BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Clogs

Maddie, Harvard Student, Clogs come in three main varieties: Wooden upper clogs Wooden soled clogs & last Overshoed Clogs. I do not seem to see the Mom-Clog category. The people of the Netherlands are slandered because we intend to buy more and more of their varied type of shoe. Clogs are negatively associated with folkloric shoes because of the image Americans brought on to the poor footwear. It is not a necessity to keep these types of footwear around especially if they are being mocked by middle aged woman. In a sense, we all have the right to wear what we please, but the Clog Epidemic has reached an all time high, the people of the Netherlands are furious. And I do not blame them. They are becoming a tacky statement. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us. All because of us.
Clogs

You cannot claim that clogs can only be worn in cultures that have historically used them. No one can tell you what and when to wear certain things, its a matter of opinion and choice. In a recent study by me, clogs are comparably cheap compared to the "ugg" boot or combat boots girls are walking around in these days. Macy's has clogs for under 40 dollars, which provides affordable yet durable footwear. This is beneficial to people who may not have tons of money in da bank. Also,studies show that if we eliminate "clog-wearing" and judge those who do choose to purchase clogs, stores will face a income decline from woman in their 40-60's. ( Maddie, Harvard student) Clogs are great for gardening, for casual walks with your dog, or cat, or bunny. Clogs are great for grocery trips, for school dances, for homecoming, for going on an ice cream date. If you wear clogs, you will always have comfy footwear and get great use out of them.
The closer you are to God, the quicker your prayers will be answered

God’s official residence, Heaven, is located in the Earth’s exosphere, beyond the thermosphere but inside the orbit of the Moon. http://www.nasa.gov... This location is ideal because it is close enough to Earth for God to receive people’s prayers without having to wait light years for them to travel across the great expanse of space, yet is far enough away to avoid Heaven colliding with communication satellites, orbiting space stations and the like. From the point of view of people on Earth, therefore, obviously the higher your altitude the nearer you are to Heaven, and, therefore, the quicker your prayers will be heard. That’s why Will and Kristen Sanders, the devout Christian co-owners of City Air Prayer: a helicopter charter outfit based in Colorado Springs; give free flights to Christian clerics so that Christian prayers can be fast-tracked ahead of the prayers of Muslims and Jews. Being nearer to Heaven when praying also means you are closer to God, of course, and Will Sanders likens his prayer flights to communing with God atop a mountain. http://www.gazette.com... Conversely, when the last of the thirty-three miners that were trapped deep underground in Chile were eventually released last year they declared “God answered our prayers.” They didn’t say, but they may also have wondered why it took Him more than two months to do so. http://www.bbc.co.uk... In fact, there were two reasons for the delay in His response. Firstly, prayers obviously travel slower through solid rock than they do through thin air and, secondly, because being so far beneath the surface of the Earth, they were much further away from Heaven than everybody else that was praying to Him at the same time, and their prayers naturally got answered first. So, if you ever need a favour from God, the best thing you can do is get as close to Him as possible: climb a mountain, board plane or even stand on the roof of a skyscraper and pray from there but, whatever you do, don’t go down a mine or into a cave or board a submarine and pray to God from down there: your prayers will take ages to get answered. In conclusion, the closer you are to God, the quicker your prayers will be answered. Thank you.
God Was A Bad Father

Thanks for the debate. 1) "The old testament was largly written by Jews." That doesn't mean they use the same text to worship Jesus! Lest they would be Christians! Even so, the Bible wasn't even in existance while Jesus was alive, so he could not even have the definition of Father or father in question. If you are now referring to the Father in Christianity (which you are) in the Bible, then you must know that there was no such thing while Jesus was alive. 2. You may have been talking about God[Father] or Jesus and I'm glad you acknowledge they are different things, but in Judism, Christ never came to die on the Cross and the Father could not have even been involved. 3. Because he was born by God's command. If you've been to a church, you'd know we're "all God's children". 4. I didn't say God was incapable, and at first, no, she didn't comprehend virgin birth. Thusly, the question she uttered. 5. "As I have pointed out, God must have been the father of Jesus Christ in some unconventional manner." But you did not refute my definition of father for the Father! And just because he commanded His birth, does not make him a biological son by definition Conclusion For the reasons above, I heavily urge you to vote CON. Furthermore, I had to hurry. Good-bye!
God Was A Bad Father

