BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should studens in the united states be forced to stand up and say the pledge of allegiance

It has nothing to do with being to lazy I have doubts about pledging my allegiance to the flag for the simple fact that the united states people these days have lost the meaning of what the flag stands for. In America the people is the government and the government continues to take away rights that people have the right to attain. Like gay marriage you might not agree to it but that does not give you the right to say that some one else cant be happy with who ever they want to be with. And no I would not boo Obama I would stand up and tell him than you for standing up and trying to fix America, I voted for Obama because I think that he can change America and get back on track and when that happens I will stand up and comfortably pledge my allegiance to my country. The pledge says one nation. Right now we are a divided nation as long as we keep taking away rights we will be a divided nation so as long as we are pledging to our flag as a divided nation we are disrespecting the men that lost there life's making our countries. Thank you this was a great debate!
Should studens in the united states be forced to stand up and say the pledge of allegiance

why would you not want to pledge to the united states? What are the reasons someone would not want to pledge to the united states? Because they are too lazy to stand up and say, I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the united states of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. It is a sign of respect, and you need to have respect, no matter what the situation. If President Obama walks in, and you don't like him, you wouldn't start booing him, because it is disrespectful. That is the same concept as the flag. America is the best county, because we have FREEDOM. shouldn't we owe it to America and just say the pledge? Here in Texas, we say the pledge of allegiance AND the Texas pledge every day at school, and no one whines about it. Its just something that you do. Thank you
Should studens in the united states be forced to stand up and say the pledge of allegiance

It does not hurt me to stand up and say that i pleadge to Osma, but its not right ,this debate has notheing to do with if it will hurt them of corse it will not physicly hurt them. But we are all people and should be able to decide what we do and don't pleadge to. I can not waite to here back from you either RACH3LL3
Should studens in the united states be forced to stand up and say the pledge of allegiance

The right of freedom was meant to be for slavery and such. Saying the pledge is a way of showing your patriotism. If you go to http://www.un.org... it explains what the fore fathers meant by freedom. They did not mean for you not to say the pledge. Getting someone to say the pledge is not taking away their right. It does not hurt you in any way to say the pledge. I look forward to hearing from you again, puffer. Thanks
Lighting marshmallows on fire is the best method of toasting them.

And I appreciate the link to the cat transcendence video in the comments, although thoroughly unrelated. :) I will respond in like manner, discussing each numbered point and moving through the numbers. Additionally, I would like to include a website link, included here: 1. Marshmallows taste better burnt: . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2. Ingredients in and non-toxicity of matches: . http://channel.nationalgeographic.com... 3. Ingredient in match-head is edible: . http://healthquestions.medhelp.org... Back to the discussion: 1. You have a good point about the flavour relating to matches. Even with match-heads having minimal to no toxicity, arguably better methods do exist to toast marshmallows. Your point is taken there. 4. I suppose I ought to have mentioned the purpose of using matches was to minimize firewood, but I'm glad you understood that. Of the methods you listed, I would personally choose to torch a marshmallow. Or, to be even more environmentally considerate, a magnifying glass could be used, in combination with the sun's rays, to light a marshmallow on fire. 2. I will combine points 3 and 2 here, with my question being: How can you enjoy that entertainment factor without the speed? And when you say "a much higher QUALITY slow roasted over. .. " you use the word "quality. " By looking up the definition of "quality on dictionary. com, I found that, as an adj. , it means "Of superior quality. " And as a noun it can mean a "grade of excellence. " Lastly, "superior" means "Of higher grade or quality. " This is not to bore you with definitions. Rather, my point is that your argument of slow-roasting a marshmallow giving it a "superior" quality is entirely opinion-based. However, I understand that my argument is quite opinion-based as well. But by saying that speed makes an inferior marshmallow, that may be too much. :) It is important to keep in mind that, as I have seen through experience, lighting a marshmallow on fire does not automatically burn it. Several seconds of burning are needed, generally, to blacken the exterior. And you have a point with the cold centre, but would that cold centre add more texture, or at least make the marshmallow more interesting to eat? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, Definition of toast transitive verb 1: to warm thoroughly 2: to make (food, such as bread) crisp, hot, and brown by heat *Glances at the mic. on the floor, shrugs and walks away. Then, takes two mics. out of pocket and drops them beside the first. .. . Walks away. .. . *
Lighting marshmallows on fire is the best method of toasting them.

