BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Intelligence is more important that popularity

Alright. First of all, being smart will get you a lot farther in life than being popular. You can be extremely intelligent, and not very-well liked by your peers and still succeed academically without problem. However, it is more difficult to assert that it is easy to glide by academically if you are popular, but not very bright. Also, being smart will impact your future in more ways than being popular. Sometimes, getting a Job means having that extra academic edge, and being popular doesn't grant that. Also, going to college is a major academic and social experience, and being just popular doesn't give you fantastic opportunities like college to begin with.
God's Existence

So to briefly summarize my opponent's argument. They seem to be saying that our knowledge of the natural world has grown over time. People used to invoke supernatural beings in order to explain events, but over time we have found natural explanations within the universe to explain those events. So, contingent things are also explained naturally by the process of evolution. My response: I have no problem with the theory of evolution and think it makes sense from a theological perspective. I think evolution can explain the process by which creatures have changed over time. However, the argument that I posted is about what gives existence to the universe itself. So to use an analogy, imagine a building, the universe is the first floor of the building, but the ground of existence is the ground that holds up the first floor. So I am arguing that God is the ground of existence that gives existence (at all times) to the contingent universe. So, the theory of evolution does not seem to directly factor into the argument since evolution is a process within the universe, but I am arguing about what gives existence to the contingent universe itself. Now my opponent in response may argue that science could give an explanation for how the universe got here. However, even if science were to give an exhaustive explanation of the Big Bang etc. the argument would still remain as to what gives existence to the contingent universe.
God's Existence

To start, I believe this is a wonderful topic... My argument will be something based on logic... Why did people believe in gods in ancient times? The answer is quite simple in those times nothing could be explained since science had not reached the point of explanation. Let"s pretend you are in an ancient civilization and you see a flood or a volcano erupt, since there is no scientific explanation for what happened they said "oh, the god of rain is angry." or "oh, the god of earth is angry." This helped explain situations that could"t be explained in those times. Now to refute one of the contingent arguments that was said, what gives existence to all contingent things... easy the answer is evolution. Believe it or not humans are constantly evolving at a steady rate... you might not see it now but maybe in 400 years humans will change and evolution will keep going. Science will also be evolving to answer big questions that the world has. It also includes the creation of the world.
God's Existence

I am arguing that it it is logically plausible that God (meaning a supreme creator of the universe) exists. My argument is a version of the argument from contingency: If something is contingent then that means that it exists due to more fundamental components of reality. For example, the shape of a bottle is contingent upon the matter and energy that comprise it. So here is the argument (informally presented) 1. Things are contingent upon more fundamental components of reality, until the ground of existence is reached which is not contingent upon anything. 2. The ground of existence must be greater than all contingent things in existence and therefore it must be without privation. 3. Something without privation must be supreme in all ways. 4. Therefore, contingent things exist due to the ground of existence which is supreme in all ways. Now if the argument is accepted it proves a supreme being that gives existence to everything else. This is a basic description of God (meaning supreme creator of the universe). What objections might one make? Objection 1. They might argue that there could be an infinite series of contingent components and that therefore the ground of existence is never reached. Response: Things are contingent upon a component that transcends the limitations of the contingent thing itself. This transcendence would ultimately bottom out at the ground of existence. So an infinite regress is not plausible. Objection 2: One could argue that things are in fact not contingent upon anything more fundamental. Response: This would be implausible since if something is not the ground of existence then it is by nature contingent upon more fundamental reality. Objection 3: One could argue that the Big Bang explains why the universe exists. Response: That is not relevant because the argument is not about the temporal beginning of the universe, but about what gives existence at all times to contingent things. Objection 4: One could argue that we simply are not able to understand the universe at this point, so the argument is jumping to hasty conclusions. Response: The argument is offering what is logically plausible. If one wants to maintain complete skepticism about the ability to draw conclusions about reality, then they can, however I do not have to adopt their skepticism. Objection 5: The argument does not prove any specific religion true. Response: I agree. I said at the beginning that it doesn't prove a specific religion true.
The Apocalypse will be seen in this life time

You defined apocalypse, that is fine... But "The" apocalypse is what loses you this. There are many many scenarios in which great devastation occurs, in which something dies. To say "The" apocalypse will happen implies it will be the only one. "An" apocalypse will probably happen within just about any lifetime, there are quadrillions of stars out there, a significant number of which have planets on them, many of which no doubt (statistically speaking) have life on them , many of which probably lose that life at any given time. And if you speak of the smallest classification available, it is not humans, it is an individual. Individuals die all the time, for them, this is great devastation, indeed, for them, it is total devastation. Thus, there are many, many, apocalypses, therefore, there can be no "The" apocalypse, therefore, "The" apocalypse cannot occur.
The Apocalypse will be seen in this life time

