BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If there isn't a God how did we get all these laws in the universe

Terribly sorry for the forfeit. I will respond to Pro's arguments in Round Two.My voters should take into consideration that Pro's argument was incredibly difficult to understand, due to it's lack of grammar. I have, in fact, answered the question. I have never said that we created this universe. I said we invented the things on it. Your talk about computers is confusing, and not deterred to the subject point. We are talking about how we got all laws in this universe. Thus, your entire argument is invalid.Let's talk about the law of cause and effect. It is, ""Every cause has its effect; every effect has its cause." (1) Without man, there would be NO law of cause and effect. "In accordance with this Law, every effect you see in your outside or physical world has a very specific cause which has its origin in your inner or mental world. This is the essence of though power. Every one of your thoughts, words or actions sets a specific effect in motion which will come to materialize over time." Man causes the effect. Man starts the cause. WIthout us, there would be no law, no anything. Scientists have figured out this law, and it was started by man. No god just spoke up, "Oh! And I'm oing to add a law of cause and effect in, let's see how long it takes for man to figure it out.Source:1. http://www.mind-your-reality.com...;
If there isn't a God how did we get all these laws in the universe

You haven't really answered the question, just like you said God doesn't exist then you claim to say that we created the universe, which is false I am going to give you an example if I claimed I invented a computer invented an object lets say a computer if for somewhat reason I am limited by this computer and affected by what happens inside of it then most likely I am not the inventor of it but it would make more sense to say I am the creator of the computer if I'm not affected by it and whatever happens inside of it doesn't affect me. Also every single law is is made up by Someone and enforced by someone if there is nobody to enforce this law then the opposite of that law is likely to happen in the universe and on earth. sorry about this short reply I am running out of time.
If there isn't a God how did we get all these laws in the universe

My opponent states that if there isn't a god, then how would there be laws in the universe.The simple answer: Science.Science is the practical way of applying laws to the universe. The definition of science goes as follows: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. They are studying the natural and physical world to find out what laws we have. Gravity works for a scientific reason. Why, is something that is going on all our minds. These laws were found by genuine people, and not blots and shapeless minds. God is merely a term, something to reassure people that they are being heard. This might not mean that god does not exist. Just that there is no actual proof to it. People invented this universe, and not a god. Man made objects exist, and nature is there just for biochematical reasons. My opponent will possibly bring the argument about the existence about man in this argument. Our species of humans first began to evolve nearly 200,000 years ago in association with technologies not unlike those of the early Neandertals. Man came by with evolving from the other animals. Current data suggest that modern humans evolved from archaic humans primarily in East Africa. A 195,000 year old fossil from the Omo 1 site in Ethiopia shows the beginnings of the skull changes that we associate with modern people, including a rounded skull case and possibly a projecting chin. A 160,000 year old skull from the Herto site in the Middle Awash area of Ethiopia also seems to be at the early stages of this transition. Thus, to conclude, the laws in teh universe exist because of science, and not god.Sources:1) http://anthro.palomar.edu...2) https://www.google.com...3) http://www.physicsclassroom.com...;
Is Whitebeard stronger than Kaido of the Beasts

No, Whitebeard was likely not stronger than Kaido. There is no evidence to indicate it. I will explain why here in the limited amount of time I have. I will explain the limited facts we do know and how we must arrive at the likely conclusion that Kaido and Whitebeard are equals. FACT 1:According to current canon, The Four Yonko are also known as the Four Emperors are considered equals to the Marines and the Shichibukai. All three provided a balance to each other which culminates in them being the three great powers of the One Piece world. FACT 2: An imbalance in the One Piece world, leads to chaos as we saw at the end of the Whitebeard War when Whitebeard was killed by Akainu. FACT 3: Previously when two Yonko fought, we are lead to believe there is an indecisive conclusion. Shanks survived and Whitebeard both survived when they encountered each other in battle. When Kaido was stopped by Shanks when Kaido was planning to attack Whitebeard both survived. Each encounter of the Yonko has lead to no decisive conclusion. This must lead us to believe the Yonko are equals or they there won't ever be a decisive conclusion when two Yonko encouner each other. Remember, Whitebeard allowed himself to be killed in order to save Shanks. Therefore we must believe, that any of the battles amongst the three powers will be indecisive based on all of the information we have been provided with thus far. http://onepiece.wikia.com...
Religion shouldn't be forced on children in schools

