BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Not too much TECHNOLOGY!!!

I understand what you're saying but keeping that in mind, people rely on everything for tech. They use as alarm clocks, to find recipes, to search up homework, to find advice they can't find anywhere else. I also think you're exaggerating, I highly doubt that if you have a phone and tablet in front of you, that you're only using it 2 hours a day and that too only to do online tests for homework. Many students would obviously use it for homework but there are too many other things you get dragged into, like Tumblr, Facebook, 9Gag and whatever and while I think it might be too much, it's not something anyone would just give up on one day.
The world will end on December 21st 2012

Thank you phantom for accepting my challenge, now to begin with the debate. The theory of the so-called "doomsday" all began with the Mayan calendar ending on December twenty-fist of two thousand twelve. People then assumed that the Mayans must have predicted the end of this world. They have gone crazy over this idea that the word must end on the day that the Mayans have chosen. Now let me state my arguments:1. Never did the Mayans say that December 21, 2012 was doomsday. If the Mayans actually did have the gift of seeing the future, then for all we know, it could rain gumdrops and chocolate on 2012. Or else they just thought that 12/21/12 was a funny looking date.2. When the Mayans created their calander, leap year had not yet been invented. If so, the doomsday they predicted would have occured a long time ago.3. The theory that the world will end on 12/21/12 is only an assumption, and a weak one at that.4. Nobody knows why the Mayans ended their calender on that specific date. For all we know, they could've run out of paper!Therefore, you can see why the "doomsday" prediction is quite absurd.
"Islam" and "terror" are facades over-simplifying the heart of the M.E. struggle

I'm sorry that I reacted in anger. I understand what you are saying. Oil is a part of this conflict. There is no way to deny it. When we invaded Kuwait, the first thing they did was light the oil rigs on fire. The first thing we did when we came in was guard them. I know oil is a part of this conflict, and it is definatly a huge resource to be protected. I just don't agree that it is the only, or even the main reason we are over there. The President cannot declare war without the approval of Congress. That check and balance system is built into our constitution. The majority of Congress had to agree that it was in America's best security and economic interests (yes, the economy is part of it, i realize). After securing approval, we went to war. Do I think we can resolve the Middle Eastern conflict, no. It has been going on for centuries. But I do feel that we can defend our country, and that it is the responsibility of our government to do so. I appreciate your ethnicity, and the perspective you bring to the debate. I am aware of things that previously, I wasn't aware of. Thank you. I am comfortable with being wrong as well.
"Islam" and "terror" are facades over-simplifying the heart of the M.E. struggle

The way this argument was formed is backward. You started off with an assumption (that the struggle in the ME is all about oil and land) and then tried to form an argument for it. If you understand Islam, you would understand why we fight them. In Islam (not even radical Islam, this is written in the Koran) all infidels "non-believers" are to be put to death. Any follower of Islam that kills these non-believers is rewarded in the afterlife. That is why this country was attacked on September 11th. Because we are their enemies. In there beliefs, we deserve to die. They are doing what they believe they are RELIGIOUSLY commanded to do. This country has responded to defend our citizens by removing the radical applications of these views. It is about idealology and religious beliefs.
"Islam" and "terror" are facades over-simplifying the heart of the M.E. struggle

4 Rounds The current situation in the Middle East would exist in essentially the same form if Islam never existed. Throughout history, when cultural warfare erupts it has been in the name of an idealogy or religion, this is due to the phycological effect it has on citzens of the culture, allowing them to identify with a cause. The fact is that very few have been fought were an idealogy or religous purpose are truely the desired result (American Revelution is one). they are used as facades to generalize the enemy and garner patriotism. the consequences are drastict, yet the basic human need for identification will never allow for a 20/20 view on global affairs. The Problem: The general American view of how to defeat the war on terrorism is through destroying radical Islam and establishing democracy in its place. As previously stated, Islam is a facade of the true struggle. Oil, Power, Influence, Land, and respect lie at the center of the struggle, branching off and manifesting themselves in different forms and wrongly interperted by unfamiliar eyes. If it weren't the Muslims and Jews fight over palestine, it would be the Christians and Jews. If the U.S. didn't have an Islamic power struggle to fix in the Middle East, it would find another way to divert attention and when no one is looking, install pipelines. Islam Vs. The West are just two new teams in a never ending game of command and conqouer. Since this is the opening argument I will leave it at that.
Life is a paradox

