BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no meaning of life

Just because something in your life loses meaning and proves to longer serve a purpose in your life, that doesnt mean your life is meaningless. Let me tell you what I think life's meaning is exactly. Life's meaning is to find a meaning for life. Finding a meaning for life is why we strive to get the best we can out of life. True, life can be a cruel, unforgiving, hateful, bitch. But that does not prove that life has no meaning. The contemplation of one, true meaning to life is inaccurate, there is no one true meaning. Rather it's different for everyone.
That Rap music should be banned

Rap music should not be banned My value is constitutionality and my value criterion is freedom of expression. I provide a burden for the Aff since the aff says we should ban music the aff must prove that banning rap will be more beneficial. Contention 1. Rap music is a freedom of expression and saying we should ban rap is similar to me saying we should ban art or rock. also my opponent was supposed to write a 1 AC speech not just definitions so i could attack in the 1NC thusly this case will be unpredictable. Contention 2. rap benefits our society. we hear our stereotypical gangsters break dancing and hanging out listening to it in our public parking lots. without this there will be no telling what will happen to our society drive by's may become like the mail man stopping by everyday at noon and our houses will become giant canvass for their grafiti all because they dont have rap to kill thier free time so what will happen instead of free time being dead other people will be dead and i dont know about you but i like not being dead. Contention 3. wee have to be open minded towards others. our society is always open minded look at us now we have a black president who may or may not listen to rap himself. its a part of the African American life we could take away county to take away from the American's life and taking away culture ads expression is wrong and i would like to say to any voters you have to be unbiased in voting in this debate thusly i urge a negative vote
Faith is good

The fact that my opponent has forfeited the previous round demonstrates a lack of rebuttal that he/she has to offer. Nevertheless, I will continue to build on and re-emphasize on my substantive case. Faith is a dangerous mindset because it involves beleiving in something with no evidence, and no justification. It means that we believe in anything just like that. My opponent has failed to not only refute my arguments but also prove why it is good and beneficial to delude oneself in such flawed reasoning and thinking. It contrasst with the scientific method, for instance, where its all about questioning and empirical evidence. I've already explained the many benefits science has given us in contrast to faith which has given us nothing except close-minded individuals and suicide bombers. Once again, I would like to point out that belief in science does not require faith. It is all about empirical evidence, the very opposite of faith. I don't believe that my computer or airplanes work because I have faith in them but because there are physical and sicenfic laws that make them work. There have been many paradigm shifts in science such as the transition between newton's laws and Einsteins theories that demonstrate that science is not about dogmatically defending your beliefs but challenging concepts. In addition, scientist do not have faith in that we have explanations for everything and are ready to say "I don't know". We often see that faith leads to individuals being close minded, not receptive to new better ideas that contrast with their faith and are not rooted to reality. Because of all these reasons and many more, faith is not good.
Faith is good

First of all, I think its important to distinguish the difference between faith and trust. I believe,that they are two very different things through both definition and examples. For instance, when I sit on a plane, I do not necessarily have faith in the pilot but TRUST that in this day and age, I am in a developed nation in a developed airline where a pilot who has been trained to do his job is running the plane and that it is highly unlikely for anyone else to actually sneak in. It is not necessarily the same thing, for instance, as having faith in a invisible ten-legged creature with wings that I believe is watching over me at all times without any evidence whats so ever. Indeed, as you point out, Faith shouldn't be a reason to be violent or stupid but unfortunately that is what we see today. Do you really think that if you sit with a suicide bomber,you can explain to them that they are taking away innocent lives? Would you be able to convince them how illogical they are being? It is only faith, in its blindest forms, that can lead a human to do such a thing. Yes, as you pointed out, it is stupidity but also stupidity as a result of faith. The reason that faith and rational thinking often fail to go with one another can be seen as an example with many religions. In one of the first surahs of the holy Quran, muslims are strictly taught to believe in God and NOT QUESTION ANYTHING AT ALL. As you can imagine, if this is brainwashed into them from a very young age, they tend to lose a great deal of critical thinking skills. I don't agree that science is a product of faith. They are two complete opposites. For example, if humans had faith that the earth is flat or that the milky way is a stream of milk from the breast of a Greek goddess, do you really think that we would have found the explanations we have today? Science is truly a result of questioning and not blindly accepting what you have been told or explanations as a result of superstitions.
Faith is good

