BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Intelligent Design

If there is a watch that has radom bits and bobs, and gizmos that have no purpose, we may jump to the conclusion that this watch maker is an idiot. But what if we turn it around and say that the intelligent watch maker wanted to make an unorthodox watch. The point being, that although there are some flaws with our plant, organisms, and life that might have been the intent. If every fact pointed to a creator, and the creator wanted faith there is no point in his design. The theory of evolution is based on that life comes from pre existing life. That one thing can only come from another. However science cornered itself because of the famous Reid’s experiment. He tested with the rotten meat and flies. He proved that spontaneous generation is not possible. So if evolution is like a family tree how can the roots be made? My opponent mentioned that the organelles inside the cell were separate living structures on their own. Yes, which is called the Enosymbiotic Theory. That is where Eukaryotic cells (our body cells) have its mitochondria, and chloroplast which came from protist like cells. Those cells are living. However those too are very complex. The first organisum dose need to replicate because if it does not there are just proteins that are not living nor reproduce. So let’s say that there are these amino acids floating around, there was a statistical test that these amino acids can’t bind together to make a living organism. The chance of it happening was said to be 1 in 10 to the 123rd power. So yes having a simple organism come from disjoint amino acids only needed to happen once, but that once is proven to be impossible. Also in order to have a starting organism, it needs DNA to pass its traits. If it does not the F1 offspring can’t reproduce. Now DNA is very complex if we are just hoping that phosphate, nitrogenous bases, and a Deoyyribose sugar would bind to each other in the correct formation. So this organism that stated life off must be more than protein, or a organic molecule. Now it’s not just the biology that can’t disprove a creator but how our planet or our galaxy came about. First is the famous law of conservation of matter. That matter cannot be created or destroyed. Well if that’s true how could all of this matter get here? Now you might be saying the same question back. Well the theory of a creator is one of the few explanations because it trumps the laws. With a creator mater can come from nothing. It could do a lot more too. The problem is that science needs to be constant. The laws can’t be broken at anytime. With a designer theory it does not follow set laws, which makes it difficult to be thought of as part of science. The theory of a higher being, or a creator that made who we are, and what we see is a reasonable approach to explaining how we got here. The reason people do not believe this is because there is no proof. However that does not mean it’s not there. Like our brains we don’t see it, we have no proof that it is in our skulls right now but we know it is there. I don’t think we can ever prove god, but we can’t disprove him, and that’s the point.
Intelligent Design

Do you believe in intelligent design? There are very fey explanations to how living organisms can arise from non living matter. Evolution is the slow process of genetic change over time. However there is no evidence of the first organism to start that change off. Even the most basic prokaryotic cell are too complex for the proteins create any basic structure. And if there is any chance at all for amino acids to congeal to a protein to form a cell. That cell will need the perfect environmental conditions for it to reproduce. Like the temperature. The proteins cant denature, and the membrane can’t be punctured. The odds of a cell to do that are so small. Intelligent design is a very creditable theory.
Atomic Bombs Are Real

Pro, of course I can negate the non-theoretical aspects of your atomic bomb proposal. See the rules in the first round; I clearly prohibited proving the feasibility of atomic bombs by reference to empirical instances of their use.You say that spontaneous detonation of uranium isn't a problem because neutron strikes detonate it only when a minimum amount of uranium is present (the critical mass). Some questions. Since neutrons are already flying around everywhere, isn't it redundant to have a neutron initiator? It's easy to see (per your theory) that the splitting of one uranium atom would lead to the exponentially accelerating detonation of any nearby mass of uranium (provided each uranium atom releases multiple neutrons). However, you suggest this only occurs with a 'critical' mass of uranium. Why? What makes a critical mass, critical? Are you telling me I can't hold a critical (or super-critical) mass of uranium in my hand without a spontaneous, atomic explosion, initiated by the ubiquitous, atmospheric neutrons?
Atomic Bombs Are Real

