BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bible > Science / USA is a Christian Country

I hope you are skeptical, Lets take look at science and the Bible: Earth's free float in space. At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 BC). The Bible spoke of the earth's free float in space: "He hangs the earth upon nothing" Job 26:7 Science didn't discover that until 1650 AD. Hebrews 11:3 " things which are seen were not made of thing which do appear" Explains atoms, microscopic objects. Isaiah 40:22 explains the earth is round. Isaiah was written in 740- 735 BC some 300 years before Aristotle and 2000 on Columbus taking the dangerous journey. Job is a great book, in 1500 BC God asked Job, "Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" 38:35. Radio waves and x-rays and all others travel at light speed. Universal flood: 85% of the rock surface around the world is made up of sedimentary rock, indicating that some time in the past, the world was covered by water. - Peter and Paul Lalonde Archeologists Genesis and universe. Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. Genesis 1:2 "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the heaven (space) and the earth (matter)...and the spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters. Scientists who are Christian Newton, Faraday,Maxwell,Kelvin, Boyle,Dalton, Ramsay, Kepler, Galileo, etc.. U.S. Presidents quotes: "No educated man can afford to be ignorant of the Bible." "A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than college education" - Theodore Roosevelt. "That book, Sir, is the Rock upon which our republic rests." - Andrew Jackson "The more profoundly we study this wonderful book [the Bible], and the more closely we observe its divine precept, the better citizens we will become and the higher will be our destiny as a nation." - William Mckinley "I have always said, and will always say, that studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens." - Thomas Jefferson The Bible is the official word of God according to Congress. The pres. proclaimed 1983 as the "Year of the Bible," Public Law 97-280 Await a response and will continue more arguments in the latter rounds.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive.

Id like to start this debate by thanking my opponent for posing such an interesting and insightful resolution! As both a current University Student, as well as an Education major this is a subject that I am very interested in. Let it be known however that the time limit for this debate is only 10 minutes per round. Therefore I ask that the voters excuse any grammatical errors which are the result of my hurried typing. As a brief roadmap I will first negate my opponent"s provided arguments and the move on to present a few arguments of my own. Refutation 1. The warrants to my opponent"s argument(s) are only the opinions of a single man which he has failed to even qualify. What makes the opinions of Friero valid to us, and why should we care what he has to say? At the point that we realize there is no warrant here, you disregard my opponent"s argument and default Con. 2. Even in theory, my opponent"s argument only applies to the arts. For example, while I certainly have live experiences that shape who I am and how I think, I"m not going to be able to do much of anything is more technical class such as science or math unless my professor teaches me the correct method. I ask that the voters pay careful attention to this argument specifically as it will be central focus of my own arguments as well. 3. Philosophy, while valuable in its own right, isn"t the only goal of education. As my opponent himself has stated, these students have other experiences and will continue to have other experiences. Those who would react towards more critical thinking wouldn"t have their capacity to do so stifled by a class. My Arguments 1. When you assume, you make an "@ss" out of "u" and "me". I currently have a Spanish professor who knows an exorbant amount about language and grammar " not just Spanish. She has two masters degrees (in Spanish and French respectively) and holds a Ph. d in the philosophy of language. However when teaching she often makes assumptions about what her students understand, and her lectures end up being very difficult to understand. For her, it is second nature to understand the function of preterit and imperfect verbs and their appropriate conjugations, so she doesn"t think anything of it when she only spends 5 minutes explaining a new rule. The point here is that any good professor should assume their students know nothing when teaching them something. While some students may already understand the content based on their past experiences, not all of them will. It"s not fair that some students should be shafted due to a lack of experience.
Everyone is actually lonely

I believe that you don't know what society means, so I look up the definition for you "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." (source - Google it just like you did with loneliness). From ancient times people has live in societies, i.e groups of people living together, a simple proof are the rituals perform to the deceased ones. Even in ancient times people lived in societies, you could never found ONE man hunting by himself and surviving all alone in ancient times (except abnormal cases as people lost in forest or islands. Those man survive, however they suffer negative psychological effects). But the definition of society and whether people lived in societies or not is out of this debate. For some reason you keep coming back to the fact that "people don't live alone = people is not alone" when I explained you that I was talking about the feeling of loneliness/isolation. As you seem unable to understand what I want to tell you I will give you a clear example of what I mean. Once I talked to an excellent mathematician who told me "you know, sometimes I feel kinda lonely since my subject of study is not know to anyone. There may be only 3 people in the world who know what I know, so everything I know I can't tell it to anyone". Another example is a musician I meet once who told me "sometimes I see myself forced to play very simple songs, because if I were to play a song with the whole complexity I'm capable of, people wouldn't understand my music". These are two examples where this people felt lonely because they were really advanced in a subject (math or music), but I believe that everyone has a certain knowledge of something they can't share with anyone else. I have certain knowledge of physics and mathematics I can't share with my friend, not even with people who is studying with me, since they're not interested on those subjects, so in that sense I'm alone/isolated. I hope I have made clear what I mean, although it is the last round of this debate.
Everyone is actually lonely

