BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
James McCloud is still alive.

I am interesting in debating this topic, as I have seen a fair amount of controversy about this topic. First round is for acceptance, and where I will give background information for any judges who may not understand this topic, also, this is the area of the debate where I will supply the rules. Both sides have an equal B.o.P, as none of the games have explicitly stated if James is dead or not.Rules: 1. The final round is for rebuttals, and no new arguments may be created. This prevents a fair debate without uncontested arguments. Failure to follow this rule will result in a forfeit.2. The first round is only for acceptance. After Con accepts, then I will make my first arguments.3. This argument does not revolve around the comic universe of Star Fox, instead, this debate revolves around the Star Fox games. (e.g. Star Fox, Star Fox 2, Star Fox 64, Star Fox Adventures, Star Fox: Assault, Star Fox Command, and Star Fox 64 3D.) This debate will NOT use Star Fox Wii U, as it is not released yet.4. Neither pro nor con can make any new rules during the debate, period.Background information:James McCloud is the father of Fox McCloud, who is the main character in all of the Star Fox games to date. In Star Fox 64, (or Lylat Wars, for you Europeans and Australians.) an opening scene tells us that, though a series of events, James McCloud is captured by the main recurring villain, Andross. It does NOT directly tell us his fate. Good luck to whoever accepts and takes the side of Con, and I look forward to an exciting debate.
Television can control your mind

My argument is not that TV programs aren't enjoyable or informational. My argument is that watching 4 to 6 hours of television on a daily basis "can change your life for the worse" and change the way you process thoughts and the way one views actual reality. This defines the term "Brainwashed" In round {1} Con has argued TV is informational, "I think that 4 to 6 hours of TV is actually helpful because no matter what you are watching you gain new information. " He defines the physical technology of actual Television explaining it is "an object which of course doesn't have a mind of its own" I agree with my opponent that TV's them selves do not brainwash you however, I argue it is the programming on TV and the amount we take in that is harmful to us. My argumentThe subconscious is powerful. It is aware of every particle and detail around you. But it doesn't know the difference between fact or fiction and acts on all information passing through the conscious mind as fact, and responds to it. So what do you think happens when you watch silly, moron, goofy commercials and television programs? They are training your thought processes. Americans are wired into their television sets. Over the last 30 years, they have come to look at their television sets and the images on the screen as reality. You put something on television and it becomes reality. If the world outside the television set contradicts the images, people start changing the world to make it more like the images and sounds of their television. Because its influence is so great, so pervasive, it has become part of our lives. You lose your sense of what is being done to you, but your mind is being shaped and molded. If that doesn't sound like brainwashing, I don't know what is. "the more television you watch, the less literate, you become. " Studies have shown teenagers who watch several hours of television a day do worse at school and are less likely to graduate than their peers. A 20-year study involving nearly 700 families in the US, found that those watching more than three hours of TV a day were twice as likely NOT to continue their education past high school. The researchers say their study is the first to show that attention problems linked to TV viewing could be the cause of academic failure. More time spent watching TV is linked with poorer school performance overall and decreased scores on standardized tests. This makes sense when you consider that more time spent in front of a TV means less time spent on homework or having stimulating interactions with adults or other children. I am still waiting for my opponent to prove "watching 4 to 6 hours of TV every day does not have any affect on any person, intellectually, emotionally, or sociably. "I have attached an informational video that will help you understand my argument. .. .. http://www.youtube.com...=SOURCES=http://www.turnoffyourtv.com...http://www.med.umich.edu...http://www.squidoo.com...
Television can control your mind

TopicIn this debate I will argue that watching to much television can literally brainwash you and change your life for the worse. Americans watch an average of 6 hours of TV per day. the more television you watch, the less literate, you become. Con will argue watching 4 to 6 hours of TV every day does not have any affect on any person, intellectually, emotionally, or sociably. I am looking for a serious debate on this topic, my experience on this site has had its flaws, but from what I have read there are plenty of you who take debates seriously. I am looking forward to a enjoyable, intellectual debate.I will now turn it over to my opponent to make his opening argument.
Atheism is Arbitrary, Inconsistent and it Borrows from the Bible

