BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day

Breakfast is not the most important meal of the day; lunch is. Many people say that eating breakfast will improve focus and drive in a person throughout the course of the day. While that may be true in some instances, there are many other factors that would contribute to a person's performance that can outweigh the need to eat first thing in the morning. For instance, getting a good night's sleep, being excited for whatever tasks you have, or just being determined to get things done rather than eating a breakfast can drive a person much harder. I would say that sometimes a person will be way too psyched about the awesome day ahead of him or her to even have time to eat a breakfast, and it wouldn't even matter. Health can be taken care of regardless of whether or not a person has eaten breakfast. No one gets sick because they skipped breakfast. If a person didn't eat at all for a day, then yes, of course he or she would probably get sick. Besides, if a person is starting to feel queasy from hunger, an early lunch can always be taken or a snack can be had. That being said, lunch is the most important meal of the day because it is flexible. So as I said, if you skip breakfast, you can have lunch early. If you do manage to have breakfast somehow, you can have lunch at a typical lunch time. There is also a third option; if you have had breakfast, and if you are really busy, you can put lunch off for a few hours, or if you know that for whatever reason you won't be able to have dinner at night, you can delay your lunch so that it's closer to dinner time in order to tide you over and prevent you from going to bed hungry. Lunch may also be the least stressful meal of all. Breakfast can be stressful if you don't wake up on time and are in a rush, possibly causing you to mess up what you're trying to make, which could be poisonous if you undercook something like eggs. Dinner is also stressful because people want dinner to be really good, and there is a lot riding on whether a dinner is good or not. People will worry all day about what they are going to make for dinner. You don't have to think that much about lunch. You just go grab it, eat it, and that's it. You can pretty much eat anything for lunch too, which takes a load off your mind. If you want eggs, you can totally eat eggs. If you want steak, nobody will think twice about it. How could anyone deny the importance of having a meal that will help you relax? In this crazy world, sometimes lunch is the only thing we really get to enjoy. I'll continue later on about more ways lunch is good for socialization, health, and believe it or not, hygiene.
God IS real

The basis for this argument is unfair, as to prove my point I have to provide facts and evidence to support my argument however you use unsubstantiated quotes like "it is hard for a non believer to understand". First of all I never stated I was a non believer, I am simply debating your point. Second of all you are reciting words off a book and treating them as factual statements, and "God says it is, so it is so." To debate your points however I will raise the facts that the Christian "God" that you are talking about has only been around for 2000 years, not including the God of the Old Testament. This means humans actually predate the God you are talking about, by around 50 000 years of found of evidence of life. I believe it is a great thing that you 'have a God that loves you unconditionally' but you should be able to love yourself unconditionally and be a good person without the need of a supernatural being. If you believe that regardless of what happens in this life that you will find yourself in the most beautiful afterlife, then you are not allowing yourself to reach your full potential whilst you are alive. This means you are not acting in the best way all the time because regardless what happens you goto heaven. Or you belief that you can suffer in poverty or mistreatment because at the end of your life you will have everything you desire. It is for these reasons that 'God' is used to suppress people, and thus religion has always been targeted at people who are down and out. An example of this is Alcoholics Anonymous who although there has been countless studies suggesting treating alcoholism through the teachings of God is ineffective, however because the Church has such control over it it will never change.
God IS real

I agree that it's wrong to control people using religion like the Catholic Church did. But belief is a choice that everyone has to make. When a person truly is a follower of God, they WANT to obey him, not because they are scared of the consequences of not obeying. They have a deep love for him and want others to be able to experience that also. Evolution couldn"t "just so happen" to make anything so amazing as the human. The basis of our thoughts comes from the Lord, not from a blob of slime. And we have a soul, an eternal life! But that"s where faith comes in. You can choose to believe or deny that there is a heaven and a hell, but you will still have eternal life in one of them. You have the choice to burn in the Lake of Fire for all eternity or to live in the presence of our CREATOR for all eternity!! We are made in God"s image, so that is how we know to speak. He SPOKE everything into existence. God did create a perfect world, but he gave man the choice to either obey or disobey him. Adam walked and talked with God on earth. Adam and Eve disobeyed him and the world is no longer perfect, because God cannot be in the same place as sin. Heaven is perfect so He is there waiting for us, his beloved children, to run to him. Yes, we do change cells, but God created the intricate processes needed for it. We were given the choice to have children or not to have children. He even gave us the choice to believe something like evolution. He did create earthly things to last forever, but once we sinned that automatically changed. Now, humans" earthly bodies die, but not our spiritual ones. He allows things that he made to be destroyed to show us that nothing from the earth lasts forever, so we must follow him. To answer your question, God was not created. He is outside of time. It is hard for a nonbeliever to understand. God is so amazing and awesome that we cant even begin to comprehend all of his works. God is all-powerful and nothing is impossible with God. You could say that I can't fly, and that"s true, but it is because it isn't his will for me to fly. Whatever the result of this debate is, my faith wont be shaken. The world will persecute and hate Christians, but that doesn't matter to me at all. I don't care what the world thinks of me. I have a God who loves me unconditionally. "In God, whose word I praise - in God I trust and am not afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?" - Psalm 56:4
God IS real