Okay I will try to avoid transformer references from now on. Lonely as such is a feeling of aloneness. Moreover, you didn't post your definition in the first round, so technically my definition counts. Now that we have internet, no one is isolated. We live in societies, our world is connected. While there are people who have lesser friends, everyone has at least one person they can talk to. I meant by early man that humans took time to form societies yet they survived alone in different parts of the world. 2 billion years ago, there were no tribes or societies or connectivity. Maybe everyone was lonely at that time. But now with internet, new forms of entertainment and other methods of distraction, socialization is easier. And not everyone has their alone time. Think about jobs in which you have to work as a group, like the army, gangsters or software developers. It is unlikely that they would ever not have any friends or acquaintances to talk to. Sometimes despite talking to people you can be lonely, but that is because of sadness due to another reason rather than no contact with humans, Can I use a zombie apocalypse reference here?
Everyone is actually lonely

I'm not discussing the need for a companion, my statement is that everyone is at some point isolated, you keep thinking of associating loneliness with sadness when I told you I was using the 2nd definition which is closer to "isolation". I'm not sure what do you mean by "early man" but man has form societies since ancient times, a very simple proof of this are all of the mortuary rituals of ancient tribes, for example -http://www.jstor.org... . Whether you believe in the Bible or you find evolution a more convincing argument, humans were always social beings, they were created in societies or evolved from social animals. Further in your argument you deviate again about the feelings produce by loneliness when this argument's core is the fact that everyone is lonely from an "isolation" point of view. And later in your argument you deviate even more from this argument's core talking about transformers for some reason, probably because you spend a lot of time reading transformer's comic.
Everyone is actually lonely

Difference is what unites us. If everyone had the same ideas and views, the world would be so boring and there would be few global issues to tackle. And anyways, why would people need companions at all? The early man foraged for himself, he was able to live for long without other humans, was he not? I will tell you why we feel different when we are alone. It is because that our strength is in numbers. Alone, we feel vulnerable. But in today's world, that instinct has outlived its purpose, and we must learn to avoid. No one goes their path alone, but out of all the developers involved in facebook, only mark zuckerberg has the great fame. In the end, we tread over one another for our own purposes, and we always go it alone. Just look at star scream. He survived in the transformer comics, didn't have any true ally and wasn't lonely.
Everyone is actually lonely

I didn't get your source, since it is only "google from India" but I'll assume you google for "lonely" a read the first definition you found and then copy paste it here. I was talking about the second definition "Without companions; solitary" (source - you can google "lonely" again read the second definition instead). You can feel without companions or solitary, even when you're surrounded with people because no one gets you. That's a truth a lot of people experienced at some point in their life, and the fact there are millions of persons in the word won't change how you feel. I'm not saying that feeling lonely instantly calls for feeling sad, but you do feel isolated from the rest of the world because your ideas and opinions with everyone else differ so much, and that feeling of isolation is a kind of loneliness.
Everyone is actually lonely

lonely = sad because one has no friends or company. source- https://www.google.co.in... In a world of 7 billion, it is extremely unlikely that a person doesn't have friends or company. Or even if they don't have company, they have learned to live life like that and are not sad. It doesn't require you to know a person to socialize. Even a person doesn't know about their different moods and how they come off on the outside. While socializing does improve moods, it is overrated and I would rather go it alone. And I am not sad or lonely when going it alone. There are many others as well.
Everyone is actually lonely

In the end, all of us are alone since beginning to the end. No one except us know who we truly are, no matter how much time you spend with someone, you'll never truly know them and they'll never know you. You're the only who understand yourself, the only one who you can be 100% you is just you. That's simply because we're all different people, with different perspectives. So no matter what, in the end you're all alone.
Death penalty