Faith alone can`t stand, that`s the very reason why we incorporate WISDOM with it. Your examples about suicide bombers and Shiite Muslims in Pakistan are results of pure stupidity and not because of acquiring faith in your life. Faith should never be a reason to commit wrong doings. Faith and rationality are commonly misconstrued to be two modes of belief that conflict each other, when in actuality faith is simply a belief, loyalty, or trust, and can be either evidence-based and rational, or blind and irrational. Rationality is belief or faith based on reason and logic. Humans are considered to be rational thinkers that`s why having faith can`t cause any harm at all. This is our way of conforming our beliefs with our reasons to believe or the so-called FAITH. A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem. Science is a product of faith. Scientists have the faith that there`s an explanation to everything that`s why science is a self-correcting process of ASKING QUESTIONS, experimenting and re-testing and it relies entirely on evidence. Why are they doing this? Simply because they want us to believe i them and thus, give them our faith. Broadly speaking, there are three categories of views regarding the relationship between faith and rationality: 1. Rationalism holds that beliefs should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than dogma or tradition. 2. Blind faith holds that beliefs may be held without evidence or reason, or even in conflict with evidence and reason. 3. True faith embraces using reason, logic, and factual analysis as a rational basis for faith, and denies holding on to beliefs that have no evidence or reason, as in blind faith. Using blind faith is not being a human. We know how to reason out that`s why we use true faith as one of our principles in life.
Faith is good

"Sometimes you just need to have faith" is something people say quite often. But I completely disagree. I do not believe that faith is not good in that it is not beneficial and can cause harm in many ways. For reasons that I will explain, It is much better for an individual to have a critical mindset with constant need for evidence. Firstly, the issue with "faith" is that it involves blind belief that can often be detrimental. It means that a suicide bomber will have faith that he is doing the good thing and will go to heaven for it. It means that shiite muslims in pakistan with make themselves bleed brutally as a religion "celebration". It can lead humans to do especially brutal things when they fail to question their beliefs as seen with many religious maniacs today. If we encouraged our young ones to be the complete opposite of faithful and critical thinkers instead - they would analyze and question situations before they accept them and the world, in return, would be a much better place. In fact, faith could also mean that we as a species, blindly believe what is right and wrong where the best conclusions come from using logical and critical thinking. Is abortion bad? Is homosexuality acceptable? Because of faith, quite a few people today would simply refer to the bible or what their parents taught them instead of coming up with the more valuable answer through logical reasoning. In order to realize how pointless faith is - lets look at something that's the complete opposite :science. Science is a self-correcting process of ASKING QUESTIONS, experimenting and re-testing and it relies entirely on evidence. What has this gotten us? It has lead to innovation in engineering, cures for diseases and increased understanding and knowledge of ourselves and the world we live in. And faith - the complete opposite merely detaches individuals from the true reality and has done NOTHING beneficial.
Panic! at the Disco Is the Best Band Ever

I wouldn't say the Panic! At the Disco "takes the USA by storm". I haven't even heard a song by them on the radio. For example, I wouldn't say that Fun. has taken the USA by storm, but even just where I live, We Are Young, Some Nights, and Carry On are frequents on the radio. "they would be making the best choice in their entire life." Breathing is the best choice in everyone's life, not some silly band.
Panic! at the Disco Is the Best Band Ever

Panic! at the Disco is an American rock band formed from Los Vegas, Nevada. With the band members Brendon Urie, Spencer Smith and Dallon Weekes. They take the USA by storm with their eccentric lyrics and their catchy beats. Yes, not everyone has heard of Panic! at the Disco. But if they ever choose to listen to them, they would be making the best choice in their entire life. Even though the lyrics are eccentric, there is still a strong message waiting to be understood by the listener.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

