BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Eight reasons why christianity is dishonest and deceitful

Taken from. . . Atheist Alliance International: There is very little that we can prove in this world. We can look for evidence to support claims people make and when there is robust supporting evidence, And no contrary evidence, We can conclude a claim is probably, But not definitely, True. However, It is easier to prove something is false"all you need is one piece of contradictory evidence. So, What about Christianity? Is there evidence that contradicts, Or casts grave doubt on Christianity? I think there is rather a lot. To keep this article brief, I will describe the falsifying evidence without giving all the sources and details but, Actually, Most of it is so well-known, That even Christians should be aware that this evidence exists. 1. There is clear evidence that prayer does not work despite the Bible promising prayers will be answered. 2. There is clear evidence that humans invent gods. Humans have invented so many gods that the default assumption should be that a god is a supernatural entity invented by humans. Christianity would need solid evidence that the Jewish god is an exception to this rule but there is no such evidence. 3. There is clear evidence that religions and gods are propagated through culture by infecting children, And no evidence that they are propagated by gods. 4. There is clear evidence that Christianity has evolved as human understanding of the world has changed whilst a real, God-given religion, Should never need to change. 5. There is clear evidence that humans on this planet have unequal access to Christianity so, If Christianity were true, Billions would be condemned to hell for no fault of their own. This contradicts the Christian notion that God is omnibenevolent. 6. There is clear evidence that the Bible, Supposedly inspired by God, Is liberally sprinkled with the type of errors we would expect from its Iron Age authors but would not expect from the creator of the universe. 7. Christian theology is incoherent to the point of absurdity. God killing his son so he can forgive our future sin is like me breaking my son"s legs so I can forgive my neighbor in case she ever parks her car on my drive. It is quite ridiculous. 8. There is clear evidence that the arguments presented for the existence of the Jewish God are logically flawed"all of them have been shown to be unreliable. If this were not the case, All honest and intelligent people would accept that God exists, Just as all honest and intelligent people accept that black holes exist. All that is left for Christians is faith and their feelings. We know that faith and feelings can be used to believe in any god at all including non-existent gods. So faith and feelings cannot help us determine if Christianity is true. But that is all Christians have. Rules: Prove christianity to be true. dsjpk5 is disqualified from the voting procedures as he tries to pretend he's god and thus change the voting structure of who wins and loses here on DDO.
Children should be taught foreign languages in elementary school.

I agree, it would be nice to learn a language at a younger age, but you've got to think about whether or not they want to. Foreign Language classes are elective classes for a reason. They're something we have the right to choose. We shouldn't have to learn a new language if we don't want to. ... One only needs to know the common language of where they live. If someone wants to travel the world, then they would need to learn a new language so they can get by in said country. But that's still choosing to learn a new language. ... Granted that it would be easier for children to learn a different language, seeing how their brains are still developing, they still have the freedom to choose. Forcing them to take a class that some of them may not want, is practically the same as oppression, and we all know how America feels about oppression.
Children should be taught foreign languages in elementary school.

I believe that it is of the up-most importance for students to take a foreign language in elementary school (or earlier), for it develops their thinking skills and opens their minds to other ways of the world {1}. -- Can studying a second language in elementary school boost student achievement in other academic areas? Many study suggest that this is the case. Most school districts don't teach children a foreign language until age fourteen or later. But there are multiple studies that display that if children begin to study a second language in elementary school exhibit more naive-like pronunciation and are more likely to become a fluent speaker{1}{2}. Furthermore, Wilburn Robinson review over 140 studies conducted over three decades on this topic. His findings conclude that students who study a second language in elementary school have a mental flexibility, a superiority in concept formation, and a more diversified set of mental abilities {2}. This is just one of the many study that sugest second languages to be taught all over American elementary schools -- The problem with starting a language at your freshmen year? You can only study it for four years! From a logical point of view, if you start a language earlier you can study it longer thereby having a more solid understanding of this language. Even some experts require six to eight years of study{3}! If a child could start learning a language four years earlier, they could master the grammar structure, and achieve true proficiency, in a way that is not possible for a four year program{3}. -- I would like to expand on the idea of students being able respect different ways of the world. Since language study exposes children to different cultures that have different food, values, and traditions it can seem weird and uninteresting. But if students learn this at a young age children become more interested in it. They also learn to accept ways that are different than their own{4}. -- :) References: {1} http://www.wfu.edu... {2} http://www.districtadministration.com... {3} http://www.ibuzzle.com... {4} http://www.ehow.com...
Gay marriae should not be acknowledged by the Federal Goveronment

