BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Everyone should donate to charities and fundraisers

True, there are also personal preferences and dislikes of certain charities and fundraisers. Understandably, if you are unable to donate because of religious and political policies, by all means, you aren't still forced to. Perhaps if you cannot donate, you can write a letter to inform the charity that maybe they should consider the religious and political factors. Of course, most charities like Terry Fox and Unicef are reasonable charities to give to, most fundraisers are there so other able people are able to help people in need. This isn't necessarily always the case though. Though not everybody is completely obliged to, some people, for the religious factor many people are becoming atheists and agnostics. For personal dislikes, unless you have a serious problem with what they're doing, you should consider the fact that some human beings with as much right to live as you have are dying out there.
Everyone should donate to charities and fundraisers

You know at your school or workplace, whether you're an adult or teen, there are always fundraisers going around? You also know how there is always that one person or group of people who never donate, who also happen to always have and excuse? I say that everyone should contribute to fundraisers because first of all, even 1 or 2 dollars can make a difference. At least you can say you donated something, right? Some people sadly say that they can't afford even the smallest donation, but if you're really that poor or needy, why are you even able to go to school? If you're at a workplace and you're working day and night to support you're family, then, you're right, it is quite unreasonable for you to donate if you're living on a dollar per day,but hardly anyone this needy is able to GO to work, so you really don't have a great excuse. It may sound harsh and cruel, but unless you're feeding off of charities too, you should consider helping others if your family is healthy and well-off. Just a few dollars is enough, because if everybody donates, it'll eventually sum up to a lot. It isn't fair if only those generous people are trying their very best to support other families and the rest aren't even trying. Saying," Sorry, I'm saving up for a house" or "Sorry, I'm saving up for a pool" is a really horrible reason, because while you're living a good life with 2 houses and a pool, others barely have shelters. So think not what your world can do for you, but what you can do for your world to MAKE IT BETTER.
Bella Hadid or Gigi Hadid

Now onto the debate. A noteworthy issue I must address with this debate is that whether someone is "pretty" or not is entirely subjective, and there is no right or wrong when it comes to who is prettier between x girl and y sister of x girl, and because this is a crucial inadequacy in your argument, I shall only argue that there is no objective way to to determine who is prettier between the two. "Ok let's just say for starters Bella Hadid has such a high fashion, elfin look while Gigi Hadid has a baby face and lots of blonde hair there isn't anything really exciting about her face. However, don't even get me started on Bella's cheekbones and her killer style. .. . Gigi Hadid's eyebrows have been so plucked they go ABOVE her eyebrow ridge," The central flaw that lies within this argument is that Pro tries to apply their own guidelines as to what is pretty and what is not, but the reality of those situation is that personal opinions do not count as sufficient contentions. Some may agree with you that Bella is prettier, and others, like me, will disagree and say Gigi is prettier, and no matter who someone agrees with, they are entitled to their opinion. Some people may find Gigi to be more attractive because of her "blonde hair, baby face, raised eyebrows, etc. " To make matters more intense, you have the Burden of Proof, meaning that you must show that Bella Hadid is objectively more pretty than Gigi, and not just more pretty by your own logic and personal opinions. Pro's next argument is completely absurd. "and honestly I don't like how she can date so many guys, dump one and find anothe It started with Cody Simpson, Joe Jonas, Zayn Malik wow. However, Bella Hadid has struck true to her guy the Weeknd. .. :)" This isn't proof that Bella is prettier. How does the amount of guys one dates have to do with how pretty someone is. Personality could be a factor to that, but honestly, I have no idea why you brought this up. However, I will expand upon this point if you go where I think you're going with this.
Bella Hadid or Gigi Hadid

Ok let's just say for starters Bella Hadid has such a high fashion, elfin look while Gigi Hadid has a baby face and lots of blonde hair there isn't anything really exciting about her face. However, don't even get me started on Bella's cheekbones and her killer style.... Gigi Hadid's eyebrows have been so plucked they go ABOVE her eyebrow ridge, and honestly I don't like how she can date so many guys, dump one and find anothe It started with Cody Simpson, Joe Jonas, Zayn Malik wow. However, Bella Hadid has struck true to her guy the Weeknd... :) I'm litrally jsut waiting to see the headlines "GIGI HADID AND ZAYN MALIK BREAK UP"
Bella Hadid or Gigi Hadid

My opponent and voters I suggest you see this links (if they work) with these images i reiterate my statement that my opponent has failed to respond: Bella Hadid is prettier than Gigi Hadid https://pmcwwd.files.wordpress.com... http://d3lp4xedbqa8a5.cloudfront.net... http://cliqueimg.com... http://thezoereport.com... http://media4.popsugar-assets.com... https://c1.staticflickr.com... http://i.dailymail.co.uk... http://media1.popsugar-assets.com...
Bella Hadid or Gigi Hadid

