BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Everybody should produce his own methane.

"Collecting methane is a slow and difficult process even using anaerobic digestion". Even I had this perception. I just finished working on a project on the production of methane and it's storage at home. I must say that it works without great maintenance cost and without encouring risks. We must know that methane is safer than LPG. Methane is more volatile. If you light a match surrounded by LPG (LPG stays at floor level) , you would be blown right away; this is not the case with methane (It does not just hang out there). The speed and level of difficulty of producing and collecting methane depends on the process used. Most of the processes commonly described, though practical seem tedious to the average man. The best process, after our research and implementation , needs only space and is designed after Asia/Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU)'s design for the collection of methane for a village. A reduced system of this is the best and very easy to set up, use and maintain. Some sources are given to awake curiosity and as an answer. The last source is worth seeing. Sources: http://www.small-farm-permaculture-and-sustainable-living.com... http://www.motherearthnews.com... http://www.motherearthnews.com... http://theurbanfarmingguys.com... http://thepublicschool.org... http://extension.missouri.edu... http://journeytoforever.org... http://imaginationforpeople.org...# DAVE PAXTON'S BIOGAS SERIES and lastly Use_of_Gas_from_Daily_Wastes_ENG.pdf "If you mean to use farts, then the technology required as well as the infrequency would make it a much more expensive process of production". This is not a decent conduct. Reminds one of someone who asked how to produce methane at home on Yahoo!answers and got what he did not want... .
Donald Trump's true campaign is to put Clinton in office

Well yes, however Trump was an open Clinton supporter as well as democrat in the past, and it came to the shock of many that Trump was running as a republican. [1] If I understand your point correctly, you are saying Trump is posing as a comic in order for people to vote for him and see his outrageous behavior as president after November. That argument may be true for some voters, however the true goal of Trump's behavior is in order to demonstrate stupidity and poor decision making. By doing this, it would lure voter to vote for Clinton as being the candidate that can act smart in difficult situations. I believe not only this to be true, but I also believe that Trump and Clinton planned this together. Citation:http://www.americanthinker.com...
Donald Trump's true campaign is to put Clinton in office

Donald Trump, the presumptive nominee for the republican party in the 2016 election is either loved, or hated. Some conspiracy theorists believe that Donald Trump is saying racial or derogatory language to simply make a fool of himself and place people minds on voting for Hillary Clinton. I believe Trump and Clinton had organized this type of scheme to guarantee Clinton a spot in the oval office. Trump attended Clinton's wedding, as Clinton attended Trump's. Trump also helped fund the Clinton's years back in their political efforts, therefore it can be inferred that Trump may truly be a democrat at heart. Is Trump in it to win it? Or was this a genius plot to guarantee a Clinton presidency? I believe this conspiracy to be true because of the reasons above.
Donald Trump's true campaign is to put Clinton in office

Forgive me, but I cannot seem to determine your stance. What I am trying to say is that there is sufficient evidence given the fact the Trump just years ago said he agreed with democratic ideology. He attended Clinton's wedding, and likewise Clinton attended Trump's. For these reasons, this has nothing to do with any type of sub plot regarding Bernie Sanders, but explains how Trump and Clinton are working together to get Clinton a presidency in 2016.
Donald Trump's true campaign is to put Clinton in office

I think it is a reality TV show with Trump as the star attraction. How it ends up is anybody' s guess. You also have to add in the campaign of Bernie Sanders as a sub plot-- unreal in its own way. Assigned mythic status for accomplishments which mostly weren't achieved except in the figments of the minds of white progressives--- a fiction which Sanders believes to be true. Trump is playing a role. Question is does he stick to the script or does her improvise and surprise us
Jesus did not exist

To clarifiy, I do not believe the Biblical Jesus existed. To accept the debate on the existence of Jesus, please agree on the following: 1. You are a faith alone (not works) based born again Christian 2. You believe the Bible is the word of God and that Jesus died for your sins 3. The Bible is inerrant or pretty close to inerrant 4. The Jesus of the New Testament was an historical figure This debate is not about whether or not there is a god. It is only about the Jesus of the four Gospels.
Evolution: Philosophically disproved.

sorry for my delay on the argument. let's finish this debate, shall we. Ok.. let me get this straight. The Word of God says we were created with Human bodies that are designed to live forever. Science has recently proven that if we were to learn something new every second, we would take well over 3 millions years to exhaust the memory capacity of our "post flood" brains. (Pre-flood brains were 3 times larger) On the other hand... Evolutionists say things evolve after there is a need for change. Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a … portion of the geologic column…the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."
Evolution: Philosophically disproved.

