood the questions by giving them a correct response. My answer to not need to be emphaiszed. The questions were answered correctly. They were complete answers that did not need to be italicized as I am not clarifying any point in my answer. You were merely clarifying your question. My answers were simple and straightforward. No contradiction has been made.