My opponent cannot simply negate part of my case because he doesn't like it. Atomic theory is only one part of the argument. I need to provide evidence that an atomic bomb actually exists. If I'm not allowed to do that, all I can do is lay down the theoretical framework for a bomb. There's a big difference between debating the theory of something and debating the actuality of that something. So don't ignore my case. Either refute it or concede.As for my opponent's substantial points, he puts forth an interesting question. It turns out that my explanation was a bit too basic. There exists a critical mass, which is the minimum mass necessary for the nuclear chain reaction. Any mass of uranium below that would not be able to undergo fission. The more detailed description is provided here: "The design used the gun method to explosively force a hollow sub-critical mass of uranium-235 and a solid target cylinder together into a super-critical mass, initiating a nuclear chain reaction. This was accomplished by shooting one piece of the uranium onto the other by means of four cylindrical silk bags of nitrocellulose powder... When the hollow-front projectile reached the target and slid over the target insert, the assembled super-critical mass of uranium would be completely surrounded by a tamper and neutron reflector of tungsten carbide and steel, both materials having a combined mass of 2,300 kg (5,100 lb). Neutron initiators at the base of the projectile were activated by the impact." In other words, there is no worry of a stray neutron hitting the sample. The U-235 would explode when wanted.[1][2]Sources[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Atomic Bombs Are Real

The reference to Nagasaki, etc. is prohibited in this debate. This debate is purely theoretical as regards atomic bomb theory; we are not dealing with historical events or actual bombs. So ignore the Evidence of the Atomic Bomb section of my opponent's arguments.Let's see if I understand how my opponent proposes the bomb works. A uranium atom gets hit by a neutron The uranium atom converts to other atoms, releasing energy and neutrons These neutrons strike other uranium atoms (see step 1) My opponent goes on to say that the first neutron strike is initiated intentionally; however, neutrons are flying around everywhere(1), so how does my opponent propose to load uranium into a bomb in the first place without it spontaneously detonating?Back to my opponent.(1) http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net...;
Atomic Bombs Are Real

You said nothing of the sort. All you said was, "Keep in mind this a purely theoretical debate." This is ambiguous - you don't clarify what you mean by "theoretical". Ambiguity in debate conditions on the part of the instigator affects the instigator and the instigator alone. And again, no matter how solid the science is, I still have to show that an atomic bomb actually exists, because otherwise I don't prove existence.Neutrons aren't flying around everywhere. The super-critical mass of U-235 (after the two sub-critical masses have been combined) is protected by a neutron reflector. The neutron initiator produces a source of neutrons for the mass of U-235. However, you don't really need either. Once the two masses collide, they will go through the process of fission. The neutron reflectors and initiators simply make the process a bit more efficient, as they make the explosion a bit more coordinated.[1]The critical mass can be measured using the effective neutron multiplication factor k. This estimates the number of neutrons released through a fission process in a sample that go on to induce more fission reactions (some of the neutrons released do not make it to other sample atoms, but go in other directions). The critical mass occurs when k=1. This means that each fission reaction, on average, produces one neutron that induces another fission reaction. Anything less than this, and the fission process will decay exponentially, as there are not enough free neutrons to sustain the reaction. k depends on the mass of the sample - below the critical mass, k1, and widespread fission reaction occurs.[2]Neutrons are most easily captured by atoms when they move slowly. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but the free neutrons in the atmosphere move pretty fast. Regardless, I would not walk around with a supercritical mass of uranium in my hand.[3]Sources[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org...[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
The U.S should continue to support other countries

You can never be too generous. As Jesus said, we must give up our riches or help out that needs it. As you can see, Canada or UK. They support a lot and involve in public affairs. Also the nations in the Red Cross program. They help out as well . Vietnam was one example of many services that the US has done. What about in Afghanistan. Or in South Korea. WW2. USA is a great example of a helpful country. The only thing is bringing them down is overspending on oil. Especially that. So therefore USA should continue to support other countries
The U.S should continue to support other countries

Hi, I accept. USA is a righteousness country. Helping others in need as a good humanitarian. USA is not only spending billions on countries who hate the US, it also spends billion of those who are "friendly" such as Haiti, Puerto Rico, Guam, Canada, Mexico, UK and Africa nations etc. I believe overspending is what causes USA to go into a "hole". Not supporting other nations. Therefore, I believe US should continue supporting other countries to a limit.
A human's right to life is not a valid argument for universal healthcare

There isn't much to say here, as my opponent has forfeited the round. It is apparent that I have won this debate, but I am willing to debate universal healthcare with anybody who stumbles across this debate. If this applies to you, either message me and let me know or just challenge me. And don't forget to vote for me, because if you do, I will repeal Obamacare!
A human's right to life is not a valid argument for universal healthcare