God does not exist. God and religion has been a way to control populations for thousands of years, because if a person is fearing the consequences of their actions from a 'higher being' then the person is less likely to rebel against the ruling class. An example of this is Martin Luther who translated bible which was only in Latin at the time into German, this was one of the first times that common people could read the book and interpret the words for themselves. In this regard the Roman Catholic Church was able to control the masses against charge them a fee for repentence, making the church one of the wealthiest organisations still to this day. Now to your examples of that everything in the world was made by an all powerful creator, every point you made in those examples can be explained by evolution. The reason man learned to speak is that we have evolved to communicate with words, this is why language changes, and words and their meanings change. If an all powerful being made everything, surely he would have made it all perfect the first time! Cells do not stand as a reason for God either, the fact that we change our cells constantly stands as an explanation for evolution, and our ability to pass on genetics to our children and changes will occur in their genes to better suit the environment that we are living in. Another point to be made is if a God made everything, why would he allow things that he made destroy the world and the environment. But finally to ask you a question now, if there had to be a God to create everything, who created God?
God IS real

First of all, take a good look around you. What do you see? Everything is so complex and fascinating. It couldn't just appear out of nowhere! That means there must be a Creator - God. How did humans learn to speak? Well, God created man with the knowledge and ability to speak. The first human, Adam, couldn't have just made up a bunch of sounds and made sense out of them. It takes a special intelligence to even be able to function properly, or at all! Look at the human body: the eye, heart, and all of the 100 trillion cells that are in our body. It's all so incredible that just us ourselves are complete evidence for a God! As the famous author C.S. Lewis said, "Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist."
The Soviet Union was Communist

Hi I am James a 13 yr old ready for an invigorating debate! You are (correct me if wrong) saying that the Soviet union was(past tense) communist? The Soviet union is and will mostly be communist. Russia is still communist, heck a few major countries in Asia are communist. your definition of communism is wrong *chuckles* Communism-noun 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. 2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. 3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist Party. Socialism-noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. Cited from http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... ________________________________________________________________ By definition communism is a form of government and hierarchy and a system to work with state-less, class-less and money-less system based countries. Your argument is...in a word quite stupid, because the soviet union is dead. There is no point to this argument so if you want we can continue this or end the debate here. Soviet union 1922-1991 Russia is more of an ironic mix of democracy and dictatorship at the same time. That just bout raps up my argument.
The Soviet Union was Communist

I would like to start not with an argument, but stating the rules: 1) Do not insult your opponent. 2) Bringing your personal views (views on the political philosophies in question) is not allowed. 3) If you are not using credible sources (should you choose to use any at all), you can expect to lose credibility in your arguments. EDIT: Definition(s) Communism-The phase of which a society is state-less, class-less and money-less. Where no government or hierarchy is in place. Socialism-The phase of which a society instills worker's control of the means of production and reforms that benefit the working class and proletariat.
Slavery Is Worse Than The Holocaust

Rules for Rounds: 1. Both sides will set rules without bringing any topics up about the debate. 2. Both sides will offer their arguments without rebuttals. 3. Strictly for rebuttals, but new topics may be brought up. 4. More rebuttals as I, Pro, must be able to rebut my opponent's, Con, rebuttals. 5. Conclusions and reiteration of debate. No new topics may be brought up. Thanks! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rules of Debate: -Be kind -Be factual -No personal insults as that devalues all arguments
Slavery Is Worse Than The Holocaust