The idea to be emphasized in this debate will be experience. Life has pretty long list of definitions, from the biological processes to lifestyle. My argument will be focused on what is being experienced. That is why it is defined as it is above, When we examine opposites and consider what they represent it's safe to say that one denies the others reality. They cannot co-exist- atleast not at the same time. Examples: wet & dry: Nothing can be wet and dry at the same time. hot & cold: Nothing can be hot and cold at the same time. up & down: nothing can go up and down at the same time. When something is going up it is impossible for it to be going down as long as its going up. life & death: Is it possible to be both alive and dead at the same time? Impossible. However, when we examine experience and consider what is actually taking place it's easy to make a paradoxical connection. It appears that on the level of experience both life & death appear to be happening at once. From the moment of conception when the sperm meets the egg (fertilization) thus producing an embryo, the process of death is set into motion, not life. While it appears that a newly born person is alive and growing and learning,"living" and it is in many respects. But, it is also aging, everyday is an advance on the inevitable, the inescapable, the thing that cannot be avoided, death.
Life is a paradox

(I saw this topic being debated earlier, and felt like giving it a go myself) http://www.debate.org...Definitions: Life: What people experience from birth to death. Paradox: Contrary to expectations, existing belief or perceived opinion. I will be taking the pro side of debate. My task will be to make a convincing and coherent argument in favor of the resolution "life is a paradox" Cons task will be to either poke holes in my argument or make a more convincing argument that expresses why life is not a paradox, or both. Rules: R1 acceptance R2 opening arguments R3 rebutalls R4 closing statements Good luck to my opponent
Life is a paradox

It appears that con has no opening argument and fails to point out any flaws in my argument, thus leaving me nothing to rebut. I'll just use this round to further clarify my argument. Most people (including myself) have the experience of being "alive" by interacting and responding to the world we live in. We learn, grow, get stronger and wiser. All of this can be characterized as "life". But, the fact of the matter is that the body through which these experiences take place is aging and getting weaker everyday, it's dying. While at times it may appear to be getting stronger the period is short lived and the body consistently advances towards death. Which is precisely why that life as defined in R1 'What people experience from birth to death' is a paradox. People have experiences through the body that is often regarded as "life", but yet it is this same body that is ultimately destined to reach death. That is what makes it a paradox, we seem to be experiencing both life and death at the same time. Back to con
Creationism and Intelligent design should not be taught in science lessons

First of all here's some examples proving creationism and disproving evolution at the same time. In 1987 an excavation at a riverbed in Mexico showed dinosaur foot prints along the bottom. What was so peculiar then? When the layer of dino foot prints was removed for testing they found even older human foot prints. All of the strangly human like monkey bones found in the past 50 years turned out to be either deformed humans or monkeys. There was no actual connection. This information has been stifled by the institutions that provided these studies and can only be confirmed in new studies done by less bias scientists. While we have observed microevolution (changes withing a species to adapt) we haven't actually seen an example of full blown evolution (actual change in species). This is because it didn't happen and cannot happen. Radioactive decay measurements taken of our atmosphere show that our atmosphere is only about 6000 to 10000 years old. It couldn't have supported any kind of life before that time. Next I bring up the point that my opponent made that since creationism is only a theory it shouldn't be taught. Every physics student in high school around the world is taught all of the theories of metaphysics and it is generally agreed upon by scientists that they are only theories. Why then do we still teach them? Because it is justified that we give students all of the possibilities. A belief is anything that you are convinced of. For example: I believe in gravity. Thus it is my belief. If you believe in science to answer you questions then it is you belief. A faith is a conviction of an individual to BELIEVE certain things and thus science is a faith. (I used dictionary definitions and thus this is undebateable) As seen in the comments page, evolution is taught on a fairness doctrine in most religious schools. Thus the reverse can be accepted. I gave a small amount of evidence that creationism is true at the beginning of my case so there. thank you.
Creationism and Intelligent design should not be taught in science lessons

First of all I would like to point out that the theories of evolution and the big bang are the only plausible alternative to creationism so I will attack them first. These ideas are exactly what I called them, theories. There is no definite proof to show that they are true. Any solid evidence that has been found to support these is either compromised and/or questionable and the proccesses of carbon dating are also questionable. I'm not saying that Creationism has more proof to its case than the other ideas, but simply that evolution requires as much faith to accept as creationism. So the only real option is to either allow both to be taught or both to be excluded. A last thought to mull over. Couldn't God have made the Earth with age already on it? Thus making it seem as if it has been there for a much longer period of time.
Creationism and Intelligent design should not be taught in science lessons

Today in Biology we were told that we have to mention Creationism briefly as an alternative theory to Evolution. The whole class, including the teacher laughed at the idea but humoured it non the less, evaluating it scientifically as a theory. We have found a general consensus that it shouldn't even be a theory, because for it to be a theory, there actually needs to be evidence for it. However, I know that some people seem to believe that Creationism should be taught anyway. I challenge anyone to persuade me that that is the correct teaching method.
if you wanted to wreck/ destroy, a country.