There are essentially three parts to your argument. The first part is that nobody can have their right to life taken away, the second is that healthcare is a right because it protects your right to life, and the third is that universal healthcare is the most efficient type of healthcare. I will address each in turn. Your first point is that your right to life cannot be legally or ethically taken from you. This is valid, and I agree with you completely. However, you fail to recognize the difference between 'life' and 'right to life'. You indicate that if you lose your life in any way, your right to life has been violated. This is simply not true. If one were simply to die of old age when they were, well, old, their right to life has not been violated. This is because no force was initiated against their life. If somebody were to shoot this old man, however, this does infringe upon right to life, because force was initiated. Your next argument is that healthcare protects a right, therefore it is a right. Since this argument rests on the first point being true, I will go ahead and pretend this is the case for the sake of the argument. Anyways, if something protects rights, that does not make it a right. If having an underground bunker protects your possessions, are you entitled to an underground bunker? No. You don't even have the right to a simple lock. These things are not rights. They are privileges. You may go and buy an underground bunker, or a lock, or healthcare, but you are not entitled to them. Since the purpose of a government is to protect the rights of its citizens, it may not give special privileges, as that infringes on the right to liberty. Finally, you say that universal healthcare is the most efficient means of healthcare. You say that it keeps healthcare under control, and provides the basics to preserve health. Private sector healthcare accomplishes all of these things, but better. Private companies are fueled by voluntary payment, the government is fueled by involuntary taxation, that is likely not to reach the payers. Private companies are able to better meet the needs of customers through competition with other companies, but the government competes with nobody, and can fail the healthcare industry with no repercussions.
A human's right to life is not a valid argument for universal healthcare

The Human right to life is described in Article 6 of "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" with these specific terms: "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." (When I say "right to life" in my arguments, this will be what I'm referring to, unless otherwise noted.) This means that automatically, if you're a human being, you automatically have a "right to life". This is legally enforced, and anyone who violates it can be punished. Nobody may be deprived of their life based on somebody' s opinion, or due to an impulsive decision. Health care helps protect someone's right to life, Therefore it SHOULD be a right. Universal Health Care would help keep this under control, and ensure everyone has the basics to, in the very least, be able to afford to keep themselves healthy, ergo, protection that individual's right to life.
media should have the right to expression

Maybe that is how it is in India, and if that is the case, then I wish that our media was more like yours. Here, they say things they can't prove all the time, and if it ends up not being true, they just stop talking about it and it goes away...everyone forgets except maybe the person they lied about. Most of the time you wont even see a retraction, or an "oops we were wrong"... You say your government openly censors the media, and this has a negative effect. I say my government refuses to censor, even when the effect is also negative. Kind of strange, no? In any event, this has been a pleasure. :-)
media should have the right to expression

media does not say anything without proofs..even if they are printing a small article of 5 lines against or for someone they have proofs for it..and please dont talk of celebrities ,all of them need exposure and always want to be highlighted and thus keep on doing such things to remain highlighted in newspapers.. they themselves need media to speak about them and their personal lives. say for example rakhi sawant,she slapped her boyfriend on valentines day just for the sake of media exposure because after 2 hors everything was allright and she was singing songs with him.she did that only to remain highlighted. so finally i will say that media should have freedom to speech otherwise we will never get to know abot the actual things happening around us and will keep on living in a world of fantasies created by cruel politicians as well as celebrities..
media should have the right to expression

No, not everyone is dumb, but alot of people are, and to quote Tommy Lee Jones in M.I.B. "You get a bunch of people together in masses, they become stupid". I don't think the media should be censored unless it is either for national security reasons, or if the media is infringing on someone elses life. Britney Spears, for example...why is she even in the news? She didn't releast a cd, didn't get married, she simply has a personal life and personal problems and the media is harassing her and driving her even crazier than she may already be. Or the media could be lying...is she bi-polar or not? That is another thing, If I were to publicly say that you have AIDS or something, you could sue me for defimation, and if it werent true, slander. So why the media can say whatever? I understand you are coming from a different angle, that the government should not censor something just because it may be bad for the government, but if it is bad for even one persons life, let alone an entire nation...censor away.
media should have the right to expression

well,i completely read all that you wanted to say but if we take away this right from the media,whats the point of its existence.media is a connecting network b/w people and the happenings of the world.. First of all media does not create a panic,but alerts people..you said the news "korea aiming missiles at amricans"would create a panic,but what i feel is it will alert people and top of all none of us are dumb that we'll create unnecessary mess up for any news like that,instead everyone will be alert and atleast know what all is going on against or for his/her country. All what media does is inform us,alert us and provide us with a good knowledge of what actually is going in the world and makes us face what reality is rather than making us live in fantacies..
media should have the right to expression