Thank you for accepting my challenge and now I will provide my argument. Firstly, this debate deals with whether or not the Federal Government should acknowledge gay marriage, not whether it is moral or not. The constitution never grants the Federal Government, let alone the Supreme Court, the power to define marriage or to acknowledge marriages. According to the Tenth Amendment, this power should be left to the states respectively or to the people.
Gay marriae should not be acknowledged by the Federal Goveronment

I accept the rules and would like to note that the resolution refers to marriage (not marriae). To be clear, I believe marriage is a spiritual contract that could easily be replaced with power of attorney rights. I also don't believe in governmental marriage benefits in general. However so long as the government recognizes heterosexual marriage, the goverment should absolutely recognize gay marriage and provide the same benefits to same-sex couples.
Gay marriae should not be acknowledged by the Federal Goveronment

Rule #1- Google documents are not a violation of conduct since you could just as easily start a google document as I can. Rule #2- Don't flake out/drop out of the debate because you're losing. Rule #3- Respond to my arguments, you can't make up facts/ not respond to my arguments as was the case with my last debate on this subject. Rule #4- We will have 3 days to respond to arguments, this does not include Shabbat, so If I post on Friday night, I have until Tuesday night to respond, which allows me or you to post a google document link 1 day before you intend to publish your argument. Rule #5- If my opponent violates any of these rules, the voters must vote against the offender in the category coinciding with the violation, if you vote for him/her in a category which he/she violate a rule in, your vote will be reported for violation of these rules.
Gay marriae should not be acknowledged by the Federal Goveronment

None of these clauses grant the Supreme Court the authority to change the constitution or US law, none of them. The Supreme Court is only given the power to enforce the law, not to make any decisions about it exept on how to enforce it, never toexpound on US laws. I'm not repeating arguments you have negated, none of your clauses say what you claim they do, show me where. And you tried to rebuttal my argument that the supreme court isn't given the power to grant the American people rights by saying "they ruled that people have the right to marriage." This is nonsense on my opponents side, here's what it is like, a police officer decides that eating pork is illegal, I ask who gave him the power to decide that, he responds by saying "I ruled that pork is illegal." Police officers are given the authority to enforce the lsaw, nothing more, just like the supreme court. Yes, the Sureme Court has the power to enforce certain clauses, but not to decide what they mean or to add to them. The supreme Cout did have the power to decide segregation was unconstitutional, but if the supreme court decided that it also applied to peope based on gender, thus men should be allowed to go into the womens bathroom, that would be uconstitutional. Just like the presdent is allowed to goveron all actions of war, but not to declair war. There is difference, interracial marriage was originaly allowed, banning it came long later. Infact any example of something bad that was once legal can be refuted, slavery for example was once legal, the issue is orgiinaly it was banned, so this would reenforce my argument. Human sacrifice used to be legal, but before that itr was unacceptable, and at one pint only white men could own land, but before that anyone could. And sexuality isn't the criteria for marrige, just because some people want to marry someone which that institutn would not be real marriage, this does not entitle them to be treated as they want, only equal to the rest of us. That is, it doesn't matter wat you want, that isn't a right- getting what you want, you are only entyitled to what you earn. Obcourse, the Declaration of ndependance protects "the pursuit of happyness," for this reason homosexuality should not be illegal, but that doesn't mean we have to be a part of it by acknowladging it. And no one is sayng religious people have any right to dictate others lives, but if they don't want to acknowladge gay arriage, gay peole shouldn't be allowed to force THEIR ideologies on them. And really, gay people will never be accepted by those who opps homosexality, but always by liberals, and since no law can force consrvatives to support gay marriage under the freedom of expression, they will be accepted just as much as before, I'm sure no one will feel more acceptd because the goveronment decided o fore absurd liberal ideolgies on others.
Gay marriae should not be acknowledged by the Federal Goveronment