"[The Big Bang] was not a way of saying that the universe is tenseless or atemporal."I never made that claim either. You're beating on a strawman."Logic stands in opposition to a self-created uncaused universe."I have not argued for a self-created universe. You are beating on a strawman. "Pro has not refuted my objection P1 or P2 and has not told me how he knows that causality, which we know about from observations made within the universe, applies to the universe. The resolution has been negated.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Okay then. Let's see. Since you won't accept anything I have to say at face value (including what I call evidence), I guess there's no room to remind you to look up why the Big Bang theory is even in existence. Oh wait. There is. Georges Lemaitre. Look him up. He was Catholic priest, and the progenitor of the Big Bang theory(1). The whole point was to prove that the universe, as big as it may be, had a beginning. It was not a way of saying that the universe is tenseless or atemporal. So there you go. Big Bang stands in opposition to an eternal, uncaused universe. Also, logic stands in opposition to a self-created uncaused universe. Think about this. Were you around to create yourself? Of course not. That would be a logical error, as something cannot be prior to itself. So which do you want? A universe that is directly opposed to everything we know about cosmological origins, or one that stands against logic itself? Take your pick, Con. (1) http://www.amnh.org...
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Pro responded in reverse order, starting with P2.2. The universe began to exist.“Well then...I certainly have my work cut out for me. How to prove that B-theory of time (eternalism) cannot be true.”Special relativity is one of the most robust scientific theories of all-time. If you can falsify it–which you would need to do before you can argue for the A-theory–you will definitely receive a Nobel Prize in physics. I wish you well in that endeavor. If the B-theory is true– and it probably is– then time is tenseless and temporal becoming is merely an illusion. All moments are equally real in tenseless space-time block. Whether or not something has happened is all relative to your frame of reference and one is not 'better' than the other.1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.“Also, your example of quantum fluctuations is actually CAUSED by the capture of an electron. It's basic physics, really. An atom captures an electron, causing its net charge to become unstable resulting in a radioisotope. At this point, the nucleus breaks apart into lighter nuclei. This releases radiation resulting in gamma rays, etc. (1) Therefore, these quantum fluctuations are not really uncaused.”According to the definition of radioactive decay that Pro cited, the phenomenon can occur “...spontaneously or as a result of electron capture.” The emphasis is mine. How dishonest, Pro. Futhermore, radioactive decay is not the same thing as quantum fluctuation. Those were two seperate examples.Applying Causality to the Universe? Pro didn't even address this argument. Pro has not met his burden of proof.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Well then...I certainly have my work cut out for me. How to prove that B-theory of time (eternalism) cannot be true. Well, first there's the Big Bang (which is basically saying that time itself had a beginning since the universe had a beginning). For eternalism to be true, we would need evidence that clearly shows the universe to have always existed. We have none. We do, however, have evidence that indicates that the universe had a beginning such as Einstein's theory of relativity, the fact of the expanding universe, and the laws of thermodynamics. Also, my argument of birth still stands. If you had a beginning, you had a cause. You did not just "poof" your way into existence. Also, your example of quantum fluctuations is actually CAUSED by the capture of an electron. It's basic physics, really. An atom captures an electron, causing its net charge to become unstable resulting in a radioisotope. At this point, the nucleus breaks apart into lighter nuclei. This releases radiation resulting in gamma rays, etc. (1) Therefore, these quantum fluctuations are not really uncaused. I would like to post more, have no time. I will, however, provide the exact same link to quantum fluctuations, pointing out that an explanation for these is given on the page. Suffice it to say that, given the universe DID have a beginning, it most certainly had to have a cause. No finite thing in existence has absolutely no cause. The universe is no exception. (1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Okay. As I understand, the argument pretty much goes like this: everything that has a beginning must have a cause, so since the universe had a beginning, it had to have a cause. I'll start by presenting the first premise: everything that had a beginning had a cause. The proof of this statement is quite simple, really. How are you here? You began to exist in your mother's womb. Your cause was the relationship between your mother, and father. You did not cause yourself to exist, and you have not existed before you were, so logically speaking, you had a beginning, and therefore a cause. Plus, have you ever seen a finite thing with no cause? I have yet to see it. The second premise states that the universe had a beginning. This is proven through Einstein's theory of relativity, the fact of the expanding universe, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. Even the Big Bang theory itself proves the finite nature of the universe. So since the universe DID have a beginning, and no finite thing can exist without a cause, then it stands to reason that the universe did indeed have a cause. In other words, because the first premise is true, then the other two assumptions naturally fall into place.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Rules:- The burden of proof is on Pro to demonstrate that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound.- An argument is sound if and if (i) the argument is valid and (ii) all of the premises are true.- Pro will make his/her opening argument in round one and will simply put 'Vote Pro' in round 4.The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is formulated as follows:1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.2. The universe began to exist.C. Therefore the universe had a cause.
Intelligent Design Is Not Science