Evening to you also. With all honesty, I was hoping for someone who would put up a good argument. So in that case what I will do is this: Continue this debate and also I will copy and paste my first round and start a new debate. What would have been best is if you wanted to be further educated on this topic, what you should do is be apart of the bystanders. In that case someone else who is philosophically educated and can put up a good argument and create a good show. I am not teaching anyone here rather debating someone. So I am sorry, in the next round what could be an idea is that you maybe put forth some questions that would challenge my philosophical idea.
Evolution: Philosophically disproved.

http://www.youtube.com... The first round of mine won't be that long, just an introduction. I want to place emphasis on how do species evolution into new species. I have just thought up, what I think is a valid piece of philosophy. Ok so it is this. A certain species has particular features which are exclusive only to it's self, it's own species, you don't see an elephant barking or with parrot wings. The part which is the dilemma for evolutionists is that we don't actually experience the 'limbs' of a species, rather the species features. So as an example: I am sure most people on this site has Facebook? You may or may not have realised that you have never experienced 'Facebook' rather you can only experiences it's skin, the typically blue and white theme. Which is still a skin. The facebook it's self is not directly perceived because the skin is in the way. So in turn you have never been on Facebook, but only a skin that says Facebook on it. So in realation to species, there is no such thing as a species having limbs, but if I had my arm chopped off, I wouldn't say, "You chopped of my feature!" Because the feature which I prossess does not belong to me but my species, however my arm is mine and then so it is called my limb. So evolutionists claim that species are evoloving over millions of years, that their features are evolving, but they are only to the environment. But if the feature is to totally change, so need be the actual limb. And so we should see sudden changes within species. As an example, there should be a precise creature that evolves instead of a species. Which of course no one witnesses. So to conclude. Species = features. Macro limb perhaps. Creature or animal = limbs. Micro feature perhaps. For a species to evolve its features much evolve, but that is only improvement on it's current existing features (cat getting a more bushy tail). And therefore if a species were to evolve into a totally different species if must evolve its limbs, but as I have discussed, only particular animals or creatures have limbs, but it's features belong to it's species and not it's self. Therefore if it were to evolve it must evolve it's limbs and we do not see that. For otherwise it is merely improvement on the species features. My opponent will need argue that we can indeed see that a species has limbs and not features, and that through this that science can still prove evolution.
Teenage suicide is a selfish act

Having seen Pitbull15's thread in the forums I decided to challenge him in order to show him that teenage suicide is in no way selfish.Definitions:Teenager: A person between 13 and 19 yearsSuicide: The act of killing oneself intentionallySelfish: Concerned chiefly with one's profit or pleasureBurden of Proof is on Pro.StructureRound 1: Acceptance onlyRound 2: Arguments and RebuttalsRound 3: Rebuttals only I hope my opponent accepts this in order for me to show him the correct view on this terrible issue.
everyone should get drafted at the age of 17 or 16 and girls at the age of 20

You clearly said that everyone should get drafted at the age of 17 or 16 and girls at the age of 20. Not "most people" or "healthy people" so to not answer my arguments means you have conceded them. Since my opponent has not answered my arguments there is nothing further to argue. I will end this round in the hopes my opponent will answer my contentions in the next round. Good luck.
everyone should get drafted at the age of 17 or 16 and girls at the age of 20

Everyone- every person; everybody. So basically, every single person 17 or 16 for males and 20 for females should be drafted into the army. So if I can prove in one single case a person who shouldn't, my opponent loses. CONTENTION 1: Physically Disabled Someone who is paralyzed, has bone or muscle problems, or growth problems should not be required to take place in the army. They would only hurt the team and would cause the death of themselves or fellow soldiers. CONTENTION 2: Mentally Unstable or Disabled Someone who is mentally retarded or insane should also not enter the military. They would not only be a danger to themselves or others. It would be very bad if we had a mentally insane person in a tank or a mentally retarded person shooting a turret. Thus, we can see that not EVERYONE should have to enter the military. I look forward to my opponent's next round.
There are contradictions in the Bible