I am sure we are in for a civilized debate. 1. give them the flavor of what exactly? matches? assuming you waited past the lighting of the match which kicks off a lot of gross fumes from the sulfer then after you light it on fire you are no longer getting the flavor of the match. so if anything you are removing flavor. 4. there are many ways of toasting a marshmallow that don't involve "firewood" such as torching, or if you really wanna get into it, HEAT (not fire) toasting just over a hot burner. [which anecdotally I think are quite delicious] 3. ok fine. I like setting things on fire too for the entertainment factor. 2. speed, what a small price to pay for a much higher quality slow roasted over a roaring campfire marshmallow. rather than the very much BLACK exterior you end up with, not to mention the ice cold center that never cooks when its on fire. FURTHERMORE your definition is flawed. Light it on fire to toast it? that's called burning it. the definition of toasting requires the use of RADIENT heat, not direct flame. *drops the proverbial mic. *
Death penalty legalized in all states

While the evidence you provided is compelling if defending the Death Penality in general you are forgetting that you must be proving why it should be legalized in all 50 states. 10th AmendmentThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [1]If you care more about people's safety than their freedom then you should turn the country into a police state. I'm sure you agree with that logic. You must give the people the right to choose their own justice system within their states. If a state does not want the death penalty then they should not have that forced upon them. The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution gives the states rights to delegate any power not specifically laid out in the Constitution. The death penalty, not being in the Consitution, is one of these powers left to the states to delegate.What you're proposing is in violation of the Constitution. You have made a case of the death penalty, great. Now you must show why these numbers justify throwing out the Consitution, states rights and personal sovereignty within the states because right now I see no reason to defy the Constitution.[1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...;
Death penalty legalized in all states

As stated in an article "A Case for the Death Penalty" the murder rates raised when capital punishment was declared unconstitutional. This is a prime example of murders rates rising when there is no punishment. As stated in the article… When executions went down, the number of murders went up.ï¿½ Looking at the data from 1950-2002, the murder rate went from 4.6 per 100,000 population in 1951 to 10.2 per 100,000 population in 1980, as executions went to zero during the period the Supreme Court declared capital punishment unconstitutional.ï¿½ Execution resumed in 1977.ï¿½ As you can see, the murder rate once again declined.
Death penalty legalized in all states

"If the death penalty was implemented, those murderers might reconsider before committing the act." [sic]Unfortunately, those who commit violent crimes do not have the capacity to see the consequences of their actions in most cases. Implementing the death penalty would not be able to prevent heat of the moment murders, manslaughter or even some premeditated crimes. Only a few cases of First Degree murder might, might, be prevented under this plan. Unfortunately such speculation isn't strong enough to justify imposing this on all the states.State Sovereignty States in the United States of America have a right to implement certain policies on their own free from federal control. The death penalty is one of these policies. You cannot justify infringing on state sovereignty in order to impose the death penalty on all 50. People have a right to choose what kind of state government they want to run. You can't justify this breach of states rights on the words "murderers might reconsider". It's not strong enough evidence. Therefore, the death penalty should be left as a decision for each individual state to decide on.
Christians are delusional

