BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Are Millennials A Problem

Millennials have proven over, and over again that they are a parasite to society! All of the main activist movements (Black Lives Matter, feminism, etc.) have been fully taken on and supported by millennials. They are completely taken over by the fake news industrial complex and are *addicted* to technology which benefits in no way. They know no way of managing their lives. Facts showed millennials carried over 1 trillion dollars in student debt. Again they are irresponsible in the workplace with useless technology. 70% have "friended" their managers or coworkers on Facebook, and over 55% of them won't work at a company which does not allow social media access. Millennials are a truly lost, and disturbed generation. We as a society can not eradicate the millennials, and now we cannot eradicate their ideals because they believe to thoroughly in what they have been taught. They no longer see clearly but we must. We can complain about the problems they will make, and the terrible things they will do, (and have done) but the logical thing to do is look to the future. Past the millennials. We must attempt to help the generations to come. The millennials will try to teach them their parasitic ways but we must resist and in anyway possible show them the truth, because, after the millennials pass, we need to rebuild our country. We need to bring back the great America we know. (Not that it isn't the greatest country in the world!) We must strive for a better future for the children of the upcoming generations! Hopefully, someday the millennial craze will be over, and society will see clearly again. Before that time, we MUST make sure that we do not let a parasitic outbreak such as the millennials occur again! We must better our school systems from teaching gender studies, lesbian dance theory, and false equality classes. We must take our country back once and for all. The millennials were educated in a liberal "don't hurt my feelings way." We need to show that we are not scared, we are not afraid, we are strong. If we have to take our country back the hard way, so be it. It may not be fair, it may hurt your feelings, but America wasn't built on feelings, it was built on guns and whiskey, so we'll keep it that way!
Premarital sex CAN be engaged in and not have any negative consequences

"I had no wish to bring in Theism, you did. You pulled religion into this, so I responded in kind." Pro, in the opening post noted "Yet, the official position of many churches ..." now yet appears to forget the opening, and proceed to complain about an argument for no other reason than it can not be refuted. "My resolution in NO way actually addresses the issue of premarital sex being a sin. It is irrelevant. The real issue is whether the act has negative consequences regardless of circumstance or if the act can be engaged in without negative consequences. I have no idea why you brought God into this." To repeat, if a God exists which judges premarital sex to be sin, and further prescribes a punishment - then this obviously fits any definition of negative consequence. Hence Pro has the burden of proof to show no such God exists, Pro made no attempt even to achieve said goal - the resolution is negated. "Unless of course, you don't give a damn about which God condemns or doesn't condemn premarital sex and would rather address the logicity of the effects of sex without involving a supernatural being somewhere." The the resolution should have been worded as such and Pro should never have introduced Religion into the argument. "I have no interest in debating the POSSIBILITY of consequences." The resolution clearly states, using the definition of can and risk, as noted clearly in the above - if there is any risk then the resolution fails. In the opening Pro never provided any definitions, not objected to the definitions which are straight from a dictionary - and using such definitions the resolution is negated as noted. "I have known many who have engaged in premarital sex ..." This is an assertion with no warrant, does Pro really claim to full know the influence of said act on the individuals and those around them with 100% confidence that there was no possibility (definition of can) of negative consequence both in the present and in the future. That is a bold statement, and further this is to be accepted simply because of what exactly - it is the opinion of Pro? Pro has made no argument to support the resolution, has introduced an argument (Religion), then forgot it was introduced and complained when Con addressed it, further Pro could not refute either objection and ended with an assertion without warrant. The resolution is negated. This debate is dedicated to the divine croco-duck (peace be upon him), prophet of the great raptor Jesus, may the most blessed scaly one deliver us all from temptation, in the name of our father, his son and Casper the friendly Ghost.
Premarital sex CAN be engaged in and not have any negative consequences