I was out camping, therefore I missed my part of the debate, but I will make up to it. Argument one: Making someone do a school prayer is pretty much telling them that they HAVE to believe in god, and not believing in god is a moral sin, which it is not. If you where a Jew, you would feel uncomfortable if a Hindi came up to you and made you pray to the Hindi gods, every weekday, you would probably feel uncomfortable. I also see you are using math a lot, the thing is though, math isn't a religion. Go up to almost anyone who is over 6 and ask them "Does math exist?" and (roughly) 99% of them would say "Yes!" It's a thing all religions can agree that exists, it's not something you don't or you do believe in, it's there, it's been proven for millennia that it exists, there have been photos taken of it, whilst there have been no photos taken of god. Argument two: Once again, you say the words "You present two impossible tenants" with pretty much the same argument as your last argument. You seem to be getting confused, I have nothing wrong with religious people being In schools, and I have nothing wrong with those people expressing their religions, I just want a few atheist only schools scattered about, the regular schools will stay, and they will not be atheist only. Argument three: Woah, we are getting a little insensitive here. You say the term "Weak women" which is basically implying that all Muslim women are weak, and she didn't have the power to get up and leave, which she does. You say that if that person knocks on your door at a reasonable time, you are OK with debating with them. But are you OK with them trying to convert you, and you not getting a say? I don't think so. Argument four: OK, that was I admit my argument that you where trying to rebut was almost purely done out of spite of your ignorance, but I still said that thing about the school prayer, so it wasn't nothing Argument five: So you are saying that if a religion makes someone uncomfortable, it should still be forced? If you where a black guy, and someone was forcing a religion which so heavily condemns black people make you feel really uncomfortable? And I want there to be gay Christians, and some Christians are now against Leviticus 18:22, but since the majority aren't, I acted like all of them weren't. Final argument: First of, you seem to be getting "Forced" muddled up with "Taught about" I am OK with teachers teaching about religion, as long as they say things like "Some people believe..." And so on. One last thing; begging for votes? Pathetic! People will vote for who they want without being told. If you make a good argument, then people will vote for you, and you won't have to tell them to.
Religion shouldn't be forced on children in schools

First off, I have point out that grammar in debates is extremely important, and if you misspell more than one word, the contender may not take is as seriously than if you had better spelling and grammar, but just to keep it going, I will ignore those errors and carry on. You say that "As per Edwards"s v Aguillard, Creationism teaching creationism is illegal and not allowed in public schools in the United States' but you fail to spot your ignorance in this passage, the US isn't the only country in the world, there are several schools where you have to say a prayer (or say grace) before eating. How do I know this? Experience. In my old primary school (the UK's equivalent of elementary schools) we had to either sing a song or silently pray, even though I explicitly said that I was atheist, we were also told that we didn't evolve from monkeys, and that the first people where Adam and Eve, bear in mind that this wasn't a Christian school. Next I will go onto the next rebuttal. You say that I present 'Two impossible tenants to follow' but they are NOT impossible. You see I do not want all schools to be religious free zones, but I want regular schools to let people express their religion without being pressurized to convert, whether you're an atheist or a scientologist and schools which are for atheists, so if you are a catholic, you cannot go to those schools. Like I said, I don't want ALL schools to be religious free zones, just to be able to express your religion. OK, now onto the third rebuttal. Yes, I admit that I used the wrong words in the wrong time, but think about it this way; if you were a Christian, and a Muslim man came up to you, said that Allah is great, read from the Quran and said that you will go to heaven with 72 virgins, you would more than likely feel at least uncomfortable, and maybe even offended. To be fair, I cannot think of anything to say to rebut that, so you win that part. Onto the fifth rebuttal. Once again, the ignorance bug has bitten you. You point out that ALL public schools up to high school at least are essentially atheist, but like I said on my first rebuttal, I had to say grace in my primary schools, and that was a public school, and in my high school, there are plenty of religious people, whether Christian or Jewish. Next, you say that there are no atheistic schools, and that there are plenty of Muslim, Jewish etc. and I accept that, and the only reason why I didn't know that is because I live in a rural house far away from big cities with lots of schools. Finally, you said nothing about the stress of teaching a religion that condemns homosexuality could have on homosexual pupils, so I may be detecting a hint of homophobia, just saying. But I am glad you didn't go all religious saying things like "God did it" and "It's in the bible so it must be true" I was excepting a lot of that.
Religion shouldn't be forced on children in schools