My opponent cannot expect me to know what they meant when they said "light-hearted". They never stated a rule that there couldn't be kritiks, they only simply stated that it was light hearted, which could mean anything. It could have meant there was supposed to be no aggravation in the debatex, and without being specific, Pro's point is moot. I do not have to prove that she is objectively prettier, you have the BoP to show that Bella is objectively prettier. You only used your opinions as arguments, and I can counter them by saying that blonde hair is attractive, her baby face is cute, and that her raised eye brows are beautiful, because they are also opinions. Since you have the BoP, you must prove that your opinions are more substantial than mine. As previously stated, Pro is just being plain unfair, but even then, their arguments are just baseless opinions and all I have to do is contradict them to at least get a tie, because so far, there is no evidence that shows that their opinion is superior to mine.
Intelligent design is not science

I am sorry for the previous round I did not intend to forfeit I have been extremely busy this last week and it slipped my mind to reply. I do agree with my opponent one the comment "but an ideological and political movement that was born from the ashes of the creationist attempts to bring religion into Americas public educational system." but only partially, ID was attempted to be pushed into schools a religion and I see this as wrong and should not be, but ID should be taught even if not majorly in the class room, this would then give children and teenagers their own choice on what to believe, ID is a scientific study because it discusses the origins of the universe and as I am agnostic I believe that a intelligent designer (God) cannot be proven or disproved so testing a hypothesis has no point, even if the big bang theory makes better sense.....it still can't be proven and it is classed a science, ID can't be proven and is basically the big bang theory with a magical thing that crated us. This has been fun thanks for this debate.
Intelligent design is not science

Wanted797; Are you still in the debate, or have I convinced you that ID is not science and does not belong in the science classroom? After reading some of the comments, and thinking about this some more, I now think that ID may have a place in a classroom, but I think the classroom where it should be discussed is would be in the humanities department, not in the physical sciences. The reason for this is that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, but an ideological and political movement that was born from the ashes of the creationist attempts to bring religion into Americas public educational system. This being the case, it may be perfectly appropriate to discuss ID in a civics, political science classroom, or even in a philosophy class, but until the proponents of ID come up with some means to test their hypothesis, it should not be in the science classroom.
Intelligent design is not science

What comment are you talking about? I never agreed with you. I went back and checked there is not such comment. Now You say "...Not whether the big bang theory is true or not. For the purpose of this debate it is irrelevant to discuss the truth or falsehood of big bang theory or belief in an intelligent designer." This is pointless claim, firstly I am not trying to prove the big bang theory, And secondly it is very relevant to this debate because as you have stated in the previous rounds we are talking about what is to be taught in science classrooms and the big bang theory is, So therefore the big bang theory is classed as science. The belief of an intelligent designer is also relevant as that is what we are discussing. "This research is being funded by a large number of accredited universities and no one questions whether or not the research being done is scientific." The reason no one questions this is because the big bang theory was developed by scientist, so therefore people get this idea that it is REAL science when all it is, is some stupid theory to try disprove ID. You also state "Big Bang: scientists do not say everything from nothing. That is a straw man argument. Scientists observe expansion of the universe, come to the conclusion that the universe originated from a SINGULARITY not nothing." It came from a singularity well that sounds like a bunch of scientist got drunk and thought of a way to fool everyone and try disproving intelligent design. The website link I provided [1] states further on down the page "So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is." What? You honestly can't be that stupid to believe this. It is a false claim, a theory built on "not knowing". You then go on. "Intelligent Designer: Proponents of ID explicitly state that ID "theory" makes no claims about the nature of the designer. Therefore your views on the nature of any possible designer is irrelevant to the debate at hand." What the hell? Why aren't my views on the nature of a possible designer irrelevant, the natures of a possible designer are what make ID scientific, if you simply ignore the nature of things then how can anything be scientific? Your table on evolution does hold Christians, but I question whether this is relevant for your case at all it helps me emphasise my point more than your own. If believers of Intelligent Design believe in the scientific "theory" of evolution, then that means that the belief in ID (which contains the belief in evolution) is scientific. "Quite simply, your simple definitions are wrong. Are you suggesting that we teach stupid theories in the classroom?" My definitions are not wrong, it is you who is wrong, my big bang claims we came from nothing as that website [1] says "Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing." And YES I am suggesting that we teach stupid theories in the classroom. [1] http://www.big-bang-theory.com...
Intelligent design is not science