First I would like to explain the rules for this debate. each person will have 3 days to post. a very good amount of time to find anything they need to fight his/her argument. secondly, lets define Apocalypse, shall we? [Definition]#1 Great or total devastation; doom: the apocalypse of nuclear war. #2 A prophetic disclosure; a revelation. Thus meaning that humans do not need to be killed off for an Apocalypse to happen, and in no way am I saying(if humans are killed off) nothing else will be living. I'm talking strictly one group of something(IE: humans, life, insects, or anything split into one solid grouping, hopefully to the smallest classification available such as humans and not something as big as all primates catch my drift)
Biblical Contradictions, Part I

I ask the judges to review the comment section and review Con Comment #05 (it is labelled as such). Also judges, as you can see in my R1, I made an error with Proposition progression. R1 was acceptance, R2 was for Pro to be the first to make his first case. That wasn't possible so I amended the progression for me to give an Opening Statement that really wouldn't cause you to judge it during voting period. I even, in good sportmanship, removed my Secondary Evidence privilege, retained Pro's SE, and allowed Pro to have the last word instead of me. If any of that is unreasonable and unfair to your intellectual judgment then count it against me. if not, and if you choose too, count against Pro's illogical argument to botch this debate.Finally, since Pro didn't provide any biblical contradictions for me to debunk, I cannot rebut "nothing". Pro needs to present some contradiction in R3 and a valid case in R4.
Biblical Contradictions, Part I

In this debate we will examine, validate and debunk, alleged contradictions in the so-called Christian Bible.To ensure the readers & judges have utmost clarity, I will highlight an issue that might become confusing during the argument phase if not laid out before hand. Most of us know what the word "Bible" means. This word is commonly used to refer to "all authoritative books based upon the Christian concept of a Divine God." In a scholarly debate, correct terminology should be used to avoid misinterpretation. First, there are three types of texts people interchangeably use to mean "Bible." Let us put them in proper perspective. We have the most commonly called "Bible(s)" which are KJV, Gideon, NIV, NASB, Young's Literal Translation, etc. For clarity, I will call them "the English translations of the Bible". The second, Bible are the Dead Sea Scrolls & the countless manuscripts used to create an English translation of the Bible. I will refer to them as the "Hebrew [and/or] Greek manuscripts of the Bible.The third Bible, which only Biblical scholars of mindful of is the Hebrew [and/or] Greek Text of the Bible. The latter is read similar to the format & style of an English translation except in original Hebrew or Greek languages. There are many credible websites that offer a pdf-type format to read the transliterated versions of Hebrew & Greek. My opponent can choose to adhere to these references if desired; I will: English translations (ETs); Heb. and/or Greek manuscripts (HMs, GMs, HGMs); and Hebrew and/or Greek Text (HT, GT, HGT). The latter I will also refer to as "the Scriptures" since both the Hebrew Text & Greek Text are the original languages the Scriptures were transcribed into.In addition;the ET bears the words you only read in English translations (KJV, RSV, NIV, NASB, etc.) not foreign words.HGM bear the original words of Hebrew, Greek, and some Aramaic (Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.).HGT or the Scriptures bear the Heb. & Gk. words taken from almost all the HGMs to compile one completed source.Finally, I state that my position as the contradiction debunker should not be perceived as a formal advocacy of Christianity and it's concept of the Bible or God. I will argue from a pure scholarly POV. Not as a preacher, a wannabe theologian, a Christian enthusiast, a Bible-thumper, etc. I'm not attempting to convince you Jesus is real, hell is real, etc. This is a textual & context debate, not a theological & spiritual seminar. And to Pro, please limit your examples up to 3 alleged contradictions (as separate points) to ensure this debate reads smoothly and efficient.
Biblical Contradictions, Part I

