BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
is the bible just a way to delude are self into believing in a life after death

My first point will be that all through history there has been religion and one thing nearly all these regions have in common is the idea of 'a life after death' my personal belif was that it was a way too get young men to join armys too fight it is easier to risk ones life if you belivies is not you ronly one. Secondly the human race has survived by invetion we hav einveted thing to help us overcome thoose enemines we could not handle yet one enemy remains though death and i fell that the best the early humans could do was sothen the pain by creating a false hope in the style of reglion and heavens
television is not the effective means of imparting education

Television- : an electronic system of transmitting transient images of fixed or moving objects together with sound over a wire or through space by apparatus that converts light and sound into electrical waves and reconverts them into visible light rays and audible sound Source- http://www.merriam-webster.com... Observance- A television is basically just a screen with fixed or moving objects with sound and this is all it necessarily entails. Considering that television only entails having something on the screen and sound, what one is capable of doing with a television is, for example, using some sort of social medium where you can video chat, therefore you can have a teacher communicate with the owner of the TV which would be identical to the aspects of classroom teaching, in the aspects that matter. This debate says TV is not an effective means of imparting education, so we have to look at the capabilities the TV is capable of in imparting education, which would be the same as a classroom, or online tutor. Therefore the TV would be effective. "We see that children do not watch educative programmes but spend their time watching different non-educative channels" How someone uses a TV does not define how capable a TV is of imparting education.
US has been propagandizing against Cuba and trying to overthrow Castro 4 sake of global captalism

Harlan: Sorry about the confusion, and yes I do believe the US is trying to over throw Castro to protect global capitalism. Also, to your second question: yes we should invade a country to protect global capitalism. As you read above, the people in Cuba aren't safe. They are being murdered for not believing the government is right. Lets compare it to school. You are at school and someone is bullying your friends around (you are 10 and the bully is 15) and you are watching him do it. IF you stand up for your friends, the bully we beat you up and keep beating your friends up. Now, if someone older than him (lets say a senior that's 18) comes and tells you to stop, he either going to do 2 things 1)He'll get scared and stop (like the Missile Crisis) or' 2)He'll say make me. Once he says make me the 18 year old will beat him up so bad that he will never throw another punch in his life. Now if you were 10 in this situation, would you like it as him not throwing any punches or beating up all the little kids? This is exactly what is going on in Cuba, the citizens are the 10 year olds, government is the 15 year olds, and the US is the 18 year old. Also, if WWIII breaks out, Cuba will be used as a axile island. Their they will be able to launch attacks on to our soil and endangering our citizens. Also, main cities like Miami, Tampa Bay, Orlando, New Orleans, and possibly Houston will all be endanger. If we invade and make it a constitutional republic with leaders of Cuba's citizens, that won't happen and Cuba will be a free state. A free Cuba won't rely on sugar as you state. It will attract millions of tourism dollars from around the world to help its economy. If you would like to continue this debate , challenge me with your next argument. Make it 1 or 2 rounds. 3 would be too long.
US has been propagandizing against Cuba and trying to overthrow Castro 4 sake of global captalism

I would lke to begin by clarify in something, you said: "You are saying that we are trying to throw Fidel out of power in Cuba and that is a bad thing" I am sorry if there was confusion of this, but I am saying that the reasons that the US is trying to overthrow Castro are bad, I am sorry if I mislead you, but whether Castro should be overthrown in of itself, is a different debate. Sorry. I am against the US overthrowing Cuba under the pre-tenses of making money from cash-crops. That is just horrible. "I guess you never heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis." Castro can hardly be held accountable for the Soviet Union's actions, can they? The root of the Cuban missile crisis lay in conflicts between the USSR and the US, and it would in no way be in Cuba's best interest to be at war with one of the two super-powers. Who has not "done their homework" again? You can't honestly believe that that is why the US is trying to overthrow Cuba, which is ridiculous. You must admit that despite whether Castro is a good leader (we are not debating that), the US's motives lie, unfortunately in money and money alone. Let us please remain discussing the US's motives for overthrowing Castro, and their propaganda. That is what the debate is about. Please clarify: -Whether you agree the US is propagandizing against Cuba and that their motives for overthrowing Castro are that of protecting global capitalism -If you answered yes: Do you think that protecting global capitalism is a valid reason to invade a country. I am not sure where you stand in relation to this debate, so please clarify. Oh yes, and to all in the comments who accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist; I would like to hear assure you that everything I have provided has been facts. Do some research, you may be interested. To all those who are open-minded and curious, or even hesitant skeptics…Here are some things you may want to read: http://www.infoplease.com... http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu... http://blogs.guardian.co.uk... http://www.pslweb.org...
US has been propagandizing against Cuba and trying to overthrow Castro 4 sake of global captalism