Ok, So, Once again you have attempted to derail the conversation by proposing straw man arguments. Does this tactic normally work for you? It won't with me. My original proposition was that Christians are delusional. That has nothing to do with whether or not other theories such as evolution are true or not. Even if evolution were disproven right now, That would not make Christians any less delusional for believing in magic. If you'd like to have other atheist position debates, I'm happy to do so in separate debates - feel free to pick a SINGLE topic at a time and challenge me. The ONLY thing I am responsible in THIS debate is proving that Christians are delusional. I did that by providing a working definition for what I mean by delusional, As well as supporting examples. Everything else you mentioned is a straw man and irrelevant to this debate topic and I'm not going to let you draw me down a rabbit hole of straw man arguments. As for you wanting to use the Bible to prove the Bible. That method is circular, Unfalsifiable and completely illogical. I could write a Bible right now, Then by using your logic (my Bible), I could prove my Bible is correct. It would be irrefutable by you since my book says so. Do you see how illogical that is? The book can't be evidence for itself and therefore I don't care about anything your stone age book says (and neither should you). You said, "If I put some petals, A rose, And some pieces of a stem in front of you, Could you make a rose? Certainly not. " - I would like to point out here that you are using a God of the gaps argument here. In other words, You're saying "If you can't do it, God can". That's a fallacy in itself - Google it. You can't just plug in God as an answer. You first need to prove there is a God, Or at a bare minimum the probability of one. Hell, Even the POSSIBILITY of one would be a good start. You said, "In short, You dropped almost everything I said and didn't back up what you did say. This isn't proper debate, And it's downright ridiculous. Please actually begin debating! Answer what I said, And back up what you say. " - I'm sorry that I didn't fall into your trap and let you drag me off subject with your straw man arguments. Won't work on me, Try to stay on subject :). Once again, I'll recite my original proposition. Christians are delusional because they believe in magic, And magic by definition is delusional. I can give you countless examples of magic in the Bible, As I already did. THIS is the debate topic. Either debate it, Or admit defeat.
Christians are delusional

I'm going to keep my answer simple and not get distracted by your straw-man arguments of abiogenesis, Evolution, Cosmology. The burden of proof is on you as a theist to prove your God is real. The burden of proof for my claim that you are delusional is on me, And I have provided my proof (magic). I have proposed that Christians are delusional. I cited a generally accepted definition for mental delusion and a few examples of their beliefs that fit that description. Magic is not within the bounds of our reality, Therefore, It's delusional by definition. Hence, Christians are delusional. You said "Now, Using logic, If my opponent is going to attack the Bible, It should be the BIBLE that defends itself. ". I don't care what a bunch of old errant writings by ignorant bigoted stone age peasants say. The Bible cannot be evidence for itself, That's circular reasoning. Once again, To be a Christian you must believe in magic. Magic isn't real. Belief in it is delusional by definition. Examples of magic: God speaking things into existence, Jesus turning water to wine, Jesus resurrecting, Talking snakes, Global floods, Etc. Back to you.
Christians are delusional

In order to be a Christian an individual must believe in magic (incantations, Resurrections, Talking snakes, Etc). The dictionary definition of a delusion is a belief that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument. It is considered a symptom of mental disorder. https://www. Google. Com/search? Q=delusion To believe in magic, An individual must reject reality because magic has no basis in reality. Therefore, Christians are delusional.
this method 2 stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation

No, eugenics has nothing to do with speciation. Speciation is all about genetic difference, which accumulates over time. Eugenics merely selects certain traits within the population; it doesn't increase the overall variation between them. Case in point: dogs and wolves. Despite extensive selective breeding, wolves and dogs can still interbreed with no biological problems whatsoever. http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, I misspoke earlier. There is a link between genetics and intelligence, because there is a link between genetics and everything, but genetics is not the sole factor. In fact, the correlation is only strong when the two individuals compared have identical DNA, such as in the case of identical twins or when the same person is tested twice. Unless you're going to have a clone race and raise them all in identical environments, you simply cannot control how intelligent they will be. It just doesn't work like that. http://en.wikipedia.org... There is a reason that scientists no longer advocate eugenics programmes, and that's because they don't work. Pro has not put forward a real argument here, and I believe I have utterly debunked her points.
this method 2 stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation

this method to stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation. and the populations are small and large enough to not cause problems from inbreeding, or too large as to stall evolution. a new society is created. it consists of new born to 30 year olds. only the best and the brightest 500 people from society are picked. intelligence and physical attributes. they do genetic testing on the people to ensure diseases and problems indicated by genes and family history are rooted out. eighteen to thirty year olds are permitted to breed. then the population of five hundred would be permitted to expand to five thousand. then by the time it got to five thousand, for each member that reaches 18, two are removed until the population goes back down to five hundred. this method of expansion and retraction would be put on repeat. when a parent shows that it later develops a disease, that can disqualify the offspring as well. eventually, this would lead to speciation.
Christianity is the ONLY true religion with a REAL God.

