BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the SOL be mandatory in middle schools.

Should the SOLs be mandatory in middle schools. I think the sols shouldn't be mandatory but be banned in middle schools because the SOLs could hurt the feelings of student who did bad on it. The SOLs affect your grade and if you do bad on it, your GPA will drop and if you have a 1.7 GPA and then take the SOLs and do bad on it, your GPA could drop to a 1.5 GPA. That is a D+, the grade can defect your chances of going to college, and most colleges require a 1.7 GPA or a 2.0 GPA, even know your GPA may go up in high school, middle schools GPA is a big factor in determing your classes in 9th grade. if you are a 1.5 GPA your oppsins are limited.whyll other teens seced in high school get to go to havard or yale or william and mary or any other good schools your stuck with commutinty college which is not fair at all. All because you got a bad grade on the SOLs. Plus, It is hard. That is why SOLs shouldn't be mandatory but be banned in all middle schools.Thank you
The Premise of Duality is satisfied

Grammatical Error: sat"is"fy G2;satisG6;fī/ verb 1. meet the expectations, needs, or desires of (someone). "I have never been satisfied with my job" antonyms:frustrate provide (someone) with adequate information or proof so that they are convinced about something. "people need to be satisfied that the environmental assessments are accurate" synonyms:convince, persuade, assure; More adequately meet or comply with (a condition, obligation, or demand). "the whole team is working to satisfy demand" synonyms:comply with, meet, fulfill, answer, conform to; More MATHEMATICS (of a quantity) make (an equation) true. pay off (a debt or creditor). "there was insufficient collateral to satisfy the loan" synonyms:repay, pay (off), settle, make good, discharge, square, liquidate, clear More Origin More late Middle English: from Old French satisfier, formed irregularly from Latin satisfacere "to content," from satis "enough" + facere "make."[1] Therefore, the word "good" isn't a synonym of the word "satisfy". In fact, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present. Evil does not exist , or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.[2] Source(s): [1] https://www.google.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Marijuanna is not a drug, it is a plant.

My arguments, Marijuana is indeed a drug Definition of a drug: A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body - Google A substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication - http://www.merriam-webster.com... Any article, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans or other animals. - http://dictionary.reference.com... A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction. - http://www.thefreedictionary.com... A chemical substance that affects the processes of the mind or body - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... A Natural or synthetic substance which (when taken into a living body) affects its functioning or structure - http://www.businessdictionary.com... Marijuana is by definition something ingested to alter the mind or body, making it a drug....
The Holy Spirit is real

Resolution= the holy spirit is realProposition=demonstrating the holy spirit is real based on evidence in human realityBurden of Proof=providing physical evidence that conforms to physical human reality that holy spirit is provable through logical physical evidencePro will not be able to provide this physical evidence of existence, since by his own biblical sources the holy spirit is intangible. Thus anything someone claims the holy spirit done it is not practical reason because someone else can attribute the so-called act to a ghost, wind, fate, destiny, or logical order.
The Holy Spirit is real

Step right up atheists and LET THE DEBATING BEGIN! Keep in mind, if I can prove the Trinity is real, I have more than proved my case. http://www.gospelanswers1.com... http://www.bible.ca.... http://4.bp.blogspot.com... http://www.gracect.org... http://www.gracect.org... http://ahmadalhassan.files.wordpress.com... http://www.drdavewhite.com... Jesus said two helpful things about the Holy Spirit. First, that the Holy Spirit's job is to convict (or, convince) people of their sin. Now, that's a very UNcomfortable feeling for those being convicted! (John 16:8) Second, that he would send the Holy Spirit to believers once he'd returned to heaven, and that the Holy Spirit would be our comfortor. He brings a sense of comfort and peace to those he indwells. Provided, of course, that they act on the conviction of sin that he brings! (John 16:12-15) Until the Holy Spirit first convicts us of our sin and we repent as a response, we cannot then go on to experience his comfort and peace! The Christians who received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost had all repented and been obedient. That special anointing had visible signs accompanying in order to establish the new, baby Church, and to get the spreading of the gospel message shot out into all the world. If you became a Christian aged 4, you would have had very little grasp of the gospel, let alone any of the above. If you genuinely turned to Jesus with the simple faith of a little child, you undoubtedly would be indwelt with the Holy Spirit back then. The question is, have you matured to Christian adult-hood since then? Or are you trying to be a sort of 'independent' Christian who isn't bothered about the fellowship of the saints and the spiritual body of Christ (the Church)? The Holy Spirit works in our hearts and minds and deals with our consciences. As you awaken to his subtle promptings in those areas, you will become more and more aware of what he is doing in your life. Prayer is an absolutely fundamental aspect of knowing how the Holy Spirit would deal with us. So I hope this encourages you back to basics. And I do sympathise with the cosh effect of your medication. It's horrible. Just make sure that when you are not so badly affected by it, you get close to God in prayer, Bible study and worship. He's with you all the way, whether you are aware of his presence or not. He's promised never to leave us or forsake us. Trust him! [http://answers.yahoo.com...]
Ban islam=Kill islam=Free all muslims