My opponent has asked me good questions. I will be asserting that the Bible has errors based on historical inaccuracies and scientific mistakes. Opening Arguments Contention 1: The Bible is unreliable because of the historical inaccuracies and contradictions. Many Christians like to pretend that the Bible is the Word of God because of the reliable history. Well, my friend, I'm here to tell you that it is not a good historical book. Evidence 1: Jesus' birth 1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying…-Matthew 2:1 NASB http://www.biblegateway.com...... The verse makes it very clear that Jesus was born in Bethlehem when Herod was king. We must understand when Herod was king. King Herod was king from 30 BCE to 4 BCE. We know from Matthew it has to be at least two years prior to 4 BCE so we can put the date of birth around 6 BCE. (1) However, we see in Luke that it was when Quirinius was governor of Syria. This was the first census taken while [b]Quirinius was governor of Syria. Luke 2:2 http://www.biblegateway.com...... We know from this verse that Quirinius was governor and it was his first census. Where is a problem? Quirinius became governor a decade after Herod's reign.(2) Therefore, Jesus could NOT have been born both in the days of King Herod and in the 1st census. Furthermore, I would like to see one secular source that shows the nation-wide census where everyone went back to his hometown. Furthermore, if Jesus was born in Bethlehem, what was the purpose of the trip if not the taxes? Contention 2: The Bible is not reliable because of the medical errors. These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." Mark 16:17-18 NASB According to this, a true believer is marked by those who cast out demons, speak in tongues and drink anything deadly, it won't hurt them. If they lay hands on sick, they will recover. I contend this is an error because many faith healings has failed. (3) This is unacceptable as to why children are dying because they have not received proper medical treatment. The only excuse is because of their parent's religions. I'm sorry, I believe that the child's right to proper medicine trumps the right for religion. In addition, I'm curious as to why I have seen Christians in hospitals and calling 9-1-1 instead of faith healings. I have many more arguments that cannot be addressed due to the length. Sources below. Source 1. ^ Peter Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and friend of the Romans, (Continuum International Publishing Group, 1999) pp. xv–xx. 2. Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 ISBN 0860120066 page 731 3. http://deism.com......
There are contradictions in the Bible

I have decided to take this argument. I will accept the rules. However, I must make a few things clear:The Christian position is not that the Bibles as we have them now are inerrant, only the Scriptures in their original form (as written by the prophets and disciples, under inspiration of God as per 2 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, any "error" which can easily be answered as an error in translation will not be allowed. Only genuine errors, if there be any, will be acceptable for this debate.Also, the Instigator is painting with a broad brush here. What kind of errors does he mean? I must ask that he only keep it to a few errors, otherwise I won't have enough characters to respond to everything.I look forward to reading his opening argument.
There are contradictions in the Bible

Greetings. In this debate, I will argue that the Bible does have contradictionsStructureRound 1: Acceptance only, no arguments.Round 2: Opening argumentsRound 3: 1st rebuttalRound 4: 2nd rebuttalRound 5: 3rd rebuttal and closing arguments.RulesDefinitions do not count as arguments.My opponent must be a Christian.Both must show good conduct.A forfeited round will result in losing the entire debate!If both forfeit, the winner will be decided on who forfeited the least.We must wait till the final round to state why the voters should vote for you.HOWEVER, at any time if the structure of the debate or rules are broken, then the opponent may call a win.Voters must read the ENTIRE debate.My opponent must accept these terms of agreement in the 1st round.Coments=/=ArgumentsAny questions must go in coments.
There are contradictions in the Bible

I thank the Instigator for his opening debate. I would like to point out right away that the Instigator has already broken one of his rules, about showing good conduct. He started off with an unnecessary personal dig: "Many Christians like to pretend that the Bible is the Word of God because of the reliable history." My opponent has started off by insulting the rationality of Christians. Definitely not showing good conduct. I can declare a win based on that alone, but it seems awfully early. Hopefully the Instigator will pay closer attention to his own rules in the future.Appologiese to my opponent if you were offended. I, in all honesty, copied and paced this from a website that I am currently writting. This is an article that I wrote for a website.As much as I would love to continue to debate, I must follow my own TOS and resign because of that.I ask that my opponent would forgive me and hopefully we can debate again. I have rebuttals to this argument, but it would be a violation of my own agreements to post.
Parents Should Be Held Responsible For Their School-going Children's Discipline Problem