I had no wish to bring in Theism, you did. You pulled religion into this, so I responded in kind. My resolution in NO way actually addresses the issue of premarital sex being a sin. It is irrelevant. The real issue is whether the act has negative consequences regardless of circumstance or if the act can be engaged in without negative consequences. I have no idea why you brought God into this. Since you did not engage any of my arguments but instead nitpicked on semantics, I refuse to further address the issue of God in this debate. I did not intend to address God and I have no idea why you insist that we must prove or disprove God for the purposes of this debate. "Again, if these Gods exist, it is not possible to have such sexual relations without negative consequences." Unless of course, you don't give a damn about which God condemns or doesn't condemn premarital sex and would rather address the logicity of the effects of sex without involving a supernatural being somewhere. ""My argument does not address whether or not there is risk." It clearly does using the definitions noted in the above and the wording of the resulution, by definition, as noted, risk is the possibility of a negative consequence, and can by definition is the possibility of." May I remind you that YOU provided the definition of risk, yet neglected to explain how "risk" was even relevant to the resolution/statement. You cannot assert that "risk" is relevant because you yourself says so. Of course risk is the possibility of a negative consequence, but I have no interest in debating the POSSIBILITY of consequences. I'm interested in the ACTUAL RESULTING consequences. Isn't that more important anyway? This debate is quickly spirally into random directions. Conclusion: My opponent has not actually identified ANY negative consequences that are inherent in premarital sex that cannot be avoided in at least some situations. Therefore, the original statement stands. I have known many who have engaged in premarital sex without experiencing any negative consequences (emotional damage, pregnancy, causing a rift in the relationships, relationship ends, etc.) and who have even experienced positive consequences (increased intimacy, more open and honest relationship, etc.). Many people assert that premarital sex always has negative consequences and then neglect to show how. I have still yet to see anyone show how . . . Premarital sex CAN be engaged in and not have any negative consequences
Premarital sex CAN be engaged in and not have any negative consequences

"Since I'm arguing that permarital sex can be done without any real consequences, this is a moot argument." While the argument is appreciated this is not the statement of the resolution and "real consequences" begs the question as it implies an assumption that theism which forbids premarital sex is false. As both Pro and the Instigator, the burden of proof is on you to provide an argument for the assertion, it can not simply be assumed false that consequences which are dependent on theism to be "not real". Note in addition it is not sufficient (though this itself is not trivial) to prove that either the Christian God does not exist, or does not hold premarital sex to be a sin. In order to support the resolution it has to be shown that no God exists who takes a negative view of premarital sex and there are various Gods who hold a more radical view of sex outside of marriage than the Christian God such as the Muslim diety. Again, if these Gods exist, it is not possible to have such sexual relations without negative consequences. "So once again, the consequences described in the Bible no longer apply today so that Bible is not a good judge of whether or not permarital sex has and must always have negative consequences." Note there is a significant contention, even among religious scholors as to the relevance of testament law and the interpretation of scripture, but again the resolution does not assert that the Christian Religion has an out dated view of premarital sex or that it should be interpreted as a positive or neutral view of premarital sex, which could be contested, but that is not the issue at hand. "My argument does not address whether or not there is risk." It clearly does using the definitions noted in the above and the wording of the resulution, by definition, as noted, risk is the possibility of a negative consequence, and can by definition is the possibility of.
Premarital sex CAN be engaged in and not have any negative consequences

"Premarital sex CAN be engaged in and not have any negative consequences" To clarify, a few definitions : Can : Used to indicate possibility or probability[1] Risk : The possibility of suffering harm or loss [2] I would therefore make two arguments to negate the resolution : 1) For Pro to affirm the resolution that it is possible to engage in premarital sex without negative consequences Pro must prove that no God exists which condemns such an act as punishable with a negative consequence. As if such a God does exist, the resolution is obviously negated as it is then impossible to have premarital sex without negative consequences. 2) Using the above two definitions the resolution argues that one could engage in premarital sec without risk, this obviously impossible as there will always be risks no matter how many precautions are taken as risks can never be eliminated. [3,4,5] [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3]http://www.womenshealthmatters.ca... [4] http://www.4parents.gov... [5] http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov...
Premarital sex CAN be engaged in and not have any negative consequences

While I understand that in many cases premarital sex can lead to some additional problems within a relationship, I contend that it CAN have either no negative affect on the relationship or even a positive affect on the relationship. To make blanket statements that premarital sex is "bad" in all cases is ignorant of the reality that many people DO have permarital sex and go on to have happy successful relationships regardless. Yet, the official position of many churches is that premarital sex is patently bad in all cases and some are denied marriage into the church if it is known that they had premarital sex. I challenge this position as ignorant. Anyone up for debate?
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid.

Hello, after days of boredom I decided to start this debate. Basically, my opponent will present 2 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD that he/she deems as valid and effective, while it will be up to me to try to disprove them accordingly. My opponent will simply list down the title of the arguments, with perhaps a brief explanation of each, in their 1st Round. From Round 2 - 4, I will refute each argument and my opponent will defend them accordingly. Hopefully both of us will get something out of this ;D
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid.

"Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles" -Wikipedia So, virtual particles are this nebulous thing, that don't even exist, in the common sense of the world. They are sort of like the imaginary number i. That doesn't show anything. So, take his virtual particle argument off the board. As for the uncertainty principle, that also doesn't prove anything. Yes, it shows that the universe is completely deterministic. The cosmological argument doesn't say that. It says everything has a cause. That does not mean determinism, as a number of effects could come from one cause. The effects aren't determined, so the cosmological argument does not advocate determinism. Take that off the board. Schrï¿½dinger's cat goes away too, as it is just an argument against determinism. On omnipotence: I mean to say that we get infinite regress, or an uncaused cause. Both are illogical. Therefore, a being not constrained by logic is necessary to allow the regress or to cause itself. Also, it does not lead us away from science, it's like virtual particles in a sense. Science creates nebulous "things" when they are necessary to lead to something that we know to be true. Virtual particles, quantum physics, hell, sounds a lot like religion to me. Also, Occam's razor does nothing. All I stipulated was that an omnipotent being was required, you can't simplify that. "And if my opponent means the Christian God, then the cosmological argument is in itself, self-refuting. For even if it did show that Jesus Christ was the creator of the universe, it also means that this universe is fully deterministic, and thus no free will. In essence, the concept of salvation is discarded if the cosmological argument is to be taken true." a) I never mentioned the god known as Yahweh or Jehovah, I referred to a nebulous "God" that is necessary for existence. b) Cosmological proof does not advocate determinism "The cosmological argument my opponent presents fails with its premise that everything in the universe has a cause. I've shown how in quantum mechanics, there are commonplace things that are UNCAUSED. This is why the cosmological argument is refuted." All you've shown is that quantum physics, like every other science will create nebulous concepts out of necessity. I created a nebulous "God." Of course, I mean create in a metaphorical sense, because otherwise, I'd be God.
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid.

~Counterarguments~ 1. Virtual particle "Note the "interaction producing them. " They have a cause. " --> If you were to carefully read the quote my opponent gave in his third round, you will notice that the phrase with "interaction producing them" is referring to the "many observable physical phenomena". His quote basically is describing a way of how virtual particles are characterized, not of how they are caused. It's of commonplace in quantum physics that in a vacuum fluctuation, virtual particles can and do emerge spontaneously without a cause. So being the nature of virtual particles, the premise of the cosmological argument that all things have causes is undermined and defeated, since we do have hard scientific evidence that speaks otherwise. 2. Uncertainty principle Quantum mechanics do have relevance in this argument, as examples undermine the deterministic premise of the cosmological argument. There is no way to predict where in the resulting interference pattern an individual photon will make its contribution according to the Uncertainty principle, something undetermined. 3. Schrï¿½ï¿½dinger's cat Schrï¿½ï¿½dinger's cat describes quantum indeterminacy, a standard for for quantum physics. It describes the necessary incompleteness description of a physical system. That is the core of quantum mechanics, randomness and uncertainty. 2. "He is omnipotent, so he is not constrained by logic. He can break that rule. " How exactly would you prescribe this characteristic from the existence of this universe? If you mean to say that God's omnipotence is a necessity to break logic, then once we step into this realm where science is abandoned and we are left with such useless claims as that, it's rational for us to apply Occam's razor. Since is this is the only contention my opponent may have (assuming he finds a way to trump quantum mechanics), then it is quite a pathetic point to use solely as an argument for the existence of God. And if my opponent means the Christian God, then the cosmological argument is in itself, self-refuting. For even if it did show that Jesus Christ was the creator of the universe, it also means that this universe is fully deterministic, and thus no free will. In essence, the concept of salvation is discarded if the cosmological argument is to be taken true. It basically breaks down to: God did it. We can't understand it (e. g. not constrained by logic) but He did it. ~Conclusion~ The cosmological argument my opponent presents fails with its premise that everything in the universe has a cause. I've shown how in quantum mechanics, there are commonplace things that are UNCAUSED. This is why the cosmological argument is refuted. Secondly, if my opponent intended to prove the Christian God, or any specific god at that matter, it's non sequitor. He can't name the identity of the Creator from this argument, it's a jump in logic.
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid.