Where are you getting this stuff? I"ve read the Quran, I"ve talked to real Muslims, and this is the second debate where you refuse to accept the fact that the majority of Muslims like being Muslim and that the majority of Muslims can leave whenever they please. Only the roots of Islamic extremist groups are forced and founded on fear, and that only accounts for a small percentage of the Muslim population. Seriously, tell me what your source is?
Naruto will most likely be romantically involved with Sakura by the end of the Naruto anime/manga

Ladies and gentleman, my opponent has opted to concede to the fact that both Naruto and Sakura possess romantic feelings for one another. However, he is of the mindset that this doesn't prove my case given that other mangas/animes of the same genre are revolved around fighting and thus provide no opportunity for romances to take place. However, although other mangas of the same genre have thrown around some hints of romance between both characters in question, the fact of the matter is that my opponent's objection fails in regards to the fact that these authors have admitted to having some inspiration from Akira Toriyama (the creator of Dragon Ball Z). We must keep in mind that during Dragon Ball Z, romances took place in spite of the fact that the series mostly revolved around fighting. Indeed, Goku married Chi-Chi, Bulma married Vegeta, Krillin married Android 18 and Gohan married Videl. In addition, I'd like to point out that both of the mangas/animes which my opponent is referring to are ongoing. The resolution merely promotes the idea that all evidence points to the characters in question "hooking up" by the end of the series. Neither Bleach, One Piece or Naruto have ended yet. Thus, for a brief overview of this round, CON's case fails on the grounds of the fact that the story which these very stories were inspired by was action focused yet had resolved romances and that this is debate concerns what will likely occur by the end of the storyline. Indeed, although Ichigo Kurosakai may not be paired up with Orihimi in the current arc, it is quite likely that we will see some kind of epilogue depicting the two together by the end of the manga. The same can be said for Luffy and Boa Hancock as well as Nami and Sanji. Thus, I rest my case for now.
Naruto will most likely be romantically involved with Sakura by the end of the Naruto anime/manga

I would like to proceed forth with my case by referencing evidence from similar manga and negating any of his instigations all together. Although it is quite clear that Naruto has romantic feeling for Sakura, and Sakura for Naruto, my opponent makes a large assumption, that acts of romance shall take place. With Naruto being a manga centered around battles and fast paced action, the chances of romance to truly play a part in the plot of Naruto are slim. For example, other battle manga such as One Piece and Bleach, although they depict characters clearly showing affection for one another (such as Sanji-Nami or Orihime-Ichigo) no such romance takes place in the story. My opponent often refers to the chances of a Sakura-Sasuke or a Naruto-Hinata relationship developing as opposed to a Naruto-Sakura development, when the chances that any relationship will develop are quite slim.
.99999...(repeating) is equal to 1