First of all, I would like to define Atheism. Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. That's all atheism is, Really. Atheism isn't a belief or philosophy, It's lack of belief that deities exist. I would disagree with your statements: Atheism is absolutely not arbitrary. Unlike theists, Atheists don't simply believe priests or holy books. Instead, They observe the world around them and notice that there is no evidence of God/gods existing. From that observation, They draw the conclusion that God/gods doesn't exist. Atheism is a logical belief, Not guided by chance. It is not the opinion of some authority, It is a logical conclusion atheists come to. Unlike theists, Atheists don't take authority for granted (or they wouldn't be atheists). Atheism isn't immoral and it doesn't borrow from the Bible. It borrows from common sense. People know that hurting others is wrong, That murder is wrong, That theft is wrong, Etc not because the Bible tells them but because it's common sense. Further, Some things the Bible says isn't very moral: like saying that homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals should be executed (Leviticus 18:22). Scientific inquiry is absolutely not predicated on the Bible being true. The Bible says stuff like "there was a worldwide flood 6, 000 years ago" and "God created the world less than 10, 000 years ago. " We KNOW that to be false. There is absolutely no evidence of a global flood and there is plenty of evidence that the world wasn't created 10, 000 years ago. How can a book which makes such incorrect statements be a basis for scientific inquiry? Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. All your claims are wrong. Atheism is not arbitrary, It's based on logic (unlike religion, Which is based on faith). Atheism isn't illogical. The Bible is scientifically wrong.
Atheism is Arbitrary, Inconsistent and it Borrows from the Bible

We got to debating Christianity because you are a Christian, And religion is the opposite of atheism. You brought up the Bible and you brought up God, So that's what we're discussing. You even brought up verses from the Bible such as Isaiah 2:22. You say that atheism's beliefs are different from one another. That is obviously not true, As atheism is simply a lack of belief in God/gods. You will never learn that, I'm afraid. However, RELIGION's beliefs are very different from one another. Some Christians believe in the Holy Trinity. Some don't. Jews believe that Jesus was a fraud. Muslims believe that he was a prophet. Vikings believed in Thor and Odin. Let me ask you, Why is the Bible right but not the Torah, Not the Quran, And not hundreds of other holy books? Why are morals based on the Bible and not on other holy books? Why is Christianity suddenly the right religion, And thousands of other religions are false? Really, If you are a Christian that means you don't believe in thousands of other Gods, Some as powerful as Yahwe himself. Isn't that arbitrary? "Nature" gives 0 evidence that the world was created 6, 000 years ago. We find fossils millions of years old. Carbon dating? Nah, Let's just use some book written thousands of years ago by Jewish scribes in the desert. Do you not see the ridiculousness of these claims? Where is the evidence that there was a Global Flood? Nowhere. Such evidence does not exist. Cultures like Ancient Egypt existed before 4000 years ago and after that too. If there was a flood, They would've dissapeared. I am being irrational? Says someone who believes that the world was created 6000 years ago. But here's one thing that doesn't make sense in the Bible: God's omnipotence. Nobody can be omnipotent. Can God create a stone which nobody could lift? If no, He is not omnipotent. Could God lift that stone? If no, He is not omnipotent. If yes, He is not omnipotent since he couldn't create an unliftable stone. There's one excerpt from the Bible which defines logic. I am concluding that the Bible is false because it's illogical and doesn't correspond with science, Not because it "has miracles". I really hope you do not borrow your morals from the Bible. Because the Bible says things like "If a man lies with another man as he lies with a woman, They are an abomination. They shall be surely put to death" (Leviticus 20:13). I really hope that you don't believe homosexuals should be executed. And finally, "the atheist worldview". I believe in the Big Bang, But believing in the Big Bang isn't part of being an atheist. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God/gods. Atheism is not the belief that we are all chemical accidents, As you like to say. Atheism is not the belief that you can do what you want. Atheism is not the belief in Social Darwinism or even in Evolution. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God/gods, And I wish you would learn that.
Atheism is Arbitrary, Inconsistent and it Borrows from the Bible

"Man makes mistakes" is a logical fallacy, The opposite of the Appeal to Authority. I could use the same fallacy to say that you're mistaken (as you are human) and God doesn't actually exist. If man is fallible, How is your belief correct, But atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, And thousands of other religions are wrong? Surely you are wrong too, Right? You haven't shown any facts which prove the existance of a deity. Trusting the Bible as a source is wrong, Because the Bible says crazy things like "the world was created 6, 000 years ago" and "there was a global flood 4, 000 years ago" and "a woman got pregnant from thin air" and "one man suffered, So all of humanity's sins were forgiven" and "God is omnipotent" and thousands of other crap. Just because some book says so doesn't mean anything. You use arguments "since the Bible is true", But the Bible is not true, Or at least not by default. I also fail to see the argument how logically, There can only be one God. How are many gods illogical? How is Yahwe real, But Thor and Zeus and Allah and other gods false? They are false to me as an atheist, But why are they false to you? Do you not see how disastrously wrong "humans are only moral because they are told so" is? It means humans are only moral because they are scared of God or want to go to Heaven! But how am I moral if I don't believe in God? And how are Christians immoral? You said that Christians can be immoral, But how if according to you GOD LITERALLY WROTE MORALITY IN THEIR HEARTS? "The atheist worldview" is also crap. How many times does this have to be repeated? Atheism is not belief in the Big Bang. Atheism isn't a blind faith in science. Atheist isn't illogical. Atheism isn't arbitrary. Atheism isn't immoral. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God/gods! I wish you understood that.
Atheism is Arbitrary, Inconsistent and it Borrows from the Bible