Harlan: Since you have forfeited the last round (thought you wouldn't forfeit) my argument will be short just to refresh the facts. The US needs to overthrow Fidel CAstro for common good. He has made many disgusting crimes. He has killed people many people for saying they disagree with the government. He will kill more, and his brother will kill more. The US needs to stop it now.
US has been propagandizing against Cuba and trying to overthrow Castro 4 sake of global captalism

Hello Harlan: You are saying that we are trying to throw Fidel out of power in Cuba and that is a bad thing. You are totally wrong. Fidel Castro needs to be over thrown, before he does something globaly bad. First you say in the pre-Fidel era, we were making money on the sugar cane plant, and as soon as Fidel became the leader(I'll say dictator) we considered them a hostile enemy. You haven't done your homework. I guess you never heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1962, shortly after the Bay of Pigs, Castro declared Cuba a socialist republic. He made ties with the U.S.S.R. By doing that the Soviet Union gave Cuba missiles and they had them pointed right at us. The missiles were believed to be nukes. So, in response JFK called them a hostile nation (hmmm wonder why?) and pulled out all our ships out to dance with Cuba. Within a hour, there was an agreement to remove the missiles. The Bay of Pigs goes right along with my quote, "our enemies thought they saw weakness, now they see defeat." You also say that the Cubans were for CAstro, that was in the 60's. We are in the 21st century and since the 60's he has been a murderer and is similar to Saddam. IN an article it states that between the dates 1/1/59 and 10/31/06 there has been 5,775 recorded executions. 1,000+ unlawful murders, 200 disappearances and 984 dead in jail. In total there has been around 8,190 deaths caused by Castro or his entourage. So let me ask you, why would you want all these murders to continue, or get Castro out and bring peace to Cuba again?
US has been propagandizing against Cuba and trying to overthrow Castro 4 sake of global captalism

Hello, to who ever accepts this challenge... For clarification, I am "pro", in the sense that I believe it is true, not because I agree with the possible necessity of it. If someone accepts this debate on the term of the "con" side agreeing on the existence of thus and arguing that thus is necessary, I shall adjust accordingly, and hopefully the voters will vote based on thus. I will argue that not only has the US been propagandizing against Cuba and trying to overthrow Fidel Castro, but that it is a bad thing to do. Before I go into details of any sort, I will summarize the reality of what has been going on for quite sometime: The capitalist schizophrenic entities, that we know as corporations, in the United States, were making vast amounts of money from cash-crops (namely sugar) grown in Cuba. After the Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro was in charge. Castro, being a communist, made reforms pertaining to agriculture. This caused these corporations to lose some money, inevitably. The US, suddenly treats Cuba as a hostile enemy, simply because the communist lifestyle did not fit perfectly with US corporations progression in wealth. Resulting from this, the US has been plotting and attempting to overthrow Castro, so they can continue to utilize this money-making resource. For a long time the image of Fidel Castro being an insane power hungry tyrant has been spread. This image is simply untrue. If you deny that the US is trying to overthrow Castro, take a look at the Bay of Pigs, in which the US actually invaded Cuba. The main purpose of this invasion was actually to provoke the US citizens into wanting to overthrow Cuba. The invasion was ran by CIA-trained, US backed, Cuban exiles. These exiles were those who themselves lost much from the agrarian reform (owning sugar plantations and what not), exposing that the whole thing was just for the sake of greed. The invasion failed, quite considerably due to the fact that the Civilians of Cuba, actually backed Castro, contrary to preliminary beliefs of the CIA. Every thing I have provided above is facts. -Harlan
How can you be an athiest? (friendly discusion)

Rational? Once people didn't think television was rational, yet everyone has one now. Is it rational to believe that a explosion created the very brain we're thinking this in? It takes faith to shift in a chair, it takes faith to turn on the oven and believe it won't catch on fire. Why are you bothered by this concept? What shook your faith in the Bible? Why don't you think it's accurate? Because it is. That's the point, it's not justice. It's the giving of a perfect being,a spotless lamb, to save all of the dirty old sheep. It's not justice, it's a sacrifice God was willing to make to save us all. We don't have evidence because God gave us free will fit a reason. He wants us to choose to have faith, to choose to believe and to choose that He is God. Have you ever had a crush on someone when you where young? And then found out that you really didn't like that person after all? It's that way with other people thinking they have the answer, they haven't felt the real thing yet, they don't know better. Please don't think I'm trying to convert you, I'm just trying to show you that the is a God, and He is more amazing than we can possibly imagine.
How can you be an athiest? (friendly discusion)