Sometimes 10 to 20 years on death row isn't enough time to present new evidence. All of the cases I mentioned above proves this. People realized that they may have executed the wrong person, after they were executed. This is the main reason I am against the death penalty. It is proven above that clear, solid evidence is not always presented to courts. Juries often make their decisions based on intuition rather than solid facts. Witnesses can be pressured into fingering the wrong guy, and courts can make their decisions based on bias. This is why life imprisonment is a better option. That gives someone who was found guilty by the courts their entire lives to present new evidence. Also, if you wanted these killers to get punished, isn't life imprisonment a pretty decent one? As my opponent mentioned above, death row prisoners spend relatively 23 hours in their cells every day. That gives them plenty of time to think about what they did.
Death penalty

Yes I will agree with you that there have been innocent people blamed and executed, and yes some of these people do have mental illnesses but sometimes they just can't be helped. A study published a few years ago found that simply giving a judge information about the biology of psychopathy could lead to a reduction in the sentencing of a diagnosed psychopath (compared to a judge not receiving that information), even though the information didn't indicate psychopathy was treatable (in fact it implied the opposite). However, with or without information about the associated biology, a diagnosis of psychopathy may still add years to a sentence, as judges are more likely to consider the convict a continued danger to society.And when your on death row your not executed the next day. The length of time prisoners spend on death row in the United States before their executions has recently emerged as a topic of interest in the debate about the death penalty. The discussion increased around the execution of Michael Ross, a Connecticut inmate who had been on death row for 17 years, and has been spurred by the writings of two Supreme Court Justices who have urged the Court to consider this issue. They have plenty of time to try and have there case appealed and more evidence to be presented. A murder can't blame someone as easy as you make it. They need the evidence present to convict the person they frame and if the person being blamed has a alibi that can be proved there immediately eliminated as a possible suspect. Death row inmates in the U.S. typically spend over a decade awaiting execution. Some prisoners have been on death row for well over 20 years. During this time, they are generally isolated from other prisoners, excluded from prison educational and employment programs, and sharply restricted in terms of visitation and exercise, spending as much as 23 hours a day alone in their cells. This raises the question of whether death row prisoners are receiving two distinct punishments: the death sentence itself, and the years of living in conditions tantamount to solitary confinement " a severe form of punishment that may be used only for very limited periods for general-population prisoners.
Death penalty

The death penalty should still be in place. Why? The death penalty is called punishment for a crime. If someone kills 10 innocent people that person doesn't deserve to live. By letting someone end up in prison for life is basically giving them kudos for ending someones life. Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution, not to be confused with revenge, which is guided by a different motive. In retribution the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers injury with injury for public good... Retribution is the primary purpose of just punishment as such... [R]ehabilitation, protection, and deterrence have a lesser status in punishment than retribution." J. Budziszewski, PhD Professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin "Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice," OrthodoxyToday.org Aug./Sep. 2004
Psychiatrist vs Psychologist [?]

Psychologists and psychiatrists are both very useful and even could be interchangeable (to an extent); however, there is a clear dividing line when it comes to usefulness. A psychologist researches and studies, while a psychiatrist treats patients. Psychologists look to the future in the field of psychology while the psychiatrist stays in the present, helping people who are suffering mentally or emotionally. It might seem that the psychologist is better because he precedes the psychiatrist in understanding, but it is the psychiatrist who stops to sit and help. Both can study the field of psychology; however, one chooses to forego his desires to expand the field of psychology and help men and women whom are suffering now: the psychiatrist.
Psychiatrist vs Psychologist [?]

OK, Psychiatrist is the one who's specializing in diagnosis and treatment for mental illness. Meanwhile, Psychologist deals with diagnosing and treating diseases of the brain, emotional disturbance, and behavior problems. Which is, both of them deals with people who has mental illnesses. But, what is the BIG difference? And, which is better? For me, I guess I'll go for Psychologist. Pick any of the two, defend your answer. Gracias! xo
Could a zombie invasion Happen