Death Toll Comparisons: I have actually used two websites for my information on these numbers. However, as in your most recent argument, you stated that it was wrong for me to extend slavery from Americas to everywhere. If you had actually read, I had mentioned slavery in African, yet I had only used 12M as a number that had gone through the Middle Passage, not including slaves around the world. But, if you do not find it correct to expand from my initial argument, I do not find it correct for you to correct my numbers, especially after your death toll had been specific to the Jews, which is remarkably less than that of slaves. Experimentation: While he may be the father of gynecology, thus "...[making] real notable contributions to the medical field...," I believe you are being naive to the contributions that the Nazi experiments gave to modern sciences. Altitude experiments allowed researchers to find how humans' were effected as the altitude was increased. Poison experiments were used to see how long it would take for a human to die with different poisonous materials. (Experiments and reasoning [1]) I propose that this argument was to show the benefits of the Nazi experiments, and show that my opponent will not negate the morality of these experiments as that is not why I have brought them up. (Also, as the Law of Large Numbers would show, the more data collected, the better correlated and accurate the data will be. So by Sim's not having as many experiments as Nazis, we can conclude that the Nazi's made more accurate contributions.) Extermination: While this is true, and it does seem horrible, these Jews actually died. Often times, the slaves were punished, beaten, etc, but remained alive to show the scars and continually suffered through these treatments. Sorry that this was short, I'm getting a little disengaged. But let's continue on. Sources: [1]http://www.jlaw.com...
Slavery Is Worse Than The Holocaust

Okay, I shall begin: We all know the Holocaust to be one of the most unfortunate events to date, but that is just not the case. Slavery, in my opinion, is much worse than the Holocaust for a couple reasons. I am assuming that everyone will think that the Holocaust was worse than slavery because approximately 11 million people died [1] as a direct result of this event by various methods like burning and gassing. However, people that believe that this was worse than slavery, I believe, need to know a little more about slavery than the schools have taught them. We over-glorify the Holocaust as it is a huge part of curriculum in many history classes, yet we only skim over slavery as we only hear of the cruelty they faced- never numbers, never the fact that Africans also owned slaves or that Africans sold off other Africans for guns and other weapons [2]. If their own people turning against them wasn't enough, the boat ride to the Americas may provide enough to sway your minds. Believe it or not, there were more slaves brought to the Americas than people died as a direct result of the Holocaust, a number more than a million larger- 12.5 million [3]. But of these 12.7 million, only 10.7 million survived the Middle Passage, the journey toward eternal servitude [3]. What was the Middle Passage like, you ask? "Slaves packed like cargo between decks often had to lie in each other's feces, urine, and blood." [4] Yes, human beings were actually packed in a boat like they were food or cloth, and sitting in each other's excrements, they often faced fatal diseases. If they were "lucky" enough to make it to the Americas, they were auctioned off to plantation owners and forced to work hard labor for little to no pay, often getting beaten and whipped if ever they decided to rebel against their owners. And yes, they did have owners. These are only a few reasons on why slavery is worse than the Holocaust, including the terrifying living conditions and infringed rights that slaves had to endure, and I would be glad to share more should you carry on! [1]http://history1900s.about.com... [2]http://autocww.colorado.edu... [3]http://www.theroot.com... [4]http://www.pbs.org...
The extermination of the white race can be beneficial for society.

Firstly, you say that as if it is yet to happen. Also, that is inconsequential and circumstantial. I'm afraid that that argument is nonsensical. Here's an analogy. If you had water that was 1 ppb arsenic, that would be ten times the safe limit. Your logic would say we discard this water, and go thirsty and likely die instead. Obviously Hitler was a terrible man, and his death was good. But the average white person has nothing to do with that.
The extermination of the white race can be beneficial for society.

Firstly, race is a social construct. There are no non-aesthetic differences, biologically speaking. So all this is saying is that if you killed a large chunk of the population, the world would be better. And no. It wouldn't. Numerous economies would be thrown into turmoil, millions of people would be left unemployed, and Many countries would be left leaderless and defenseless. Many high-ranking people in government are white, just by virtue of demographic trends. Not to mention the genocide you would commit to achieve this goal, the likes of which would be unparalleled.
Should there be Elections to the Canadian Senate

I have heard this argument many times but I think that the Canadian Senate should be chosen by the Canadian PM. 1. If the senate had an election then each senator would try to take donations that would make people want to give less money to their political party making it harder for politicals parties to make advertisements for the federal election. 2. I do think we could have elections for people we would like to have as a senate we have this in Alberta and it is pretty good 3. The PM already doesn't have that much power I would prefer the PM to have power Note I do think that the senate should not have to be part of the rich elite it is an actual requirement
should beyonce have dropped out of high school to join destinys child