Proof by decimal _________________ Inductive reasoning works almost all the time. Clearly, my inductive reasoning contradicts with yours, so for the purposes of this debate, I propose that any and all uses of inductive reasoning are null and void, regardless of who said them. Proof by subtraction _________________ .0(r)1? Is that legal? I don't think so... The only way to attain it is subtracting .9(r) from 1. This is a moot point anyway, because if I am correct, .0(r)1 (which I don't think exists anyway) is equivalent to 0. And once again, your inductive reasoning could be wrong. Let me delve into why you can't have .0(r)1 As you said, infinity is a very confusing and deceptive concept. You can't put a digit after #infinity, because there is no # infinity. Because if you put the one after the repeating 0's, you lose the infinite quality of the zeroes, in that there is nothing after them. Proof by addition _________________ Once again, it's not infinite if you out something after it, so 1.9(r)8 is impossible. and once again, you used inductive reasoning. I know I did, but I also had a solid deductive proof, which you do not. Also, you claim that 1.9(r)=/=1.9(r)8, which raises an interesting point dealing with infinity, and goes yet again to show why there can't be another digit. 1.9<1.98, but 1.99>1.98. When the nines are infinite, though, which is it? There's always one more nine on each one than the other, because infinity does not act like a number. Maybe they are equal. Then it does not go against my point, because if 1.9(r)=2, so would the elusive 1.9(r)8. But that can't be the case, therefore, you can't repeat and have it end with something else. In my argument, I used inductive reasoning to supplement my mathematical proof. You used only empirical observations which do not necessarily hold up to infinity. In your argument, you need to PROVE it mathematically, not just observe what happens before you insert infinity. I have one more algebraic proof, then I will let you close it up! x=.9(r) given 10x=9.9(r) mult. prop. of eq. 10x-x=9.9(r)-x sub. prop. of eq. 9x=9 simp. x=1 div. prop. of eq. x=x reflexive .9(r)=1 substitution This has been a very interesting debate, and you made some very good (but empirical) points. I look forward to your response, and may the better mathematician (regrettably probably neither of us :-/) win!
.99999...(repeating) is equal to 1

The proofs my opponent has provided are fairly common ones at making the case that .9(r)=1 To counter these proofs, I have a couple of proofs myself, but before I get there, I want to talk about the number .9(r). .9(r) relies upon the concept of infinity; that the numbers never end. Ever! This concept is impossible for the human mind to grasp. We're not able to understand that things go on forever, after all, everything in our world ends. It's all finite. How far from here to there? How many jellybeans in the jar? How much money does it cost? It's all finite. Even when we take things suck as How far from here to the edge of the universe? How many jellybeans in a grain silo? How much money does Warren Buffet have? While astronomical, these numbers are all finite. This relates to the debate, because though .9(r) gets infinitely closer to 1, it never reaches 1, which brings me to my first proof. PROOF 1: PROOF BY DECIMAL The number 1 can be written as 1.0, or in the case of this debate 1.0(r) [the 0's would continue forever]. When we compare this to the number .9(r), we forget that there is a "0" in the ones place, making the number 0.9(r). Clearly, just a 1.0 > .9 and 1>.99 and 1>.999 etc., 1.0>0.9(r) PROOF 2: PROOF BY SUBTRACTION Because infinity is such an impossible concept to grasp, lets use an ever increasing sting of nines to help with this proof. 1-.9=.1 1-.99=.01 1-.999=.001 1-.9999=.0001 and the pattern progresses until we reach 1-.9(r)=.0(r)1 PROOF 3: PROOF BY ADDITION When saying that .9(r)=1, we should be able to add them together in any combination and get the same result. 1+1=2 1+.9(r)=1.9(r) .9(r)+1=1.9(r) .9(r)+.9(r)=? <-- This is the one I'd like to focus on. Lets use the ever-increasing string of 9's to help with this as well. .9+.9=1.8 [notice, no 9] .99+.99=1.98 [only one 9] .999+.999=1.998 [two 9's] .9999+.9999=1.9998 [three 9's] We can expect this pattern to continue ever onward, eventually leaving us with .9(r)+.9(r)=1.9(r)8 2 =/= 1.9(r) =/= 1.9(r)8 These three proofs should be enough to prove that 1 =/= .9(r) With that, I'll turn the debate back over to my opponent. I look forward to another great response.
.99999...(repeating) is equal to 1

Thank you for accepting! I have a few different ways to look at it, but I think the most straightforward is this: .9(repeating)=?=1 /3 /3 .3(r)=.3(r) Let's walk through that. we are trying to prove that .9(r)=1 If you divide them by 3 using the division property of equality, you get the same answer. By the same property, that proves their equality. Here's another (using inductive reasoning) 1/9=.1(r) 2/9=.2(r) 3/9=.3(r) 4/9=.4(r) 5/9=.5(r) 6/9=.6(r) 7/9=.7(r) 8/9=.8(r) 9/9=.9(r)--Or does it? if each time you add 1/9, or .1(r), what happens when you add .1(r) to .8(r)? You get .9(r), but you also get 1. Well, you learned in third grade that anything divided by itself equals 1, so 9/9 obviously is worth 1, but using inductive reasoning, you'd find that it is worth .9(r). This leads to the only conclusion that .9(r)=1 Looking forward to your response!
The Infallibility of the Bible