It is hard for me to debate this, because I still debate with myself over this. Freedom of speech has long been a staple of American society, but somewhere along the way I think we lost hold of what exactly that is. Let my opening argument be blunt. First of all, we all know the media is controlled by the government. For the sake of this debate, we have to pretend that it isn't, but in all reality this debate is pointless. There are some things that the public should not know. Let us say that korea had developed long range nuclear missles, and they had them pointed at us, us being America. (I am assuming you are American, but if not then please forgive me). If the press did catch wind of this, they should be censored. This kind of news would only cause panic and disorder at large, and would hinder our government from effectively dealing with the problem. Also consider the way in which the media tends to lie. They lie and people buy all their crap. If this were not so, we would not have Sun mag, star mag, and etc. The nightly new is no different. A little reality mixed in with some crowd control, dressed up a little better than real world season 65 or wherever season they are at on that show now. People want to see fake reality, because real reality kindof sucks. The media is free to lie and manipulate because people want it that way. Freedom of speech I fear has been grossly misinterpreted, and I am sure that if the writers of the United States constituion were here today they would pimp-smack alot of people.
Can this work be considered more erotic than Harry Potter-erotic-fan-fiction

If you follow the link, you will be confronted with a poem in old English containing no erotic content for at least five pages. Granted, the words are big, but compared to some Harry Potter fanfics I've seen, this is a long time. I have seen fanfics that were able to get to the erotica within three paragraphs, and those were actually really good. This is just unappealing. It BORES me. So no, this is not more erotic than a Harry Potter ero-fic.
Is the bible a reliable source

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Love, humans have love, we can share, give, accept, and be together with love. If God didn't exist Love cannot exist. Animals do not have love, sex is an act performed to repopulate and nothing else. We have souls, it is you, you are yourself. I very complex and living thing that goes as his own and follows no other but himself. Verily I say unto you, you must follow God or you are worthless, we must be his sheep. You can me you and you do not Him, but you are not only a sinner and corrupt but a non believer as well. You are against the cross, and every knee shall bend and every tongue shall confess. He will guide you through all things done and thought and at the end He ask Jesus and what will he. If you deny me in front of our friends, I shall deny you in front of my Father.
Is the bible a reliable source

So you basically say they are not happened yet. What if they never happen? Have you considered the other side of the coin? These assumptions can be made by a 12 year old school kid anyways. "One day this river will dry!". "One day we will all go back to earth we came from" Pro, i assure you that you will not die before this debate is over. So if you dont, will you accept me as your "god" just because i predicted your future? That is exactly what bible is about. Making 100000s of assumptions which any human being can make. Some of them come true, most of them DO NOT. As simple as that. Open your eyes now, you are free from your chains.
Is the bible a reliable source

A lot these prophecies are still to come just assuming they are from the Old Testament doesn't mean it hasn't happened yet. Also a few others have been result from the failing of the Jewish people not going forward with God's plan. It cannot happen if the correct people properly go through also. Also still doesn't detour the fact that Jesus Christ lived and performed miracles, He was the Song of God and you are reluctant to a win - win situation. You become a better human being, find purpose in life, help others and learn to love as well with eternal paradise and happiness. I don't understand why you stay ignorant to these claims. Assume in your mind for a quick second Jesus is the Christ and God does exist and Christianity is the true faith,want more could come out from this? What else could these authors do to try and tell you the truth? You can either accept the blessing or refuse it and at your own cost. Christianity is the religion of tolerance, if you want to be Atheist then fine be an atheist. I don't care but worry because odds are you are not a immoral person but somewhat just, we all sin but not to point of being an acknowledged sociopath. Yet even if you are more than a good but a very kind loving person but yet still not accept the truth even though it has been presented to you multiply times, your chances are looking slim, but it is never too late. I pray for all non-believers to hopefully find the narrow path that not many follow. But as the Bible being a reliable source, yes. It explains Jewish History and key events of their people along with the multiple biographies of Jesus and the following after math of his departure. You can't make the claim that the Bible is reliable because your stating your religion is false.
Is the bible a reliable source

Sir if i am blinded, you are in a coma. since you stated some sources from bible that appears to be truely happened according to history, let me tell you there are thousands of predictions where bible fails. I cant write them all down because of 10k characters max yet I want you to take a close look at them. http://rationalwiki.org... http://madmikesamerica.com... Since there are flaws in the bible, it cannot be taken as a reliable source. Yet it may be taken as a highly perspective history book. Sorry I've made you read what your "father"s didnt want you to find out. You are welcome anyways.