My opponent has failed up to now to put forth any arguments against either the proposition or my arguments themselves. This means that my arguments follow through as they have been left uncriticized. Intelligent Design is an unsupported supernatural position that is fundamentally unscientific and shouldn't be thought otherwise by anyone in the scientific community. Even if you reject of doubt the theory of evolution, this in no way entails the validity or veracity of Intelligent Design. Thank you.
illegal immigrants should have paths of citizenship

As the audience can see, he has failed to respond to my questions. He has the BOP. I will make a petite argument just for the sake of winning. Illegal immigrants should not have paths of citizenship because then they will have to pay a lot in taxes with very low paying jobs. It is better for them to stay illegal so that they may get through the system without having the United States take their money. Also, they would most likely get on welfare, which would throw the USA into even deeper debt than it is. The United States can not afford anymore debt. (1) By the way, this is not the responce I'd use in a real debate. I am just making a simple arguement that won't be responded to properly. (1). www. usdebtclock. org
illegal immigrants should have paths of citizenship

It should be pretty short. Pro says that these people are just as important as us, however he fails to say why. I will await his explanation in round two. Pro says they should have a clear path of citizenship, yet does not explain exactly what that means. A major flaw in his argument is the statement "They work in horrible condi(ti)ons for very cheap labors and still have to pay high taxes. " That makes no since. Lots of Illegals don't pay all the taxes they would have to pay if they were legal. Also, just because someone is legal does not mean they don't have to work in these same environments. I fail to see how this helps Pro. I ask my opponent to elaborate before we go any further. I'd like to see if this debate is worth it before writing an in depth response. Thank you.
I will not win this debate.

My opponent cannot vote. That only helps me. Now my opponent has an evil plot to make me win permanently. For one thing, this would take a whole lot of money, which I doubt my opponent would be willing to pay for a thing as trivial as a debate. For another, why would having a bunch of voters making me win immediately and permanently make me lose? As long as I am winning voting-wise, I am winning, and once my opponent is winning voting-wise, the resolution becomes negated forevermore, and I win.
I will not win this debate.

Ah, but here comes the screwball. DDO will not allow me to confirm my identity no matter which cell phone I use. If I cannot confirm my identity, I cannot vote. The voting system is flawed, because I am not the only one who is encountering this problem. Multiple users with this problem could tip the balance of whether or not I win this debate. My opponents reasoning is flawed as well, because I could give $100 to 13,258 users to vote for my opponent the split second the debate ends, thus he would win the debate immediately and permanently.
I will not win this debate.

My opponent's counter-plan is to give himself three points to make the debate a tie. However, I shall make sure that he is not online when I post my final argument, so that when I do, I shall immediately be able to give him the three points for Convincing Arguments, as up until that point, he would not have won this debate, and therefore, he would deserve the points. However, once he receives the points, he suddenly no longer deserves them, as the resolution would be negated, and I would instead give the points to myself. After this, I would consider conduct, spelling, grammar, and sources, and allot myself those four points, which means that my opponent really has no chance of a permanent victory, as even the most generous person would have to give me four points and my opponent only three. In conclusion, my opponent shall win this debate immediately after this debate concludes, and therefore, the resolution will be negated, and I shall win this debate at any point beyond that. In fact, my opponent has no hope of permanent victory. Whenever he is winning, the resolution would be negated, and I would deserve the votes, while whenever I am winning, he was already winning, so the votes would stay with me. It's a Catch-22, in which my opponent can't succeed, as temporary victory in this sense would not even be a real success. Well, I've rambled on long enough. With that, I give the floor to my opponent.
I will not win this debate.

And I shall give three Convincing Argument points to my opponent as well, making it a tie. Therefore the debate will not have been won but tied. I wil knot winn thiz debate becauze my oponent'z'z grammer nd spellin is butta then myne. Point goes to Con for grammar. Source: http://www.google.com... I have broken my own rule of only using http://thisissand.com... as a source. Therefore, point goes to Con for reliable sources. My opponent is a dipstick and a retard. Because my conduct is derogatory toward my opponent, he will gain a point in the conduct category, thus putting him closer to winning the debate. Resolution affirmed.
I will not win this debate.

My opponent will indeed win this debate. After I submit my argument for Round 3 of this debate, I shall give the three Convincing Argument points to my opponent. Therefore, his profile would call this debate a victory for him. I shall then change my vote to fit the proper categories based on how this debate actually went. However, my opponent will have briefly won this debate, and therefore, the resolution would be affirmed, allowing me to win the debate. In conclusion, my opponent will win this debate, so the resolution is negated.