"How atheism is arbitrary, When it promotes gathering evidence and making logical conclusions, I do not know. " Atheism is arbitrary because it is based on fallible man. Man makes mistakes, Therefore he cannot be relied on for absolute truth as I have stated before. "Can you prove that God exists? With actual evidence, Not philosophy. " Surely. The evidence is in the immaterial. Things such as morals, Logic, Uniformity in nature and information all are evidence for God. "Why do Muslims, Buddhists, And other non-Christians wear clothes, Go to school, Etc? " The answer is simple, God says in Romans that He has written the law in all of men"s hearts. However, They also have many morals that are against God. "Why did morality exist before Christianity, Which appeared 1st century CE; and why did morality exist before Judaism, Which appeared around 1800 BCE? " Actually, Since the Bible is true then we get the laws from Adam and Noah, In other words since the beginning of time. "Why did people wear clothes, Go to school, Etc in places like pagan Ancient Rome before Jesus was even born and before Christianity appeared? Why did people in almost completely atheist states, Like the USSR, Wear clothes, Go to school, Etc? Why were people in almost completely atheist states, Like the USSR, Moral? " Again the Bible points out that God has written the lasw in their hearts. "Is there an authority above God? If no, How do you know? Isn't that an arbitrary assumption? " Because logically there can only be one God. A plethora of gods is illogical. "Why do immoral Christians exist? " Because they are sinners like everyone else. The problem isn"t with God, But with those Christians. "If morality comes from God, Does that mean humans are only moral when told to do so? " Absolutely, That is why many things that God says is morally wrong are becoming law. So yes. Humans are only moral so long as God is telling them to be so. Once. They turn God off, They become immoral in their actions. "If morality comes from God, Are humans only moral because of heaven/hell? " No. I am moral because I love God and want to please Him, Not to go to heaven for I am on my way to heaven because I put my faith in Jesus and repented of my sin. Going to heaven isn't determined by good works, But by trusting in Jesus' work on the cross. "Why do moral atheists exist? " Because they borrow from the Bible, But in the atheist worldview, Where we are just animals there is no reason to be moral. So they are inconsistent in their beliefs. "Most people have never read the Bible. How can they borrow anything from it? " Because God says in Romans that He has written the law in every persons heart.
Atheism is Arbitrary, Inconsistent and it Borrows from the Bible

Again, Atheism isn't a belief. It is a lack of one. A belief is an acceptance that something is true without proof. Atheism always demands proof and looks at proof, So it can't be a belief. Atheism is an observation of facts and a logical conclusion. It doesn't matter if you think that the conclusion is wrong, It's still not a belief. Your first argument makes no sense. First of all, You use the Bible to convince me which isn't going to do anything as I'm an atheist. If you want to debate properly, Don't use the Bible and use logic instead. The Bible isn't an argument. Just because some book says so, Doesn't mean that it's true. The Bible also says that God is omnipotent, But that's logically impossible. Your second argument is completely wrong. "Appealing to man's opinions as the truth is a faulty appeal to authority"- what? 'God doesn't exist' isn't an opinion, It is a fact. Just like 'God exists' is also a fact, Not an opinion. Have you even went to school? They teach the difference between facts and opinions in 3rd grade! And do you even know what appeal to authority is? It's when the opinion of someone in a position of authority is used as an argument. Atheists don't do that, We discuss logically and debate. If atheists are commiting appeal to authority, So are theists, Because your main argument is 'God said so in the Bible'. The immorality argument is logically incorrect, Too. First of all, You really need to study biology. Everything isn't "chemical reactions doing what chemicals do". Living beings have brains and nerves so they can feel pain. For this reason, Hurting them is wrong. How are people who never saw or read the Bible moral? Why are people who read the Bible many times immoral? Why were people BEFORE CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM EVEN APPEARED moral? If anything, That argument makes you a heartless monster because you only live morally because God said so. You only live morally because you want to go to Heaven/are scared of going to Hell. How do we borrow the laws of logic from the Bible? How does atheism lead to the path of absurdity? Everything else you said is just insanely wrong. You don't even know the atheist worldview at all, And then you create strawmen to fit your incorrect worldview. No, Atheists do not believe that laws of nature could change. There's a thing called physics and chemistry and biology, Which you apparently didn't learn. None of what else you said is connected to atheism. Believing in the Big Bang or believing that laws of nature/science can change all the time isn't part of atheism. Atheism is just a lack of belief in God/gods, That's all it is.
OBAMA V.S. MITT ROMNEY the Political Troll Debate

Hello, and welcome to Ameriman's first debate. This is a debate over who will win in a fight: Mitt Romney or Obama. The TROLL part of this is: If all of their good idea's came together in the form of raw POWER and was given to the candidates, who would win in a BOXING MATCH?This will be political, but it will also be trolling as well.First round is acceptance, 2nd is arguments, and 3rd round is attacks and conclusions.MAY THE POLITICAL TROLL DEBATE BEGIN!!!!!
School Vouchers are a way to end Social Program dependancy.