You posted,"...."I'm gonna have Chinese Food for Christmas..." ... You are what you eat From "The Phrase Finder" "In an essay titled Concerning Spiritualism and Materialism, 1863/4, Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach wrote: "Der Mensch ist, was er i"t." "That translates into English as 'man is what he eats'." So if you eat "Chinese food..." Does that then make you a Chinese, not American? What will bring a country to its end is if many of its inhabitants are Americans in name only who's loyalty is still with the foreign nation from which they came while partaking parasitically of all that a host country had to offer and then refuse to adopt the language traditions , the culture, of the country that allowed them to benefit from the opportunities that country had to offer. parasite: (in ancient Greece)" a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation...."
if you wanted to wreck/ destroy, a country.

You responded,"There is no American culture to corrupt or diffuse." Defining Culture , from the web page," Livescience" "American Culture: Traditions and Customs of the United States" by Kim Ann Zimmermann, Live Science Contributor | January 15, 2015 Definding Culture: American culture encompasses the customs and traditions of the United States. "Culture encompasses religion, food, what we wear, how we wear it, our language, marriage, music, what we believe is right or wrong, how we sit at the table, how we greet visitors, how we behave with loved ones, and a million other things," said Cristina De Rossi, an anthropologist at Barnet and Southgate College in London. So by this definition given above, America has a culture of its own. "....The term Western culture often refers broadly to the cultures of the United States and Europe. ...." "American as apple pie" has come to mean something that is authentically American" American holidays....."celebrated only in the United States...." ".....Many holidays are celebrated only in the United States..." ".....Many holidays are celebrated only in the United States. Americans celebrate their independence from Britain on July 4. Memorial Day, celebrated on the last Monday in May, honors those who have died in military service. Labor Day, observed on the first Monday in September, celebrates country"s workforce. Thanksgiving, another distinctive American holiday, falls on the fourth Thursday in November and dates back to colonial times to celebrate the harvest. Presidents" Day, marking the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, is a federal holiday that occurs on the third Monday in February. The contributions of veterans are honored on Veterans" Day, observed on Nov. 11. The contributions of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. are remembered on the third Monday in January." European culture is the base Culture of America, Immigrants have added their cultural influence to American culture but theirs is only an minuscule addition, not a elimination of America's own national culture, The Question that I asked was,"..if you wanted to wreck/ destroy, a country, and so your response drifted away from the topic question although the flooding of foreign aliens could be considered one way to bring about the wrecking/ destruction, and dissolution of America as a nation.
Ignorant mortals probably wrote the Bible.

I really don't think we need three rounds for this debate. ==================== My Opponent's Objection ==================== "Brothers and sisters don't let my opponent get away with playing a game of semantics. Further, his argument doesn't even hold up if I were to follow his line of reasoning. Ignorant can have many different meanings. " Nice try. However, you failed to clarify your intentions in the first round. I was free to provide my own (completely acceptable) definitions. My argument does indeed hold up, and it at this point it is irrelevant that ignorant has multiple meanings. I am sorry, but there is no escape for you. It is too late. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent failed to specify critical terms in the first round. Because of this, I was allowed to provide the definitions. The resolution has been thoroughly negated through my definitions, which are all legitimate.
Ignorant mortals probably wrote the Bible.

Brothers and sisters don't let my opponent get away with playing a game of semantics. Further, his argument doesn't even hold up if I were to follow his line of reasoning. Ignorant can have many different meanings. Ignorant-1 lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned. 2 Lacking special knowledge or information 3 Uninformed; unaware (Random House WEBSTER'S college dictionary) Being ignorant doesn't always mean being illiterate. Illiterate can simply be a synonym of ignorant. Best, Freeman
Ignorant mortals probably wrote the Bible.

First of all, I would like to point out that, not only is it improbable that ignorant mortals wrote the Bible, it is IMPOSSIBLE. I shall prove why in a moment, but first definitions must be given. Ignorant: illiterate . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Illiterate: unable to read or write . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Mortal: a human being . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Probably: insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Wrote: to form (as characters or symbols) on a surface with an instrument (as a pen) b : to form (as words) by inscribing the characters or symbols of on a surface . http://www.merriam-webster.com... The Bible: the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Now for my rebuttal. ============================================================================ ". .. So, where does all of this leave us? Unless it can be demonstrated that it is highly plausible that Jesus was the Son of God then the resolution will remain affirmed. " I need not bother showing the likelihood of Jesus being the son of God in order to negate the resolution. That point is completely irrelevant to the purpose of this debate. In fact, all of the points my opponent has made are irrelevant to this debate. He has not yet affirmed the resolution. ===================== A Paradox ===================== My opponent supports the resolution that the Bible was written by ignorant mortals. However, this is absurd. Those who cannot read or write could not possibly have written the Bible. The Bible was (obviously) written by intelligent mortals who actually knew how to WRITE. ===================== Conclusion ===================== The resolution has been completely negated. I strongly urge readers to vote Con. However, give Pro the conduct point; otherwise, my conscience would kill me.
Ignorant mortals probably wrote the Bible.