I used to believe in a God: I believed in a Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent God. I believed such a God to be very personal. A father to "us" his children. I prayed multiple times daily about anything and everything. I believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. That he "atoned" for my sins. That through him I could return to live with my father in heaven. I believed that I knew this by the Holy Spirit which manifest truth through my thoughts and feelings. My Issues: I will briefly outline issues I have I am willing to talk about any of these in depth via personal message or perhaps in a debate. 1) Faith is inherently irrational I am bothered by this concept. There is no rational way to contend with a religious concept that requires "faith." 2) Literalism I have long sense stopped believing in scripture as literal or historical. But to do so seems to undermine the entire concept. If I don't believe the bible to be literal what reason do I have to believe Christ's suffering brings salvation. 3) The atonement itself How can Justice be satisfied by the suffering of someone innocent? Even if I grant the story true, the idea that an innocent sacrifice had to be made on my behalf to save me from "sin" seems odd and immoral. Not only do I doubt the atonement happened... I am no longer sure I want it to be true. 4) God If such a God exists that I was taught to believe in, why do so many receive different answers to prayers? Why ask a species that has the capability to act and think rationally to rely on faith rather than reason? Why not have clear evidence? Why have us "walk by faith and not by site?" 5) Revelation How is it that I could have thoughts and feelings affirming my faith, but so do many others about their faith which contradicts my own? Of course people feel strongly about the Bible, or whatever scripture they were brought up to believe in. I spent 2 years doing nothing but studying the Bible and teaching from it. Do that with anything for two years and you will no doubt have strong feelings about it. There are too many conflicting issues with personal revelation.
How can you be an athiest? (friendly discusion)

Okay, what do you believe (please note I have no intention of this being a proper debate)? Big bang, evolution, what? How can you look at the world around you and not see that there is something there other than a advanced ecosystem? They're has to be a God out there that made this amazing world, right? How would we be able to tell right from wrong? Please don't tell me a bunch a of moss, a monkey, or an explosion could have caused that. I'm curious, if you have questions about Christians I would love to answer them. :)
eggs are meat

>Be me >Game ended by jesus >Goes to heck >Meet Satin >monkaS. Png >Hes chill, Takes rips of a bong made of human bones >Tells him my life story >getsidea. Gif >Tells satin to egg Jesus >Actually does it! >Poggers with satin >Kills jesus again with eggs >Dies by his own creation >Guess his meat beats him
Helium Balloons and Blimps Should be Banned.

Hello, my name is minddrag and it is very nice to meet you. I look forward to a good and challenging debate against you, on this topic. First off, I would like to point out that many countries in the world are not communist, nor are they run by a dictatorship. This means that we cannot simply revoke non-dangerous items from our citizens, some who make a living off these devices without reason. This is to say, I cannot say we are going to run out of original copies of a book soon, all original copies should now be in use of the government. Now I know this is not the perfect example, but I hope it clearly outlines my first point. This is to say that people make their livings off of hot air balloons, and selling products with helium inside of them, and we cannot just cut these people off. Since helium is still a (although hard to create) renewable resource, most people will believe that we can still treat it as one. This is because as the supply dwindles, the theories of economics will kick in and achieve, just what you are stating. What will happen is as the supply drops, the price of helium will rise. If we only have 50 years of helium, as you have previously stated, then the price will rise so much that we cannot actually purchase it for recreational uses. But you have to let the public come to a realisation on this one. To forcabally remove a product that is not dangerous from the public, will be detrimental to itself. Next, as far as I can tell, blimps are not in the business of releasing their helium are they. Helium balloons keep most of their helium and just use it to rise, so it is not as if we are losing all of the helium in a blimp when one flies are we? Another reason is, some people have flying blimps or riding in one as a hobby or a dream. You cannot rip somebody's dream away from them, because of a renewable resource might run out. It is for these reasons that I, as side con believe this resolution must and will fall.
Helium Balloons and Blimps Should be Banned.