>> The old testament was largely written by Jews. While the Bible may be the spiritual scriptures of Christianity, a large part of it was written by Jews. Judaism and Christianity also worship the same god. "Also, you say Jesus died on the Cross, yet Jew do not believe Jesus has had his Coming yet" >When I was referring to Judaism and Christianity I was talking about God[Father] and not about Jesus. Jesus as seen in the bible is a Christian concept and I acknowledge that. "Father" is the title of the Father. In Christianity, the Father signifies the creator of things and a wiser, more powerful enitity and protector than all us mortal men. " >>So why is Jesus called son? You have provided a rather dubious explanation for why god was called father yet failed to mention why Jesus is called son. John 3:17 For God did not send HIS son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. why would god refer to Jesus as his son? Surely son is both a noun and a title in this case. the presence of the word "his" indicates that Jesus belongs to god and as stated Jesus belongs to god as a son. "It is written and religious fact that she was a virgin. Below is an excerpt from the Holy Bible: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste? " Even Mary did not see how it was possibile to have a son without a father. " >>> Wouldn't you saying that god is incapable of something be blasphemy as well? While Mary could not comprehend virgin birth herself, it still happened and that implies that god must have had a role in the birth. How else could a virgin give birth to a baby? Unless Mary is some form of hermaphrodite, which I am sure is not mentioned in the bible, God must have caused Mary to have a virgin birth effectively making God the father of Jesus. "If we are going to judge 'father' by human standards, we must first establish a father, and there was none. " >>>> As I have pointed out, God must have been the father of Jesus Christ in some unconventional manner. Also, a father need not be the biological father. There are multiple bible references of Jesus being the son of god, so even if Jesus did not have any biological father, God was his father in some other form. ==Conclusion== Although this debate did not turn out as I expected it to, I still firmly stand by the statement that God was a bad father. There are a multitude of bible references that support my case of god being the father of Jesus Christ. I am also backed by logic. Mary could not have given birth as a virgin unless there was divine intervention in the form of god, so god must have been the father of Jesus in some form. God was a bad father by human standards because God did not speak to Jesus until he was almost thirty years old, and because God allowed Jesus to die a tortured death when God had the power to intervene. I thank my opponent for an excellent debate and I thank the reader for taking the effort to read this debate that I instigated. Good luck.
God Was A Bad Father

Thanks for the debate. The primary definition for father is thusly: 1. •a male parent As for you matter of "I stated i was referring to the god of the bible which can be interpreted as referring to both the god of the Jews and the Christians.", you can not back-track like that, sir, for the Bible is of Christianity. The Torah is the religious text of the Jews. Also, you say Jesus died on the Cross, yet Jew do not believe Jesus has had his Coming yet. So, no, you could not refer to two seperate religions. As for the names of the Holy Trinity, it is merely a proper noun. He is not my biological father, and that I can prove. It is merely a name and not a title. "Daddy" or "Da-da" is the title of my father, but his name is Brian Ticknor. "Father" is the title of the Father. In Christianity, the Father signifies the creator of things and a wiser, more powerful enitity and protector than all us mortal men. It's describing Him, just as little children give themselves codenames like 'Snake' or 'Wolf' to appear a certain way by their names. You stated, "my opponent himself refers to Jesus as the son and to god as the Father. One could argue that is impossible to make something out of nothing, yet according to the bible that is what god did. Surely the issues of virgin birth would not get in the way of gods master plan." Like I said, the Father is a noun, not a title. I can prove this because Father is capitalized, indiciating a proper noun. However, if it were known in the English langugage to call him 'father', then it would be a title. Even in pronouns, we capitolize His name! Also, you give "...my Son" in which the Father addresses the Son. This is not a title. When I said, "JESUS WAS BIRTHED BY A VIRGIN! He can't have a father!" The lower cased 'father' signified a title by birth. If I said, "Jesus can't have a Father", you would have been correct, for that is identifing our Father. One more thing, "Surely the issues of virgin birth would not get in the way of gods master plan." That is blashpemy. Do not pretend to know God's master plan, please. It is written and religious fact that she was a virgin. Below is an excerpt from the Holy Bible: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" Even Mary did not see how it was possibile to have a son without a father. If we are going to judge 'father' by human standards, we must first establish a father, and there was none. Conclusion There is conclusive evidence in the Bible that I have presented and I have established my case and answered my opponents 'contentions' thusly. I did not contradict myself or my religion, though my opponent did when he tried to pin Christianity and Judism together by saying they are under one text and giving quotes and referances to the Holy Bible of Christianity. I arrest my case, govenor!
God Was A Bad Father