My fastest debate ever. I have completed it in one sitting. Awesome. ========================== My Opponent's Last-Ditch Attempt ========================== "I strongly encourage a Con vote for anyone that is in favor of coarsening debate, philosophical discourse, speech and generally eroding the importance of critical thinking." I am sorry, but that statement will not win you the debate. That is little better than an Ad Hominem argument, and it indicates your desperation. I have no more to say on this matter. ========================= Conclusion ========================= My opponent has thoroughly failed in upholding his part in this debate, and has been reduced to pleas to the voting audience. I, on the other hand, have given a substantial argument against the resolution, which remains totally unrefuted. Voters, you know what to do.
PS3 is better Xbox360.

The Xbox has beaten PlayStation by more than 4 million console now, and this is the end of that generation. The world has spoken. Ask anyone on the street and they'll tell you they have heard of Halo, but few have heard of Uncharted. I will not hound you since you did forfeit, I will just tell you I am getting an Xbox One. PS4 is great, and I really do not like Xbox One but I am a cheap person and $50 is enough to win me over. Once I have the money, I'm going PC anyway so...
PS3 is better Xbox360.

Xbox's controllers were extremely durable as well as wireless, I still have the original one that came with my console. It was also more ergonomic, with staggered thumb sticks with excellent grip, realistic triggers, and nice buttons. PS3's price did drop quick, not unsimilar to the Xbox one's, but the last release date and the shock of the original price was what turned people off. Sony's incentive offers were little to persuade people, considering all hacks almost cost 4 billion dollars. Halo, one of the most successful franchises of all time is an Xbox exclusive. Forza is is second in sales only to Need For Speed. Gears of War is yet another popular Xbox exclusive. Xbox also has games like Minecraft, Saints Row, Left For Dead 1, and 2, and Fable.
PS3 is better Xbox360.

well maybe ps3 was really expensive when it came out but that price went down really quick. For starters ps3 controllers were not as durable as the xbox controller was but it was wireless, no batteries, and could last a good 30 hours playing time. When ps3 gets hacked Sony gives everyone on psn free dlc's, psn money cards and sometimes even full games. Ps3 last really long iv never gotten the YLOD, and ps3 has a lot of great award winning exclusives. (Last of Us, Little big planet, Heavy rain, Kill zone, Infamous 1 and 2, Mlb the show, Uncharted, ect.)
PS3 is better Xbox360.

I do not know why we are talking about this, the 8th generation is here, but here we go! (I will be getting a PS4 soon, so I am not a Xbox fanboy) Xbox 360 is no doubt the best console of the seventh generation. I had my console for 8 years and it broke from an accident which was all my fault. The RROD is a very important part of the console, but the Xbox 360 came out with three versions of the console, as opposed to the PS3's two. PS3 used blu-ray, a step towards the future of disc-based media storage. This was for nothing other than movies as it turned out that the Xbox 360 could still hold the game data it needed it to. The graphics processor was slightly more powerful in the 360, but not enough to not be able to compete. What did create graphical discrepancy was the fact that the PS3 used cell architecture, and obscure type that was confusing for developers to program for. This caused the PS3's already late arrival to be plagued with sub par third party ports for years. Online was a mess for PS3. Yes, it was free, but you got what you payed for, and you payed nothing. PSN has been hacked multiple times, and mined of credit card data, emails, and much more. Online services were far superior on the Xbox 360, no doubt. PS3 never had strong exclusive franchises other than uncharted, whereas Xbox had Gears of War, Halo, and Forza. Plus, the PS3 was 600 dollars at launch. 600 for a Xbox with blu-ray.
PS3 is better Xbox360.

I think the PlayStation is better than the xbox because playstation is way better with graphics, interface, games, durability, and (it was not anymore) free PSN. Xbox breaks too easily and it still uses an eye to read its disk, which scratches the disks and ps3 uses a laser that does not scratch disks. I had my ps3 for almost 4 years, and my friend bought a brand new xbox 360 and got the RROD within 7 months. PS3 all the way!!!
I think it would be funny if alex jones (info wars guy) drank a bullet.

At no point did I say that anybody should ever be punished for flexing their freedom of speech. In fact, I didn't even mention free speech at all. Just as mr alex jones is free to express himself, so am I, and my opinion is plain and simple. I think it would be funny if alex jones took a page out of kurts book, and dust himself off. I made no threats, nor do I encourage anybody to cause harm to anybody at anytime! !! Click click, gulp! !! ! I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge and I look forward to the next round. Thank You! ! !