Helium balloons, blimps, and other frivolous uses of helium should be banned / legally outlawed. Helium gas is so light that much of it escapes earth's atmosphere completely and goes off into outer space impossible to recover. Helium is not a renewable resource and cannot be economically synthesized. Synthesis involves hitting Lithium or Boron atoms with high velocity protons and this does not yield economically useful amounts. Some helium is generated from alpha particles from radioactive decay of certain heavy metals such as Uranium and Thorium, however, this method is also not economical and wouldn't satisfy the world's needs. Virtually all helium used commercially is extracted from natural gas deposits, the problem is, we only have about 50 years of supply left at current consumption rates. Helium is an important elemental resource with many unique properties. It is used for superconductors, advanced medical equipment such as MRIs, atmospheric protection for growing silicon crystals (for computer chips), it has a lower boiling point than any other element so can be cooled to lower temperatures than liquid nitrogen giving it many valuable properties ~ it becomes a super fluid at 0 Kelvin giving it properties more in the realm of quantum mechanics than standard particle physics. Basically, it has a lot of very important scientific and advanced medical uses and there is a finite limited supply; unnecessarily wasting it in silly balloons and blimps is something that future generations (or even us 40-50 years from now) will look back on and wonder how the hell we could have been so stupid.
"X only gives birth to its kind" is an invalid argument against Evolution

This debate is impossible to accept; please write in the comments if you want to accept. An ofted cited argument against evolution is constructed as follows: "No matter how many times it is tried, a dog only gives birth to dogs. Kinds beget their own Kind" There are variations including using the word "Fundamentally different type. ." and others, but all boil down to this. I will show that this argument is invalid for 3 reasons: 1. ) It pre-supposed that evolution MUST allow dogs to give birth to not dogs. This is not true. 2. ) As the term "Kind" is objectively undefined, it can mean whatever the arguer wants it to mean at any stage. 3. ) In general, it misses the point of gradualistic change over time. This debate will be about the above statement; but the specific debate conditions are as follows: - I will justify the 3 statements made above, and I will have the burden of proof to demonstrate these statements are true. - My opponent must show his statement is true by explaining how evolution implies why X should give birth to something that isn't X. Either directly, (IE: parent dog, child ! = dog) or indirectly (IE: Ancestor = Dog; distant descendant ! = dog) - This debate is about the logical validity of this argument, NOT about evolution as a whole. - If explicit definitions are provided by opponent which implicitly changes the nature of the proposed argument (EG: defining a "Kind" to mean a species that differs more than 90% in DNA base-pairs) real world examples can be cited that either invalidate the premise (IE: we have seen that) or invalidate the terminology (IE: by your definition a Dog is the same kind as a cat). - Reliable sources from both sides are ONLY required if calling into question an opponents facts.
The difference between metal and pop.

'This:"Metal is a lot harder to play and write on guitar, bass, drums, and to sing." Is just an opinion.' It's not an opinion, it's a fact. I've played metal songs on guitar for years, and when I compare them to pop song guitar parts, metal is by far harder to play. Metal drums often includes blastbeats, which are insanely fast double-bass pedal hits, along with rapid usage of the other drums and cymbals. It takes a huge amount of endurance to play metal on drums for a concert, compared to the often simple, basic beats used it pop. (That is if it uses real drums, as a lot of pop songs use drum machines.) For bass guitar, it is often played as fast as the guitar parts, which is even harder for bass than guitar. Pop usually uses simple basslines, as the guitar is often simple progressions composed of few chords. For vocals, much training is needed to learn how to scream, and there's the risk of popping blood vessels from screaming too hard. It also takes a lot of endurance to scream for an entire concert. 'I'm not going to even bring up the fact that Kevin is a beast on guitar and Nick can out drum anyone.' This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. I had the misfortune of hearing some Jonas Brothers songs, and I was completely unimpressed by every instrument. The video above starts out with a drummer outdrumming Nick Jonas with ease, and then around 2:10, you'll see why Kevin is the farthest thing from a 'beast' on guitar. http://www.youtube.com... 'According to this article here, all metal is is an extended guitar solo and emphatic beats....I think my little sister banging on pots and pans would be similar to the sound that comes out of Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple's mouths. Its very do-able. all I need is one of those plastic Rockband guitars..' That is completely untrue, all metal is not an extended guitar solo and emphatic beats, just like all pop isn't a drum machine and loops. You only mentioned a few bands that barely cover any of the metal genre, and that is completely untrue, as Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple, do not sound anything like pots and pans, and it is impossible to sound like them with plastic toy guitars alone. (without a TV playing their music) 'Since the mid-1950's pop music has usually been identified as the music and the musical styles that are accessible to the widest audience (the widest audience.)' More people listening to it does not make it musically better. 'if u just forget that its Jonas and listen to the music. Jonas Brothers concert on good morning america...it is proof. it is proof.' Proof of what? That my statement is true? I said "Pop SOMETIMES even consists of ust loops strung together, drum machines, and heavily altered vocals with unoriginal lyrics." I didn't say all of it. But some of that statement does apply to the Jonas Brothers, such as unoriginal lyrics, and heavily altered vocals in the studio.