"My opponent refers to the God of Christianity. Jesus was a Jew. In Christianity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost comprise of our God, but we worship Jesus for he was our Savior and show us to God. " >>>I stated i was referring to the god of the bible which can be interpreted as referring to both the god of the Jews and the Christians. I did not not refer to the god as the god of Christianity so my opponents claims that i was referring to the holy trinity are irrelevant. He in fact called the holy trinity "the >FATHER< the >SON<, and the Holy Ghost" which contradicts his argument that Jesus can't have a father. "JESUS WAS BIRTHED BY A VIRGIN! He can't have a father! " >>>> my opponent himself refers to Jesus as the son and to god as the Father. One could argue that is impossible to make something out of nothing, yet according to the bible that is what god did. Surely the issues of virgin birth would not get in the way of gods master plan. My opponent has failed to refute a single of my arguments and instead presented a point that he himself refuted.
God Was A Bad Father

My opponent refers to the God of Christianity. Jesus was a Jew. In Christianity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost comprise of our God, but we worship Jesus for he was our Savior and show us to God. Since the God of the King of the Jews and the God of Christianity is totally different, this can not be the interpreted meaning. I will disprove your case with one point I fear you over-looked. 1) JESUS WAS BIRTHED BY A VIRGIN! He can't have a father!
God Was A Bad Father

This debate will be held on the assumption that the Bible is accurate. PRO ARGUMENTS 1) God did not speak to Jesus until Jesus was almost 30 years old [matthew 3:17and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased. ] God had the means to make communication with Jesus at any time, yet he only did so when Jesus was at roughly the age of thirty. By human standards, this would be negligence. 2)God allowed his sinless son to die a tortured death for a crime he did not commit. Jesus was crucified and god did not do a single thing to intervene despite having the power to do so. This would also be negligence by human standards.
Global warming is a myth

Can we first agree on what global warming actually is: a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants. Have you ever considered that maybe: -A higher power has been able to convince a massive group of people that the earth is heating up due to human activity. because -It is in the best interest of national governments to skew public opinion by testing propaganda techniques. ?
Global warming is a myth

"The Guardian is a British national daily newspaper. Founded in 1821 as a local paper replacing the radical Manchester Observer, it was known as The Manchester Guardian until 1959. It has grown into a national paper, and forms part of a media group with international and online offshoots. Its sister papers include The Observer (a British Sunday paper) and The Guardian Weekly (an international roundup of articles from various papers). In addition to its UK online edition theguardian.com, the paper has two international web sites, Guardian Australia and Guardian US. The Guardian is influential in the design and publishing arena, sponsoring many awards in these areas. Other media projects include GuardianFilm. The Guardian was edited by Alan Rusbridger from 1995 to 2015, when Katharine Viner succeeded him.[2][3] The Guardian is a part of the Guardian Media Group, owned by The Scott Trust Limited. The Trust was created in 1936 "to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of the Guardian free from commercial or political interference." The Scott Trust became a limited company in 2008, with a constitution containing the same protections for the Guardian. Profits are reinvested in journalism rather than to the benefit an owner or shareholders.[4]" Yeah, "Valid Sources".
I will lose this debate

I'm going to explain the burden of proof of my opponent using math. He must support his position at any number greater than zero. Let's say an assertion/opinion is equal to y Supporting evidence is the variable x whereas x is greater than zero. My side is the same. To determine the winner mathematically, you must figure out whether pro has been negated. So if an assertion y is pitted against an assertion y, then we take y-y. No matter what number y is y-y=0 Since 0 is not greater than 0, my opponent has been negated by me simply disagreeing with him.
The Darwinian Mechanism for Evolution is a Weak Hypothesis

"I would also point out that not proposing an alternate theory for evolution weakens your position. " There's no logical connection. The strength of a hypothesis relies on its own merits, Not on those of some other hypothesis. "Induced mutation leads to evolution [2]" Those induced plant mutations look like good candidates for evidence to support your stance. However you'd have to provide a specific case study which shows the actual genetics at work. This would demonstrate whether a new gene was made or not. Changes to features of an organism can occur without the formation of new genes. "Lastly, Here are some examples of mutations creating new genes. These have all been documented and observed experimentally. [3]" This article was mostly a review of different concepts rather than a presentation of hard data. He did provide a link to one study, Which I'll summarize - In this study the scientists discovered genes present in the human genome, Where the corresponding loci in apes was non-coding DNA. The focus of the study was the formation of genes from sections of DNA that were previously not expressed. However the study does not mention how mutation could have formed these genes.
The Darwinian Mechanism for Evolution is a Weak Hypothesis