1. Children should develop their own individual Responsibility earlier.Pro seems to concede this, but adds the caveats:"Although, when disciplinary problems arise, the failure should be considered as the children's. It would be because the children are taking their parents' words and it is their decision that makes them do what they are told."The problem is that this ignores how children learn to make decisions. And they learn to make the correct decisions by being taught. Certainly there are outliers and exceptions, developmental and neurological disorders, but those aren't the norm.The norm is that it is the parents primary responsibility to teach the children to make sensible decisions and, even if the parent is not "at fault" for a specific problem, the parent shoulds till be held responsible as a matter of fixing any problem that arises, to prevent it from happening in the future. Responsibility is not merely a matter of who to point the finger at, but who to look to for a solution."For this reason, neither the parents nor the teachers should hold the full responsibility of a student's disciplinary problems but they themselves."No single person has "full" responsibility. However, we can identify who has the "primary" responsibility, who is the first and last line of teaching, who takes the brunt, and that is the parent. As part of the lesson, the parent holds the child responsible, but we - as a society - hold the parent responsible.2. Children usually have the attitude of Authority Aversion.Pro is basically saying, of children: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." The problem is that this phrase is only applicable to people who are their own authorities, who are fully independent. Children are not. Children are not expected to have full cognizance or capacity to understand the effects of their actions, so being averse to authority does not absolve the parents of their responsibility to teach the child.3. Failures can never be avoided.Pro again concedes with caveats:"Why would you such make the parents hold responsibility for their children's school discipline problem?"Because the child's behavior outside of the direct influence of the parent is still a reflection of how well those teachings have been imprinted on the child. Even if the parent is not "at fault" for some incident, the parent is the one we turn to resolve a problem as it arises, to teach the child the lesson to avoid the problem in the future. The whole point of parenthood is to equip the child with the tools they need to navigate society without the parent. Any issues in that regard ultimately stem back to the parent.
Parents Should Be Held Responsible For Their School-going Children's Discipline Problem

[I agree with your suggestions. The only thing that confused me is your second statement: "No semantic arguments vis-a-vis 'orphans.' " Would you mind explaining it very briefly to me. :) ] Now, I say that Parents Should NOT Be Held Responsible For Their School-going Children's Discipline Problem. 1. Children should develop their own Individual Responsibility earlier. It should be so, because children should be taught to be less dependent to their parents and to other elders in such a way that they learn to behave by themselves. For a child, it is very common to commit mistakes. By this, parents should know how to resolve such situations and teach their children do the right thing. In this manner, children would be developing their responsibility. 2. Children usually have the attitude of Authority Aversion. At this point, children usually don't listen to their parents. And so, we can see how parents are not responsible to their children's discipline problems in school but their children themselves are. I just want to point out here that these children are in a certain school *to learn* and to be educated. By it, I mean that children are the only one that should be held responsible for their own actions. 3. Failures can never be avoided. We cannot expect parents to watch over their children all over the day. So, we can say the parents never should be held responsible for the reason that they are not always their for their children. Even though the parents are the one who knows the children best and the ones who taught and raised up their children but we can expect some parental responsibility failure at this time. We cannot assure every parents to be teaching every good attitude to their children. And so, by these points it can be stated that Parents Should NOT Be Held Responsible For Their School-going Children's Discipline Problem.
rap battle

My raps are better then yoursLet's not do a warI am outdoorsand in a storeThis is a poem/rapWhen I was young zapIt won't rhymebut it will turn yours to slime*********************************************************So this is the end of our time in Grade 5,starting a new chapter in our liveswe kept so many memories in our heartsand now it is time for us to departremember the best hot chocolate we hadtime with our friends made us gladnormandy was like a taste of paradiseawful tests passed: we're satsifiedas we go oncome whateverwe will still befriends forever.
rap battle

b*tch please your raps sound like you found them off of a website tryna flex I'm just gonna take flight on this text, you say your raps are rad but they're really suicidal sad, why you callin me an old lad I'm just tryna be your dad, you can't possibly be happy with your raps they don't even sound mad just talkin a couple lines girl you aint bad, i aint even tryin lettin the flow come off my tongue get the f*ck out dis pad something you wish you had!
rap battle

What is this topic really about?I bet my opponent has some doubtI'm gonna make my opponent poutSoon it will turn into a blackoutMy opponent lines don't really rhymeSo now it is my timeTo make my opponent's slimeAnd mine's gonna be big timeMy raps are radWhen my opponent's is badMy opponent's rhymes are worser then my dadAnd my dad is a old ladSo Pro will have another turnSo he can learnpossibly get burnedand gonna spurn
rap battle

ayyy boo im caller number nine but we finna do sh*t on my time don't come and try to rap against me if you aint got the grind only way your going to shine is if you rap with me but i don't got time for the iffys, i got to let you go but once you know me you get stuck to this dick like jiffy, i can't even f*ck with these anna girls they be to crispy, bacon buttered lips trying to kiss me... ewwww no, your breath stinks pew no, anna do you really think you got the stamina to stick with my mana i already know the truth your gonna choke like your deep throating my banana all just to get your bands up please somebody put their hands up!