A religious label, scripture, and different words used for God that people use to set apart their religion from another's is not of any consequence if theological principals lead to the same end. It's a matter of semantics to claim your religion and your God as the only truth; rather than see that all faithful people are working toward the same end. They are all taking about the same entity no matter what word they use. The various prophets of religion claim to have heard the word of God. But, keep in mind the context of when these individuals lived. They interpreted events in the environment of the era in which they lived and within the sphere of the culture in which they belonged. How they mentally processed these communications are radically different due to these elements, which factors into dissimilar interpretive ideology (beliefs). Previous to the Bronze Age much of the population was transient or in small farming clusters where religious teaching was primarily through oral tradition. As the Middle East became more urbanized writing became symbolic of status which religious leaders used to gain authority. As power shifted regionally and within religious communities, religions became more fragmented. One religion grew into another or split into new ones throughout history. Many have mythology and beliefs that parallel because they have the same in origin. Differences are a mere result of a sect's differential development over time. In the Far East similar religious evolutions were taking place. Religious development is akin to other man made items; advancements made in building technology to computers. Religion has had its own developmental path rooted in, and built upon previous ancient religions merging and divergent. Religious division is the difference between an Apple and Dell computer; it's same thing with different operating systems. On the science point that you alluded to previously; I've done some research on the topic and deduced that much that's been written is the usage of Bible passages loosely attached to scientific terms. There are no details or scientific data to back up claims. Simply, there's a whole lot of conjecture and wishful interpretation being done. There's nothing that cannot be attributed to what was already known about natural occurrences during Biblical times; water has waves and the waves are bigger during a full moon, the numbers of stars in the sky are uncountable, seeds will grow if planted, and vapor (smoke) is emitted and lightening occurs during volcanic eruptions. Many other religious texts say much the same. To this point there has been no evidence to prove that Christianity is the only true religion with a real God.
Christianity is the ONLY true religion with a REAL God.

---Then why do other religions name their "god" in different ways?---" Rebuttal: This is a bit off topic on "Christianity is the ONLY true religion with a REAL God." But, I"ll indulge you. The word "God" is a matter of historical of linguistics. During the Roman Empire which dominated much of the Middle East, most people spoke Greek, with exception to specific professions. Early Arab Christians were using the word Allah prior to the formation of Islam. Other words for God are as follows: Yahweh, Elohim and Elah-Hebrew & Arabic, El-Greek & Hebrew, Theos-New Testament Hebrew & Greek. The word Christian came from the Greek word Christos. God: Danish"Gut, Flemish"Goes, French-Dieu, Polish-Bog; shall I go on? How is the translation of the word God relevant to your claim on who is the "Real" God? "---They also have different beliefs and mostly myths." They don't understand science enough to prove that their religion is "right---". Rebuttal: Here again, this statement is a matter of contention on validity with myths in your religion verses myths of other religions. Many religions have parallel story telling with your Bible. Hinduism, Ancient Egyptians, Aztec and Christianity share a flood myth. The concept of angels has roots in Egyptian mythology, as well as Bacchus paralleling Moses. The theme of a god who sacrifices for the people, Pangu-Chinese, Ymir-Norse; parallel Christian myths as well. The Greek myth of Dionysus rising from the dead; does that sound familiar? As far as different beliefs are concerned, I made a point to show religious commonality. "---They don't understand science enough to prove that their religion is "right----". Rebuttal: Here is the science end of your premise that has yet to be addressed. I"m still looking for your "scientific" argument that your religion is right and your God is more real than others. In Summary: You have not addressed many of my rebuttals points, but specifically the question if other religions are, or are not worshiping the same God. You have yet to provide proof or logical argument that other religions are false, as well as what defines your faith and God as the factual real deal? http://www.bibleanswerstand.org... http://chestofbooks.com... http://catholic-resources.org... http://orvillejenkins.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.sacred-texts.com... http://www.eoht.info... http://thoughtsandvisions-searle88.blogspot.com... .