It must have been a miscommunication. Perhaps I wasn't clear. Your argument shows very clearly that mankind has introduced some unnecessary or extraneous information into the bible. I grant you that. However, there are no standards by which you can say that the bible has been "corrupted". Looking at it from my point of view, the bible is a book, and this book is open to interpretation. Interpretation that the faithful perform in relation to their faith. The Bible did not descend from the heavens as a holy relic and become perverted when people decided to add stuff in it, the Bible is and always was a book written by men of faith for men of faith. The only thing that has changed throughout the years, is the faith. Thus, you can't say the bible has been corrupted, because no change to the bible is either positive or negative, and the bible wasn't necessarily "pure" to begin with. So why is the bible infallible? Let's take a look at your example. The part of scripture was omitted by all but one of today's modern bibles. How did they come to that conclusion? By examining older versions of the bible. They didn't use objective evidence to invalidate a part of the bible, they used an older version of the bible to invalidate a newer version. This does not show that the bible is infallible, it shows that PEOPLE are not infallible, since they were the ones who printed the book. The assumption here, of course, is that the original Greek scriptures are accurate and of course, also infallible. However you look at it, the basis for your example, is the total, blind trust in the bible, albeit a different version.
The Infallibility of the Bible

I proposed that I could show proof that man had corrupted the bible. I show you an example of this and you even agree with me but yet you hold that my example is irrelevant. How is my example irrelevant when it is a clear example of man adding to the text his own message. And this very text that was added is used time and time again by KJV users to justify the trinity. These subtle changes lead to doctrinal differences and in fact corrupt the bible. Now I want you to know I don't think the whole bible is corrupt. I think the overall message is still intact. Its just that when people don't admit that the bible does in fact have errors in it, they find themselves rationalizing away mistakes and sometimes even inventing doctrinal changes. Hell, wars have even been fought over subtle differences and interpretations. Anyways, your argument that my example was irrelevant is ludicrous. It is a direct example of man inserting text, whatever the reason may of been. I would like to leave you with one scripture. Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie." This quote isn't taken out of context. This is God saying that in fact the scribes have turned the law into a lie. Again how can you side step this when God himself says the scribes are responsible for writing lies within the law? I just wanted also to respond to a statement you said about the Bible not contradicting the "trinity" doctrine. This is also crazy. I can think of one that pops right off the top of my head. Commandment number #1.....It goes something like this, "You shall have no other gods before me." There is only one God in heaven. Jesus was not God or half God or however you want to say it. When christians state anything of the sort they are blaspheming the lord. You can spin it anyway you want but I'm sorry, One means One.
The Infallibility of the Bible

That aregument is irrelevant. While I agree with you, it doesn't relate to this particular debate. No one ever said that the Church was the absolute authority on Christianity. The Greek Orthodox split from the Catholic Church, I believe, just because of this issue. Besides, the concept of the Holy Trinity doesn't contradict anything in the Bible. So who's to say that it doesn't belong? This example of yours doesn't prove that the bible has been corrupted by man, or that there is likely evidence that the bible has been corrupted by man in the past. My essential argument is that the Bible, pertaining to faith, CANNOT be corrupted. We can say that a politican is corrupted because he is acting against what we believe the actions of good person are. We can say that a ruler is corrupted because he isa cting against our notions of justice. The Bible in and of itself, pertaining to faith, cannot be corrupted because there is only one standard: faith. Thus, the Bible is *never* corrupt and *never* contradicting because it validates itself.
The Infallibility of the Bible

Agreed, no outside sources will be used. 1 John 5:7 (NKJV) "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." "This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious." --Benjamin Wilson This verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all expunged this verse from their pages. There is one major translation that still contains this verse, The King James Bible. I just do not see how someone can logically get around this. This instance proves that man is capable of changing scripture to benefit their own purgative's. I mean, you do understand the implications of this insertion don't you? This insertion is direct evidence of the church's willingness to fabricate evidence in support of the trinity doctrine.
proof of god

2 Peter 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from the prophet's own interpretation. 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 2 Peter 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. Deuteronomy 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law. Zephaniah 3:2 She heeded no voice, She accepted no instruction. She did not trust in the LORD, She did not draw near to her God. Romans 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written for our instruction, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures, we might have hope. 2 Peter 1:21 For no prophecy was ever brought about through human initiative, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. And I can testify to these truth, Know that these words are not for you though! As I am instructed to: Matthew 7:6 "Don't waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don't throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you. But for the sake of those who diligently search it is given.