We're talking all schools (except ones that are clearly labelled as Christian) First off, lets look at evolution; in many schools it is taught that evolution did not happen, and that "God did it" even though that although we have clearly observed evolution, we have never observed god placing down a new species on earth. Secondly, freedom; Shouldn't we ALL have the freedom to express our religion (if you even follow one) and NOT be pressurised to convert by other people, and when that weight is put on children, it can be EXTREMELY stressful. Think about it this way: You wouldn't walk up to a girl wearing a burqa and tell her about the story of Jesus, and how Christianity is the only true faith. Why? Because it would be offensive, and it potentially limits freedom of speech. Thirdly: Christian schools. Yes, I know that we wouldn't be talking about Christian schools and all of that, but when was the last time you saw a school for atheists? Or Muslims? Or Jews? You just don't see those around! So, as my first argument, I do heavily disagree that schools should say that Christianity is the only faith, also, I disagree with schools using the bible as a teaching method. One last thing, wouldn't teaching a religion that condemns homosexuality SO much be uncomfortable, and possibly even offensive to homosexual pupils?
Schoolhoming is a revolutionary idea.

My opponent asserts 'schoolhoming' is a revolutionary idea. Revolutionary means "constituting or bringing about a major or fundamental change".[1] However, the basic idea of schoolhoming - living at school - already exists. It is called a 'boarding school'. Schoolhoming only slightly alters the idea of a boarding school, and thus cannot be considered a legitimately revolutionary idea.As to my opponent's points:1. Everyone knows that children wet the bed at night. If you place children in a library to sleep, the odds are that by the end of the week the library will be completely uninhabitable. This is a fact. Further, some children might have trouble 'holding it' until they could get to a bathroom. These could easily be tempted to urinate or defecate on the books, which would have essentially the same effect as wetting the bed.2. Who says people learn anything at school? A recent survey from the organization Kids Against School revealed that 10 out of 10 kids don't learn anything at school, and learn much more from sitting at home and playing video games all day.3. I have already noted that schoolhoming is not a new idea, but rather a slight alteration of the concept of a boarding school. However, even assuming that it is a new idea, my opponent has not been schoolhomed either, meaning he hasn't learned the basic lesson to not "Don't steal, deceive or steal", which would mean he is just as much of a liar as I am.4. My opponent then argues that he has learned the basic life lessons outside of schoolhoming, which means that the basic life lessons can be taught outside of schoolhoming. This defeats the purpose of schoolhoming entirely.5. See answers three and four6. Everyone knows that all boarding schools are run by nuns. As a subset of boarding schools, schoolhoming would work essentially the same. We all know that:A) Nuns are meanandB) Nuns are CatholicsSince nuns are mean Catholics, they would certainly give kids a bias towards Catholicism and mean-ness. Further, everyone knows that the Pope - the leader of Catholicism - is not elected democratically, but is rather elected by a group of unelected bureaucrats (the Cardinals). By teaching kids to become Catholics, nuns clearly run contrary to the concept of 'fair voting' because if you can't vote, voting is hardly fair.References:1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Schoolhoming is a revolutionary idea.

Normal children are noisy and rude, but schoolhoming shall correct this. With schoolhoming, the equivelant of the bedroom is the library, so children will at least be civilised for a third of the day. A couple of days of doing this will transform normal scratty children into superchildren. The whole concept of this goal would encourage children universally to not be so terrible.Second, it would be very educational, since time spent being educated is in the vast majority of cases, less than time spent doing home stuff. The child would be surrounded with informative posters and intellectual minds (the teachers). This would transform the child even more into a superchild.Another thing is the school rules. Because of the threat of a detention, children will act really good. They will not lie, deceive or steal. One or two years of this and that behaviour will be applied by the child in all scenarios in his/her life.Schoolhoming is a completely new idea, with the origin of its concept being introduced in this very debate. I have also only revealed its features in this round to date. This would mean that he has not experienced any kind of schoolhoming, meaning that however convincing his arguments supporting his side of the debate may be, they are wrong. This is because he has never learnt the lessons "Don't steal, deceive or steal" like what schoolhoming teaches you. I plead you to vote for pro. I do not lie, deceive or steal.The thought may come to mind that I haven't been through schoolhoming either. This is true, but may I remind you that schoolhoming is my own creation, and what would happen there is ultimately my choice. That being said, I have therefore learnt the moral lessons that schoolhoming teaches you.How does schoolhoming teach you moral lessons? Schoolhoming cannot be understood or comprehended by outsiders, so there would be no point in telling you. Once you have experience schoolhoming, then and only then shall you understand it.Schoolhoming also teaches fair voting and to eliminate bias.I thank you.
Schoolhoming is a revolutionary idea.