Again, the supreme court was never given any of this power, not to define marriage, not to include gay/bisexual people under the 14th ammendment or the Civil rights act of 1964. The Supreme Cout is given very few powers, those are 1) handle cases which have been appealed through the lower courts 2) facilitate law suits between states and against the federal goveronment and 3) enforce the law. Never to expound a law, define a law, interpret a law, etc.For this reason, the supreme courts decision acknowladging gay marriages is null and void, my opponent cannot come up with any clause showing otherwise. The Supreme Court had no power to grant the American people any "right to marriage," as they claimed in Loving v. Virginia, or otherwise, only to enforce the law as courts do, that means they nullified state laws prohibiting interracial marriages as they violate the constitution, they weren't using their power by this since the supreme court has no legal power, they were only using legal power which was already there, i.e. the 14th ammendment. And yes, this debate deeals with wether or not gay marriages should be acknowladged, the resolution isn't that it is immoral, thhis was only a key point backing up another point. Since the original definition of marriage is beteen a man and a woman, this is the correct definition, not definitions assighned later, for tis reason, gay marriage is not genuine marriage, and thus should not be recognized as such. Though gay marriages appeared before in history, they only go back to Ancient Rome, not when marriage was invented, thus, the original definition of marriage was between a man and a woman, and in no other form. For that reason, gay marriage is not genuine marriage.
World War II

I will attempt to prove that nazi Germany would not have been defeated should the USA not have joined. First of all, I will prove the presence of the USA during WWII. This needs no sourcing as it is commonly known. 1. The US provided essential supplies to both Britain and the USSR. That was their major contribution prior to Pearl Harbour, which they did in higher numbers after Pearl Harbor. Anticipating that my opponent will argue the importance of Russia and them succesfully defeating 80% of Germany's forces, I will already make clear that Russia's main reason for succes was the fact that they could build millions of T-34 tanks in all their factories. Won't mention numbers yet, because the point is: they were able to do that because America supplied them with trucks and other sorts of transport, so that their factories could focus on tanks. 2. The US helped Gen. Montgomery (Brit) defeat the Africa Corps. Big Red One was present during these last months of reconquering Africa. If I recall well, 200 000 German soldiers surrendered in Africa. Secondly, during operation Husky, they succesfully invaded Sicily which had major psychological effects on the Italian people, who then turned against the Axis. They also forced the present German forces to retreat. 3. Practically opening a third front on D-day, which is 70 years ago today (is this why you set up this debate?) also succesfully forced the German troops to retreat. Following to this event, large parts of Europe were liberated: this was a fantastic territorial contribution, especially considering the fact that many concentration camp internees were now freed sooner rather than later. 4. The famous example that happened in my country exists as well: the Battle of the Bulge. This is the only time America faced major resistance, but managed to deal a direct blow to Germany and in fact deal a deadly blow to what remained of Hitler's forces. Although America suffered major losses as well, Germany now had no reserves left and the luftwaffe was shattered (the Sovjets were not capable of defeating the luftwaffe!). The remaining German troops were forced back behind the Siegfried Lines. Germany also lost 600 of its precious tanks, which where their main advantage. I would like to see what my opponent comes up with. I promise to forfeit the last round so that it will remain fair. Good luck!
Obamacare

I started this debate to see what others opinion was on this topic. I want to learn more. You may even be able to explain why this is happening. Here is the problem I see with it: One teacher at school said that her insurance is going from $75 to $345. I then talked to another teacher who is in charge of the insurance here at school. This is what he told me, "...Every year, the insurance goes up about 7% so what is she trying to say?" I hope you are good at math because 7% of $75 is NOT $345. That is the problem I am seeing with Obamacare. Why did the government shut down? Because the republicans wanted to fix Obamacare so people wouldn't have this problem. They wanted to hold off for a little while but the democrats were not going to let that happen. My stepsister recently got Obamacare. She is paying a little over $200 a month and she has absolutely no clue what her deductible is. I see that as another problem! She may not be the brightest in the world, but shouldn't her insurance company tell her what her deductible is?
It is possible that a flying pink unicorn exists