Con is off topic. The debate is about whether Beyonce should have dropped out of high school to join Destiny's Child. Con's R2 was entirely about whether Beyonce is a good parent or not, an issue which arose more than a decade after the point in question. If Con wants Beyonce's parenting skills considered as evidence in the debate, she needs to tie it to not finishing high school. As it is, Con simply asserts that Beyonce is buying her child expensive toys and extensive child care because she didn't get her education. There's no reason to think that extensive child care and expensive toys are caused by a lack of education, nor is there a clear harm involved in it anyway. To make progress in this line of argument, Con would have to: 1. Show that Beyonce is spending an unusual amount of time away from her child. 2. Show that this is happening solely or primarily because of a lack of education. 3. Show that this is detrimental in some way. I suspect that Con will fail at point 2, because Beyonce's career as a singer/celebrity is likely much more of an issue than any GED courses she's taking. Now, that might raise the second half of the resolution and the question about whether Beyonce should have become a musician, but as I showed in R1, that was a sucessful decision for her. The relevant question about parenting quality would be, "should a successful celebrity have children?" After all, the decision to focus on music rather than high school was made in the late 1990's, so that's the context we should examine it in - the context where she was already signed with Columbia Records in 1996[1]. The decision of whether to become a parent is a seperate discussion, as she'd already become a successful celebrity by that point. http://www.xtimeline.com...
should beyonce have dropped out of high school to join destinys child

While that is true, she can't just find a nanny to take care of her child. Then, Ivy will form a special connection with the nanny and not Beyonce. Jay-Z goes on tour almost every three months and a child needs their parents. With around the Beyonce wants nothing but the best for her little girl — including a total of six nannies! The 30-year-old has two nannies on call at all times to assure Blue Ivy Carter "has the best of care," a friend of the singer told In Touch. "Her diaper is changed almost every hour."That's not the only lavish treatment Blue Ivy is receiving. Proud papa Jay-Z "bought her diamond earrings and a platinum bracelet," reveals the friend. Blue's parents even bought her a $600 thousand gold rocking horse! You now that if you have to buy your daughter those material things and hire nannies to do your dirty work because you didn't get your education. You know that you are failing as a parent.
should beyonce have dropped out of high school to join destinys child

A high school education increases an average lifetime earning potential approximately $400,000 beyond the lifetime earnings of someone with no high school[1].Beyonce made $87,000,000 in from 2009-2010 alone [2].This Beyonce's choice was clearly worth more than a typical education.Bonus fact, she's getting her GED [3] so its also a case of both rising to stardom and getting her education.[1]http://www.tracer2.com...[2]http://www.billboard.com...[3]http://www.usatoday.com...
does god exist or is he something that our ancestor imagine

i agree that people are scared of the unexplained. but than at the same time certain unnatural things like ghost and evil cannot be explained even by the most sound mind. therefore, people cannot explain what have occurred no matter how hard they try to come up with an explanation of what happen in their mind. once this occurs and there is no explanation for it, than evil must exist. explaining the unexplained has to be something unnatural unless if the mind is unsound like a mental illness.
does god exist or is he something that our ancestor imagine

I agree that most people wouldn't lie about perceived supernatural experiences. However, it is entirely natural for the human mind to create explanations for esoteric phenomena. It's human nature to want an explanation for everything. The unknown scares people. The idea of two opposing forces and the manifestation of such is appealing simply because it explains natural occurrences. This is, in my opinion, the origin of faith/belief in deities. Whether or not they actually exist, I cannot say.
does god exist or is he something that our ancestor imagine

watching many exorcist documentary makes one believe that there is some truth about good and evil. i don't believe people who witness paranormal activity would lie about their gruesome experience in anyway. it is not normal to make things up for other people amusement when it comes to religion. for instance, in south america i have seen voodoo, a type of religion that people perform. usually they do it behind close door but since my uncle knew the priest, they show me true evil.
does god exist or is he something that our ancestor imagine

Ok, 99 percent of the population does NOT agree on what is good and what is evil, which is why there are so many different religions currently in practice. Whether or not there is a pure force of good or a pure force of evil out there, human interpretation of these things varies from person to person and between different religions. If there are deities who represent good and/or evil, one person's "evil" deity might be another person's "good" deity. It all depends on circumstance and experience.