There was this boy in our neighbourhood called Bob. What made Bob so unique is that I never saw him on the bus on the way to school. This made me wonder how he got to school. I asked him if he teleported to school using his mind. He replied "no". "Don't you go to school?" I asked him, shortly after he replied "I go to school at home." I thought that having all your education at home is a bit weird and backwards, but I probably shouldn't have been so surprised. Bob was a backwards kind of guy. He even spelt his name backwards.I then tried to think all backwards the way he does, and soon I came up with a brilliant idea; doing everything a normal person does at home at school. Brushing your teeth, getting dressed, going to sleep, eating breakfast and dinner, that sort of thing. I then thought that I should be as imaginative as the advocates of homsechooling, so I named my idea "Schoolhoming". So that's what I want to debate today, whether my idea of schoolhoming is revolutionary, as I currently believe. I thank you.
evolution\big bang

Some other evidence, you can look up. But Try this the big bang is said to have started from a dot, or blob. And was spinning and spinning when finally it exploded. Wouldnï¿½t that mean all stars and planets would be spinning the same way. There are a lot more, please dont hold back to search things against what you think, and open your mind. With this math, do all the stars move at the same rate? and even though the speed was calculated now, it could change later. Or how are you certain of the speed and direction, what is there wassomething wrong with its calculations. The big bang needs a cause, it started at one point, God always was, but the universe want always, therefore, must have an explanation of starting. Secondly, by you saying there is no need for a cause reinforces that there has been no logical explanation, created to back it up, therefor making it a belief instead of science because of its lack of evidence. With the flys, being unable to mate with the other group, were they able to mate with normal, flys who weren't forced into this unearthly condition? "if evolution can not explain how life first began, why believe it," For two reasons: 1. Because how life began has no bearing on whether or not evolution occurs. 2. The overwhelming amount of evidence, and overwhelming lack of counter-evidence. The evidence mounts every day. [3][4][5][6] objection I agree there is evidence, and i believe a small amount of evolution has taken place called micoevolution. But if evolution can not support how life first started, then what did start life? and in what form, I believe humans were made humans, with meaning, and and many changes have happened form then till now. God does not need evolution. God has done such wonderful this for his people, and they try to explain how it never happened. They can do all the explaining they want, and all thearguments they want, teach their explanation in schools, fight over it and maybe kill over it, but the truth is the truth, God created the earth, and all that live in it no matter what you say. But even the demons fear God and shutter at his name. I have meet many people who have had healing from God. A man told he has a couple months to live, from doctors is now living years after. A man risen from the dead all the miracles Jesus did in his time, he did to show there is a God.
We do not need Mathematics

My opponent did not provide any definitions at all, so I will do that myself.DefinitionsMathematics - the abstract science of number, quantity, and space, either as abstract concepts (pure mathematics ), or as applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics ). [1]Need - require (something) because it is essential or very important rather than just desirable. [2]Burden of ProofI assume that this is a shared burden of proof. My opponent has to show that Mathematics, as defined above, is required because it is essential or very important rather than just desirable.I will provide my case below.Humans can live without mathematics.This is fairly obvious. Since mathematics is a relatively recent field, compared to the whole timeline of the Human species, it can be concluded that early humans were able to successfully live and reproduce without mathematical knowledge. Thus, if humans can live successfully without mathematics, it follows that mathematics is not required, not essential, not obligatory and not important. Therefore, by definition, we do not need mathematics.Currently, my opponent has only stated that mathematics is an important field of study, but I fail to see how this translates into necessity, requirement or obligation. Moreover, my opponent failed to prove that it is indeed "important", in the sense that removing mathematical knowledge from humans would be disastrous or detrimental to the human species. Therefore, my opponent has not even attempted to meet her burden of proof.Sources:[1] https://www.google.co.uk...[2] https://www.google.co.uk...
Students in middle school should be allowed recess

Section A (Why recess is bad for learning) Recess allows kids to release their energy, so when they get back in the classroom, they are tired and cannot process learning Recess as well causes kids to be hyperactive, making kids distracted Section B (Why recess causing bullying) Recess causes bullying as many teachers cannot pay attention to the large expanse of schoolyard Recess also causes exclusion because the activities are not made by teachers so children can exclude other children