I thank my blessed opponent for his dignified response. Let me analyze what we are discussing. "an animal, with a twisted horn, a deer's feet, a goat's beard, the rump of a deer, the head of a horse, and a lion's tail." In addition it must also possess the ability to fly without any form of wings or rockets or anything, (if it does it will not be a unicorn anymore.) Furthermore it must also be pink." First of all, lets examine the subject at hand. A key question is, whether a flying pink unicorn exist or not. I believe my opponent agrees with me that nothing can be neither existing nor none existing. Something has to exist or not exist, and cannot hang in the middle. It must either rest on the probability of 1, or on the probability of 0. (the only case in which a probability greater than 0 and less than 1 is used is for math problems such as how many possibilities are there to arrange 5 red cars and 10 blue cars in random order. Since we are dealing with a flying pink unicorn, we must let it rest on the probability of 0 or 1) Thus lets first conclude the flying pink unicorn exist, as our friend thett3 has pointed out. (On the condition that he is not crazy, lying or any of those thing my opponent phantom pointed out.) Thus the probability rests on 1. If the FPU exist, then we have taken the problem out of the shrouds of the unknown. Thus there is no longer any possibility or probability to it. If the FPU does exist you cannot say there is a possibility it exist, but instead that the FPU does exist. Thus there is no long the question "is there a possibility the FPU exist." Now let's conclude our friend Thett3 is a liar and a cheat, :D and he have never seen the FPU. Since the sources my opponent provides explicitly states the Unicorn, any kind of it, whether it can fly, or is pink, or has a horn in the middle of its head, is a mythical animal. Key word mythical. The definition of mythical includes "nonexistent. Impossible, imaginary." Thus the flying pink unicorn is (unfortunately) nonexistent. The possibility is 0. A creature that is nonexistent cannot have even the smallest possibility of existing. As I have pointed out, the FPU must either exist or not exist. Either way there is no possibility to the question, but instead cold iron fact of yes or no, possibility is out of the question. Furthermore, to refute my opponent's argument about Thett3, I can claim, (just as Thett3 claimed that he has seen the Flying pink unicorn) that jesus descended upon me last night in a dream and told me the FPU does NOT exist. The same paragraph my opponent has made defending THett3 and now be used to defend my claim. You do not know if I am lying or crazy. Conclusion I have proved that something must either exist or does not exist. It is only if you censure and filter your head of the truth and attempt to remain in the darkness of doubt that you can argue in possibilities. Either way if the FPU exist or does not, there is no possibility to the question. To you pro.
It is possible that a flying pink unicorn exists

RyouofFunce wanted me to send him this challenge so here it is.Resolved: It is possible that a flying pink unicorn existsI will be affirming the resolution. Burden of Proof:BOP rests on me.Definitions:Possible - Being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization [1]Unicorn - An animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead [2] (a few changes)Flying pink unicorn - A unicorn that is of, or mostly, the color pink and has the ability to fly.For this debate flying just means the ability. Structure: 1st round: Acceptance. 2nd, and 3rd round: Arguments and rebuttal. 4th round: No more arguments, just rebuttal and closing up.I have a few terms That each participant should have respectable behavior and good conduct. No plagiarismIf needed to save space because of the character limit, participants may post their sources in a separate link or in the comments section. I will make my opening case in round two.Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Medical Marijuana should be legal.

My sources are NIDA, FDA, and my primary physician Dr Sayed Risvi. Quote from the NIDA site: The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate. Research findings for long-term marijuana abuse indicate some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term abuse of other major drugs. For example, cannabinoid (THC or synthetic forms of THC) withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system5 and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine6. Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs of abuse. Note that I said earlier that the effects of marijuana can be mood swings. This is because Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that heightens pleasure. The person goes into withdrawal and the body has become reliant on the massive amounts of dopamine to maintain normality. No marijuana, no dopamine, no dopamine causes the person's mood to swing like a bi-polar person. Therefore, it can cause a person to be "happy and carefree" and then cause the person to swing during withdrawal. That is not a contradiction, but a medically supported relevant fact of life. I am speaking of the drug itself. It increases heart rate and blood pressure, which, combined with what normally could be considered a normal cholesterol level, can cause a clot to be thrown into the blood stream. That can cause stroke, heartattack, or an infarction in other parts of the body. The increased blood pressure can also cause a rupture in areas near the heart and lungs, which can cause a pulmonary edema or a cardio-pulmonary edema. As to you wanting one case where medical marijuana killed someone, you need to open up your eyes. Marijuana isn't only smoked or taken as hash oil. It is eaten, popped, and even taken sometimes as a suppository. Besides that, you think every doctor is going to hook a person complaining of pain to an EEG and measure beta waves to see if there is a source of pain? To filter out the druggies who can and will use a doctor to get drugs, that is what they would have to do. This would mean that the higher percentage of people who need the pain meds. Even taken as a pill, Vicodin doesn't cause near as much havoc in the brain and heart as marijuana. I say don't give druggies another reason to go to the doctor for a legitimate high. We have plenty enough other pain meds out there with less risk than pot. You let marijuana be legalized, the next thing coming is legalized heroine. Hell, why not just say that prescriptions aren't needed if you want things legal. Illicit drugs need to stay ellicit for the same reason they were made illicit in the first place.