"The premise that everything has a cause is false on the part that there ARE things that come out of nowhere, e.g. with no cause. A perfect example of this is the virtual fluctuation. Vacuum fluctuations consist of electron, positron, and photons emerging spontaneously out of nowhere in a brief time, then annihilating each other leaving no trace behind. [1]" "There are many observable physical phenomena resulting from interactions involving virtual particles. All tend to be characterized by the relatively short range of the force interaction producing them." Note the "interaction producing them." They have a cause. "Other familiar examples are the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain.' Quantum Physics does not mean that it doesn't have a cause, so I don't know what the relevance is. "Famous thought experiments such as Schrï¿½dinger's cat represent the implications quantum mechanics has on the fully deterministic premise of the cosmological argument." Schrï¿½dinger's cat only tells us that we cannot know everything, it does not mean there is no cause and effect. If you are equating cause and effect with determinism, then you are wrong. A cause does not determine an effect, but an effect needs a cause to occur. Everything is caused, maybe not determined, but it is caused. "In terms of coming to the conclusion of God being the answer, I would ask of my opponent why God is exempt from the conclusion that everything must have cause." He is omnipotent, so he is not constrained by logic. He can break that rule. "2. My opponent's own argument." Whatever, it's fine, we don't need to debate semantics.
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid.

~Counterarguments~ 1. Cosmological argument I contend that the universe is uncaused, and thus has no prior cause to the big bang. The premise that everything has a cause is false on the part that there ARE things that come out of nowhere, e.g. with no cause. A perfect example of this is the virtual fluctuation. Vacuum fluctuations consist of electron, positron, and photons emerging spontaneously out of nowhere in a brief time, then annihilating each other leaving no trace behind. [1] Other familiar examples are the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain. Famous thought experiments such as Schrï¿½dinger's cat represent the implications quantum mechanics has on the fully deterministic premise of the cosmological argument. In terms of coming to the conclusion of God being the answer, I would ask of my opponent why God is exempt from the conclusion that everything must have cause. 2. My opponent's own argument. My only refutation of this argument is to lament on my failure to explain my opening round more. If what I interpret his argument to be correct, then it states that God exists as a concept in one's mind, and thus does exist in this form. Of course, this is a conclusion that I can not refute. What I intended obviously, was to refute arguments for God's existence in REALITY, but I seemingly forgot to add this in my opening argument. Duly noted. If however, my interpretation was wrong, then I apologize and ask of my opponent to expand on it in his round. ---Reference--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
GATE Schools should be in use everywhere.

(I moving on tho different point) Um.. I see well your point does stand, but the gate program can also make the kids that aren't in the gate program may feel bad because I see it when it says gifted and talented education so other kids May fell depressed either because their not gifted talented or well educated. P.S. Couldn't stand up for your reason because it was good point you have got me very well. Great Job ;)
GATE Schools should be in use everywhere.

Kids would not feel bad, as they are not undereducated, they just are at a different level and speed of learning. In addition, I am not referring to use of GATE programs. I am referring to GATE schools, like Manchester GATE, a school in Fresno, California, therefore no one at the school would have lowered self esteem or feel badly about themselves, because everyone at the school would be gifted.
"Crap" is a Curse-Word.

Crap is a swear word!http://dictionary.reference.com... If you go to this site their is many meanings for example 1.Vulgar. a.excrement. b.an act of defecation. Slang: Sometimes Vulgar. a.nonsense; drivel. b.falsehood, exaggeration, propaganda, or the like. 4.Vulgar. to defecate. –verb (used with object)
Minimum debate should be of 3 rounds

"The best debate is an assertion with the absence of conflicting opinions. " debate- a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote. Without conflicting opinions, it won't be a debate. Most 1 round debates will be like " Megatron is real" "Megatron isn't real because. .. ."
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Should be Expanded

You take a sperm and an egg and make a test tube baby... Voila. Majority of embryonic stem cell research is in vitro fertilisation and isn't abortion they are two entirely different ethical matters.My opponent said expanding it could save more live but the rate that it is currently going at is sufficient to save enough lives in the future because it covers curing all diseases already there is nothing inherently limiting nor damaging to the field if we don't expand it past what it is today. It is already growing at a steady pace so to accelerate or expand it's field of study it pointless and a waste of time and energy.I don't quite understand how because it can be a criminal we shouldn't let a baby be born and I don't quite see how that's relevant to this debate because it's about poor women aborting...