I noticed in one of your comments that you agree that ID is not science, does this mean that I win the debate? Or are statements made in the comment section not allowable in the debate? Speaking of ID not being science, that is the subject of this debate. Not whether the big bang theory is true or not. For the purpose of this debate it is irrelevant to discuss the truth or falsehood of big bang theory or belief in an intelligent designer. Big bang theory, is a scientific theory that is being actively studied, tested, poked, and prodded by a large community of professional scientists that spans the globe. This research is being funded by a large number of accredited universities and no one questions whether or not the research being done is scientific. In contrast, the "research" on Intelligent Design(1) is primarily being done by the Discovery Institute(2) which funds several "scientist" who strangely have not submitted a single research paper to the peer review process(3) of a scientific journal(4). In response to criticism of this another proponent of ID, a group called Answers In Genesis(5) created their own " reviewed" journal(6) where the articles submitted are reviewed by the editor-in-chief. They laughably left the "peer" part out of the review process, which excludes it from being considered a scientific journal. Now I will address your last response point by point. 1 Big Bang: scientists do not say everything from nothing. That is a straw man argument. Scientists observe expansion of the universe, come to the conclusion that the universe originated from a SINGULARITY not nothing. 2 Intelligent Designer: Proponents of ID explicitly state that ID "theory" makes no claims about the nature of the designer. Therefore your views on the nature of any possible designer is irrelevant to the debate at hand. 3 Court case reference: You are correct, court cases do not prove anything, but the key part of my argument from the court cases is the fact that a proponent of ID (Michael Behe) regularly makes claims that ID is a scientific theory, but when under oath, he admitted that ID is not a scientific theory.(7) 4 ID is largely American: You are correct, it has become widespread , my sources were somewhat dated. 5 "Christians isn't even in this table"(8) The table contains 12 rows, 7 of those rows are for Christian sects, (i.e. Catholic, Protestant, etc.) 6 " if you refer to my simple definitions of each theory, they both sound stupid, so why not teach both, it" Quite simply, your simple definitions are wrong. Are you suggesting that we teach stupid theories in the classroom? (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... (Suggested background reading on Intelligent Design. (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... Discovery Institute. (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... For an explanation of the Peer review process. (4) http://en.wikipedia.org... Scientific Journal (5) http://en.wikipedia.org... Answers in Genesis (6) http://www.answersingenesis.org... AIG "research journal" (not peer reviewed) (7) http://en.wikipedia.org... (8) http://en.wikipedia.org... Table
Intelligent design is not science

Thank you for taking up this debate. It is my first online debate (I hope I don't screw up) First, I will not defend my claim that all court cases involving Intelligent Design have been lost until you provide an example of one that has been won. Second, you claim that the court cases in question were lost because they were "closely linked" to religion, not because Intelligent Design is not science. In response to that claim I would like to refer you to a couple of items: 1. In the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court Case Edwards v. Aguillard the US Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan noted that alternative 'scientific' theories could be taught in public schools. This would indicate that the court did not consider Intelligent Design an alternate 'scientific" theory.(1) 2. In the recent case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District(2) "A six-week trial over the issue yielded 'overwhelming evidence' establishing that intelligent design 'is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,'"(3). Furthermore, Michael Behe the premier expert witness for the defense was forced to admit while under oath that the intelligent design community has not produced a single article in any scientific peer-reviewed journal.(4) Third, you propose that creationism or ID should be taught because "both theories are believed widely around the world". To that I have these points; 1. The ID movement is largely an American phenomenon and is rarely seen in other countries(5) 2. Even the majority of Christians support the theory of evolution(6) 3. The scientific community rejects the belief that ID is a scientific theory(7), and we are talking about the "science" class room. In short, I will restate my claim that ID is not a scientific theory. It is just an empty belief about how we got here that lacks any mechanism to explain our origins. If it is a theory, where are the peer reviewed journal articles? What testable predictions does the "theory" make, and who is doing any research into the matter? (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org... (3)http://www.msnbc.msn.com... MSNBC News Story. (4) http://en.wikipedia.org... Behe's Testimony. (5)http://en.wikipedia.org... For background on Intelligent Design. (6)http://en.wikipedia.org... See the chart 1/2 way down the page. (7)http://www.aaas.org... The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID.
Intelligent design is not science