Hello. This is my first debate, so I would like to thank Pro for the opportunity. As Pro has not done so, I will define the terms of the debate: Zombie: A reanimated corpse. Invasion: A zombie "apocalypse" in which a significant amount of the earths population has been turned into a zombie. Could: Is likely to Arg 1. We don't currently know of any means to reanimate a corpse. No virus or pathogen known to mankind can fully take control of a dead body. Furthermore, it is not likely that a new type of virus that does things that we previously thought impossible will suddenly appear. Basically, we have no reason to think that corpses will suddenly be able to reanimate, so it is not likely to happen. Arg. 2 Decomposition will quickly destroy any zombie. Immediately after death after death, the corpse will enter rigor mortis, making it impossible for the zombie to move or infect people. Even if rigor mortis doesn't completely disable a zombie, decomposition will soon happen. Bacteria and maggots will quickly consume the flesh of the zombie. By a month after after death (or much sooner, especially in heat) the brain will completely liquefy, killing the zombie. Sources: http://www.enkicharity.com... http://h2g2.com... Arg. 3 Reanimated corpses are impossible. The body is a very complex machine. Every thing we do relies on precise and persistent performance of our organs, tissues, and cells. After death our body... dies. The circulatory system will stop working, and all of the cells in our body will die from a lack of oxygen. Every cell will eventually die up as the water in our body evaporates. The muscular system will fail, rendering the zombie unable to move. Arg. 4 We are well prepared for a zombie apocalypse. Zombies are a large part of our culture. We read zombie books, watch zombie movies, and play zombie games. All of us knows what a zombie is, and how to stop it, as we are all experts in zombie fighting, due to the prevalence of zombies in our culture. Arg. 5 We have ALOT of guns. There are 310 million guns available to civilians in america, a country with a population of about 318 million. That is almost 1 gun per person. We have more then enough fire power to defend ourselves against zombies. http://fas.org...
Could a zombie invasion Happen

It should be noted that if it is the former, 2 of my arguments have been left standing, and if the latter, all of my arguments have been left standing. Either way, my points on decomposition and the impossibility of zombies (my original 2nd and 3rd arguments) were completely not addressed. These arguments show that Zombies are not only impossible, but would quickly succumb to the elements. Since they haven't been disproved, they completely invalidate all of Con's arguments, as all of Con's arguments rely on the assumption that zombies are impossible. I will now respond to Con's arguments in the order that they were posted, and under the heading that they were posted. "Ag. 1" This is a very valid point, but go against the parameters of the debate. There are indeed several parasites that do things similar to a "zombie virus". However, there is one key difference- the parasite keeps their hosts alive. For example, Ophiocordyceps unilateralis, a fungus that takes control of an carpenter ant's brains and makes them crawl to the forest floor, only controls the ant while it's still alive. When the ant dies, the fungus no longer controls it. This is relevant because "Zombie" was defined in this debate as a reanimated corpse, NOT something alive who's brain is being controlled. To summarize, there are things in nature that can take control of other living organisms, but nothing that can posses and control a dead body. Source: . http://news.psu.edu... "Ag. 2" With the prevalence of guns in america (see source from round 1) and with the skill and the sophistication of the U. S army, the outbreak would never reach a point in which there are many zombies surrounding a house. Even if a small town were taken over by zombies, the government could easily quarantine the town. We are constantly in fear of, and preparing for, contagious diseases like Ebola, so the government is prepared to easily and systematically set up quarantine zones. "Ag. 3" Because of the other arguments I've stated, we would never reach a point in which 4 billion people are infected. We would be able to stop and cure the zombie virus like we do to any other disease. Additionally, I have already shown how a zombie is impossible, we are prepared, and decay and decomposition would quickly take care of any zombies. I would now like to bring a new argument to the table Arg. 6 Predators would quickly devour zombies. Many animals rely on scavenging corpses for food. Zombies are simply walking food. In the country, vultures, coyotes and wolves would quickly devour zombies. In the city, rats and crows would pick at zombies. Since zombies are dim-witted and have a slow reaction time, most animals would just see them as a an easy meal. Source (which lays out this argument in detail): . http://boingboing.net...
Could a zombie invasion Happen

Very good points you have there. Ag. 1 Research has show that there are brain parasites that shut down your brain, but controls your body and you have no control. When you are in this state, you feel no pain, have no memory of what you did during this state, basically turning you into a mindless freak (this could be taken as a zombie) Ag. 2 Even if the govement is ready for an attack, basic family homes couldn't handle a forced attack like this. If 25 so called zombies were at your door and you had 1 assult rifle, you would be over run in seconds. You would just be added to the body count of a world massacre. Ag. 3 There are more than seven billon people in this world. If 4 billon of the population is turned, what is a basic gun going to do? You would run out of ammo very quick. Yes you could make your own ammo. But that takes time. In conclusion, I think it could happen, and the world would be very stuffed. It would be the Black Death all over again.