Definition:Contradiction: "the statement of a position opposite to one already made"Scholar: "a learned person" (either renowned w/o official academic training or an academic degree-holderSources:1. Holy Bible(s) of the Christianity religion2. Religious Texts (Denominational Dictionaries/Glossaries)3. Scholarly Texts (Lexicons, Concordances, Dissertations, Treatises) 4. Direct Quotes from Respectable ScholarsProposition:(R1) Pro may, if desired, define "contradiction" but ONLY based on a Dictionary definition. This round is acceptance for both opponents. (R2) Pro will present contradictions & argue why they are such. (R2) Con will rebut Pro's contradictions & argue why they are not. (R3) Pro will rebut Con's rebuttals of why they are not contradictions with Pro's Secondary Evidence. (R3) Con will refute Pro's Secondary Evidence with Con's Secondary Evidence. (R4) Pro will present a Closing Argument of why these are Contradictions (up to maximum 6,000 character limit). (R4) Con will present Closing Statements of why they are not Contradictions (limit of 1 Opening Sentence; 3 Five Sentence Paragraphs; 1 Closing Sentence). Rules for (Opponents):1. Follow all the guidelines above.2. Sources are permitted each round & are not prohibited by Con's R4 Closing.3. Intelligent Debating Only4. NO DIRECT INQUIRIES between Opponents (Indirect Questions to the world at large are permitted. Ex. "Is this type of logic really suppose to be true? "5. Present ALL arguments as concisely as possible (we should not bore the readers with heavy technical-laden language, drawn out explanations and examples, etc. )6. Be mindful of textual formatting.7. In the Voting Period, opponents should refrain from commenting on the Judges' rulings, unless a Judge specifically ask a question to a particular opponent. Suggested Rules for (Judges):1. NO TIES unless you absolutely cannot distinguish a victor for a specific category.2. Award points on S&G but NOT against obvious foreign language words3. Who did you agree with before the debate? This is a bias question PLEASE answer it. 4. Who did you agree with after the debate? Choose the opponent you awarded points for Most Convincing Argument. Clicking the later obviously means you agreed with that opponent (to a degree).5. Understand reliable isn't equivalent to credible--not in certain contexts. (SEE: . http://www.debate.org...). Choose an opponent.
Tipping waiters for their services is an inferior and inefficient system

Tipping, its defenders say, improves service by rewarding good waiters and punishing bad ones Typically, waiters receive an hourly wage — as little as $2.13 in some states, though California law mandates at least $8 http://www.payscale.com... http://www.bls.gov... these are sites showing the income of waiters. tipping is almost half of what they earn in a whole year. my opponent gave the definitions Tipping: Give (someone) a sum of money as a way of rewarding them for their services. Inferior: Lower in rank, status, or quality. saying that tipping is an inferior system. the goverment awards soldiers,athletes and recongnised people with medals AND MONEY. Does he mean that even this is an inferior and inefficiet system?
Tipping waiters for their services is an inferior and inefficient system

Definitons:1) Tipping: Give (someone) a sum of money as a way of rewarding them for their services. 2) Food-servers: One who servers food at a restaurant ( waiter or waitress) 3) Inefficient: Not achieving maximum productivity; wasting or failing to make the best use of time or resources.4) Inferior: Lower in rank, status, or quality. I will debating that tipping waiters for their services is an inferior and inefficient way of doing business and should not be practiced anymore while my opponent must support the claim that tipping waiters is an adequate system. Standard format: 1st - introductions 2nd - Pro=opening arguments / Con= opening arguments and rebuttal 3rd - Pro=rebuttal/closing arguments / Con = closing arguments ONLY Good luck to my opponent! Do you accept my terms?
Tipping waiters for their services is an inferior and inefficient system

you had written about increasing the prices on meals.so, my answer is why it cant be done.The case of Porter was taken as an example to prove my points. For the point of "The staff was squabbling, mainly over money: waiters were angling for better shifts and tables, and the kitchen workers didn't feel they were getting a fair share of the profits.".i believe increases compition and the problem of solving this is not anti tipping.
Tipping waiters for their services is an inferior and inefficient system

Your response is quite disappointing. You copied the entire thing off a New York Times article and it has added little to the discussion. You have not rebuked any one of my many arguments. You even said in your own response that there is little correlation -- 2 percent -- with tips and good service. Your own response has only strengthened my arguments -- waiters fighting over hours, kitchen staff not feeling like they get equal share.
Tipping waiters for their services is an inferior and inefficient system

November 2006, Jay Porter, the owner of a small restaurant in San Diego called the Linkery, scheduled a staff meeting. Less than two years old, the casual farm-to-table restaurant in the rapidly gentrifying neighborhood of North Park had already won praise from national magazines. Nonetheless, Porter was troubled. The staff was squabbling, mainly over money: waiters were angling for better shifts and tables, and the kitchen workers didn't feel they were getting a fair share of the profits. Porter considered raising the prices of each item on the menu and simply increasing the wages of his employees. But that would have penalized the restaurant's many takeout diners. Also, he figured many potential diners would look at the prices and — not factoring in what they spend on tips — compare them unfavorably with those of his competitors. If he could, he would have raised everyone's wages, but there wasn't enough revenue. The restaurant was already paying 65 percent of its employees' health-insurance premiums, and Porter was working on a scheme to give long-term employees ownership stakes in the business. Still, he worried that his staff might not be receptive to his proposal Eighty percent of Americans say they prefer tipping to paying a service fee, according to Zagat Survey. They do so, Leo Crespi's surveys first demonstrated, primarily because they believe tipping provides an incentive for good service. But there is little correlation, in fact— less than 2 percent, according to Michael Lynn, a Cornell professor of consumer behavior and marketing. Some experts speculate that tipping is also a form of social equalization, a means to share the wealth with a hardworking but underpaid service worker. The practice of tipping used to be connected to the perceived quality of services provided http://www.nytimes.com...
Economics is Zero-Sum (1)