" When failing schools loose students, and enrollment falls to such levels that keeping these schools open does no more than provided employment rather than education, these schools would be shut down, restructured or possible put under the management of a Charter School firm. Many options would remain for these schools to bounce back and achieve success if those within the school and community wish it to." 1) Your system abandons the students lost in the transitional period between institution of vouchers and rebuilding of poorer schools. It rewards a select group of students, not the entire society under social programs. 2) Your system is flawed. The end result of a failing school that loses its money is that the school closes and the students are transferred to other underdeveloped public schools, making these other schools that are on the brink of failing even worse off. 3) The supply of Charter School firms does not meet the demand of schools. "Money would not be a factor for student choice with voucher's. Grades would not be a factor. Students would apply and be accepted on a first come, first serve basis - thus ensuring a mix of differing cultures, abilities and the opportunity for many issues to be resolved." This makes a lottery for selecting students for school vouchers. Assuming that there are no such criteria, then your selected students may be under-qualified or waste this opportunity and not even lift themselves out of dependency. "As a child who personally went from an inner-city school to a more affluent community and school system, I have seen what can result thanks to change of environment and increased mentorship of our peers via example of the life that is possible for all of us. Although once on welfare as a child, medicaid and government housing - these subsidies were never an option for me due to the fact that in the new environment they were not the norm. Knowing that there is more available to me in life via example has altered my entire destiny." Knowing what is available is quite different from one being readily able to take an opportunity or advantage. Integral in ending social program dependency is providing the same opportunity or advantage for all. You take this issue semi-correctly on a much more Micro scale, however it must be observed as a Macro one. "This will drastically diminished the welfare rolls in the future " It will diminish welfare rolls, but not drastically. Because education is a rivalrous good these students must contend with one another and the students at their new school for elevated opportunities. Past secondary education, these students are dependent on need-based scholarships that their grades and college applications must allow them to qualify for. For every group of students that are given school vouchers, only a few of them will succeed in the manner which you propose.
School Vouchers are a way to end Social Program dependancy.

When failing schools loose students, and enrollment falls to such levels that keeping these schools open does no more than provided employment rather than education, these schools would be shut down, restructured or possible put under the management of a Charter School firm. Many options would remain for these schools to bounce back and achieve success if those within the school and community wish it to. Money would not be a factor for student choice with voucher's. Grades would not be a factor. Students would apply and be accepted on a first come, first serve basis - thus ensuring a mix of differing cultures, abilities and the opportunity for many issues to be resolved. As a child who personally went from an inner-city school to a more affluent community and school system, I have seen what can result thanks to change of environment and increased mentorship of our peers via example of the life that is possible for all of us. Although once on welfare as a child, medicaid and government housing - these subsidies were never an option for me due to the fact that in the new environment they were not the norm. Knowing that there is more available to me in life via example has altered my entire destiny. Give families the choice to do better for their children in education by allowing families to determine and rally behind the systems, community, policy and results they find in a school regardless of the community in which they live. This will drastically diminished the welfare rolls in the future - for so many blame education and the discrepancy thereof for these full rolls today.
School Vouchers are a way to end Social Program dependancy.

To end Social Program dependency on the level of secondary education, the US must make all students have access to a proper education. School vouchers merely award a select few students to transfer from failing schools to better ones. Ending social program dependency would require saving all of the students that attend the failing school, not just a select few. If any major result is seen, taking away the best students would further deteriorate the credibility and status of the public institution. School vouchers are a band-aid that slows the bleeding, but does not solve the problem.
School Vouchers are a way to end Social Program dependancy.

A way to prevent inflation due to vouchers, is to limit those eligible households to those at or below 200% of the poverty rate. Thus, only those children who are truly in need of an alternative will garner assistance. Also, in lieu of monetary value - vouchers should simply be no more than a place holder - a ticket, for a student's attendance at a school of choice. Both federal and state moneys should follow the voucher to the institution that the family chooses - otherwise money need not be a factor in this program. Virtually, if not exactly, like the Charter School alternative.