Firstly I would like to clear up that I am agnositc. Now you claim that all court cases have been lost when trying to push in the theory, yes theory of a Designer have been turned down does not prove your point on Intelligent Design is not Science, Because Intelligent design is closley linked with religion, this is the reason it has been turned down, todays teachers can get in trouble for preching to students, Now as I am Agnostic I believe neither (The Big Bang theory or The Designer Theory) I personally believe you can prove neither, So there for as both Therorys are believed widley around the world then they should both be taught in science. You may say well the belief that there was a Designer is not scientific, I say why the hell isn't it, It just bassically say's that insted of Nothing creating us Something did, The Earth is still here and behaves in the same why so why not?
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1B

I'll move quickly through the refutation of my opponent's points. 1. Omnipotence Paradox. This is a total red herring. It makes no sense for an omnipotent being to make something he couldn't move - it's logically incoherent. God could no more do that than make a square circle. 2. The Cause of God. God needs no cause - as was stipulated in my definition of god, god just has causal power to interact with our universe. This in no way necessitates that he be an integral part of the causal structure of this universe. 3. Something Can Come From Nothing. This is also a red herring - as I'm sure you know if you read the article you reference on virtual particles, if they can be detected, then the "consequences of its existence are prolonged to such a degree that it cannot be virtual." So in other words, if a virtual particle started a causal chain, by definition it would not be a virtual particle. 4. Possible BB Explanations. 4A - Branes. God caused the branes to form and collide. 4B - Bubbles. God caused chaotic inflation. 5. Occam's Razor. Actually, Occam's Razor simply states that "plurality should not be posited without necessity." Since the First Cause is a necessary event, I see no conflict with Occam's Razor. The singular cause of God seems to be much less of a violation of Occam's Razor than the complexities and uncertainties of theoretical physics. 6. A Possible Other God(s). An omnipotent god would be able to destroy another lesser god, which he would see as a threat to his power. Thus, it's highly improbable that gods A & B would co-exist. To address the point that god B could have started the chain... Since my opponent has accepted my definition of what constitutes "god" - I'm sure he is also aware that a non-omnipotent god cannot exist because that falls outside the definition of god. A non-omnipotent god would be like a married bachelor. **************************** My apologies for the short response, but it's fairly late and I need food and sleep.
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1B

I'll first go through the definitions... I'm perfectly fine with my opponent's definition of existence and validity. However, we're actually looking for soundness as well, which employs a valid argument with true premises. Much harder to refute, as a valid argument can still have false premises and a true conclusion... ************ Since by the terms of the debate, I get to define what I mean by "god," I'll do that now. "God" is simply a force, omnipotent and omniscient, but NOT omnibenevolent. This force has causal power to interact with the physical world and is by principle, not detectable with scientific instruments in the exact same way a perfect equilateral triangle is not detectable. ************ These rounds should be fairly brief, as there is only one main point in this entire argument - that the universe is causally and temporally ordered. If the universe is causally and temporally ordered, then all events must take the form A caused B. There must be either an infinite regress or a first cause. Since an infinite regress is logically impossible - A caused B caused C caused D etc... - then there must be a first cause. This first cause is a necessary and sufficient (and exclusive) condition for all other causes and effects. I call the first cause "god." If there are causally and temporally ordered events, "god" as defined above must exist.
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1B

Note: the "1B" notation in the Topic title is simply for searching purposes. [Definition - Existence] http://dictionary.reference.com...... 1. the state or fact of existing; being. *NOTE* I am not debating whether or not a God exists in one's MIND, but rather in REALITY. [Definition - Valid] http://dictionary.reference.com...... 1. sound; just; well-founded 2. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. *NOTE* Stemming from the second definition, I don't intend for my opponent to create a syllogism. Simply put, my opponent needs to construct an argument of which I can't successfully defeat (of course, this is to the opinion of the voters). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is how the debate will play out: Round 1: This is my Round 1 for clarifications and guidelines. For PRO, he/she will either state that his following arguments will affirm a specific god (i.e. Christian God, Muslim God, etc.) or a metaphysical supreme being. My opponent can list the attributes of the metaphysical supreme being in his Round 1 is he/she wishes. THEN, my opponent will LIST his/her ARGUMENTS with at least a brief EXPLANATION for both (I don't want just a line of titles). Round 2 - 4: I will refute his/her arguments and it will go back and forth as such. I hope we have a good debate!
Jesus was a dangerous, deranged individual

I accept the challenge. In this debate I will point out that Jesus, based off of the New Testament, was not "deranged". I will show the final outcome of Pro's hero, Judas Iscariot. I will show that if you look closely at his depiction, what you see is the deepest love that can exist in human kind. I will point out what the greatest human rights leaders of all time had to say about him. I will argue in favor of Jesus and the view that he is a good moral example for humankind, through what he said, what he believed, and how he acted. Good luck Pro.