Since my opponent uses wealth as his measure, it is necessary to define wealth. Investopedia defines it as, "A measure of the value of all of the assets of worth owned by a person, community, company or country. " So it doesn't just consider the price of the good, but also the subjective worth of it as well. [1] Let's look at an example. Say a shoemaker and a weaver make an economic interaction. The former needs a shirt, the latter needs a pair of shoes. To the shoemaker, shoes are rather worthless, and to the weaver, shirts are rather worthless, but to the shoemaker, a shirt is valuable, and to the weaver, the shoes are valuable. So in the end, assuming the price of the goods exchanged is the same, no money has changed hands, but each person is wealthier because they traded something they don't need for something they do need. In other words, wealth is subjective to each person, and each person's subjective wealth must increase with each economic interaction. In conclusion, as the Capitalism Institute argues, "Each individual values economic goods and services subjectively, that is, no economic good holds any intrinsic worth. The value of goods and services is based entirely on what individuals impute to that good or service. " Wealth always increases to each person in rational economic interactions, meaning that such interactions are not zero-sum. [2] But that is not the only thing. Income increases as well. This graph shows the increase in per capita GDP: [3] As can be seen, on average, each person's income has increased over the past 300 years. And it is not only the developed countries. All regions of the world have seen increased per capita GDP (with the exception of Russia, but that's a unique story, and they're bouncing back): [4] And this is inflation adjusted. The rich do not have to take from other to get rich. The wealth of the world, and on average, the individual, has increased, both subjectively and objectively. " The percentage of people living on less than $1 a day was 39% in 1970. Today it is 15-20% and falling. From the perspective of millennia, recent economic developments are just astounding. "[4] In conclusion, economic interactions are not zero-sum to the people doing them, as their subjective wealth increases. On top of this, the quantitative wealth of the individual has also increased on average. Economics is thus not a zero-sum game. Sources [1]: . http://www.investopedia.com... [2]: . http://www.capitalisminstitute.org... [3]: . http://capitalism.aynrand.org... [4]: . http://www.krusekronicle.com...
Economics is Zero-Sum (1)

I accept. All I will do in this round is make a thesis, jut as my opponent has done. Over the past 500 years, all areas of the world have increased not only their economies, but each person's share of it too, and this continues to be true today. Wealth is not money, being more subjective and intangible, as the parties after a transaction have more wealth than they did before the transaction, even if they had not gained any net money. I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
Economics is Zero-Sum (1)

The Pro SideFor poor nations to gain wealth, the developed world has to become poorer.Think of economic resources as a pie chart made out of finite resources representing 100%. If for instance the rich world holds 70% of the pie chart then the only way the poor nations will get their share is if hey retake the portion held by the rich nations.In other words, in a "Zero-Sum economy" when the economic activity of all of the world's nations are combined, it would appear that economic wealth & prosperity is never created but merely transferred. Note: This is not a heavy duty debate so therefore feel free to debate any way that you like and bring in any argument at any time with any definition of your choosing. This is merely a trial run for a possible 2nd run in case there is something worth debating about.I have made the criteria for joining this debate impossible so as to allow for comments before anything.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: The Arguments
Humans should eat eggs.

REBUTTALSCholesterolThough it is true that cholesterol consumption is debated regarding increased blood levels, this argument is unsourced and unsubstantiated. As well as this, you yourself have conceded to the effect on diabetes patients. "Doctors Advice"[1], [2] It is a well established that doctors simply do not get sound enough nutritional information to advise clients. Though yes, I'm sure it's true that "most doctors don't want to kill you", the fact is that your average GP will not have enough knowlege on the subject.CancerI'm sorry, but since your rebuttal had no source, and I could not find any kind of research agreeing with your statement, there's no way I can argue this one with you. However, simply googling "methionine and cancer" shows an abundance of websites detailed the role it plays. The same applies to choline.ProteinEggs are a source of protein for sure, but "better than most"? Let's compare.[3] 1 Cup of Chopped EggProtein - 17 grams[4] 1 Cup of SoybeansProtein - 68 grams[5] 1 Cup of ChickpeasProtein - 39 grams[6] 1 Cup of OatsProtein - 26 gramsClearly from this we can see that there are better sources of protein which do not entail the detrimental health impacts of eggs. These are also all very common foods.CONCLUSIONFrom this debate we can see that humans should not consume eggs. This is because they come with severe moral, environmental and health consequences.FINAL WORDSThanks to my opponent for debating this topic with me. I hope all readers consider eliminating animal produce from their diets as it is detrimental to our health, the environment, humans globally and of course the animals. For more information send me a message, and I'll always be willing to debate these topics.SOURCES[1] - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2] - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[3] - https://www.google.com.au...[4] - https://www.google.com.au...[5] - https://www.google.com.au...[6] - https://www.google.com.au...