So before we muddle anything up I'd just like to note that evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life (AKA abiogenesis). It merely claims to explain how life changes and adapts. With that said let's talk about "New genes". You don't need to create brand new genes to mutate something. Most of the time a small change to an existing gene is enough to cause significant mutation. I would also point out that not proposing an alternate theory for evolution weakens your position. Argument 2Induced mutation leads to evolution [2]We know that we can mutate DNA by blasting living organisms with radiation. Most of the time the irradiated plants are worse off, But every now and then they evolve a favorable trait. Then, We examined the genes of these mutants to figure out exactly which genes to turn off and on to change that favorable trait. We've created over 3200 new plant species with this method. So we know that mutation happens naturally. Now we've also seen that mutations CAN change traits in plants. ---Argument 3Lastly, Here are some examples of mutations creating new genes. These have all been documented and observed experimentally. [3]-Sometimes a virus leaves a gene behind and our cells shape it for their own uses. -Sometimes two of our genes fuse together to create a new gene. -Sometimes one of our genes splits into two. -Sometimes our cells accidentally make two copies of a gene and shape one of them into a new gene. -Mistakes can build up over the generations and turn a random piece of DNA into a completely new gene[2] https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Mutation_breeding#Notable_mutagen_varieties[3] https://genetics. Thetech. Org/ask/ask358
The Darwinian Mechanism for Evolution is a Weak Hypothesis

Thank you MrMaestro for joining this debate. "We don't blindly dismiss a well established theory without first proposing a better theory. " That hypothesis is not well established. That's the core argument of this debate. Also it is logically inaccurate to claim that a new hypothesis needs to be proposed before another one is allowed to be critiqued. I will make a separate debate later in defense of a better hypothesis. If you read my opening argument the claim is that the Darwinian mechanism is weak because there is a lack of evidence that mutation can create new genes. This is something that needs to be explained because it occurred throughout the course of evolution, And is essentially the fundamental aspect of evolution. How did life progress in complexity, Starting off as unicellular bacteria and ending up as multicellular organisms. If there isn't an explanation as to how new genes were made, Then there is no real understanding to how evolution occurred. Natural selection is fine to show how certain traits lead to better fitness and thus results in more progeny, But it does not explain at all how new traits are formed. Natural selection does not explain why there was a dramatic increase in complexity and the formation of countless new genes, Proteins and traits that didn't exist when life began. The field of evolutionary computation is incredibly broad and thus a wiki page covering the topic in general does not count as a defense for how mutation can create new genes. A more specific source should be used.
The Darwinian Mechanism for Evolution is a Weak Hypothesis

We both agree that evolution happens. We both agree that genes mutate. We will debate not if evolution happens, Rather WHY it happens. The current explanation for evolution- Genes slightly mutate over time. Some of these mutations bring about changes to an animal that help it reproduce, And pass on these mutations. If the mutation hinders the animals ability to reproduce, Then they are less likely to be passed on. Let's call this the "Darwinian Mechanism". Simple, Elegant, And sensible. ---Firstly, It doesn't seem fair to dismiss the current theory without proposing a new one. I ask my opponent, How else can we explain evolution then? What mechanism do you believe is more likely? In science, We don't blindly dismiss a well established theory without first proposing a better theory. ---Argument 1 - The Darwinian Mechanism works in fields other than biologyThe idea of influencing a population by rewarding positive mutations and punishing bad mutations works in other fields. It's even been simulated in games and neural networks. There's an entire subset of science focused on using the "Evolution Algorithm" for other purposes. This mechanism obviously works in practice, So why does my opponent believe it doesn't work in biology specifically? https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation
The Darwinian Mechanism for Evolution is a Weak Hypothesis

It is claimed that mutation is responsible for the creation of new genes during the course of evolution. This is a weak hypothesis because it lacks supporting evidence. Therefore there is a massive hole in current evolutionary theory, One that Darwinists are unwilling to admit. To clarify, I am not arguing against evolution the historical event, But rather a proposed mechanism for why it occurred, Ie. Natural selection working on mutation. If Con uses scientific articles in their arguments then I request that they limit them to one per round, To allow for enough time to accurately read and assess the contents thereof.
The White Race is superior to the Black Race.

And even still, you have not provided a reason to support the Pro side of this topic. I am aware that I was wrong about what the topic was; until I restarted my computer, it had said something else. That aside... The fact that there is discrimination against blacks doesn't help your case. The fact that they rely on government doesn't make them any worse, either - you haven't even pushed that fact into an argument; you are only repeating yourself. I have not conceded the debate; white societies are more desirable than black societies because whites tend to have more money, for reasons that I have stated in my previous debates. I still very well defend my side of this debate and am still curious as to why you believe that the white race is superior to the black race. I believe that there is a term for those who share your own beliefs - "white supremacist." In no way is the white race superior to the black race. While they may often have great circumstances when compared to blacks, they aren't "better" in any way, and my opponent has failed to prove that. Your argument stands on bias and not fact; therefore, you have failed to successfully convince anyone that "the white race is superior to the black race."