BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Existence of god

Opinions? THATS your basis of arguement .... HUMAN opinion? Secular opinions ... the sum of MANS KNOWLEDGE, in comparison to the Creator of all things? Let me show you why that"s not wise! Perhaps it is more likely you and I have different thoughts on what truth actually is. You waste an entire paragraph judging God based on your idea of justice, your idea of morality, then in the SAME BREATH judge God guilty, for the actions of someone ELSE (Lot) Your idea of justice eh? I note that you ALSO adjucate punishment towards God Himself, for the evil done by humanity? Because there IS evil people in the World who do NOT heed God .... say like yourself for example, God is hereby adjudged guility for YOUR CRIMES of injustice ... is that how it works? Because of this He can"t BE God. And Why? Because He didn"t strike you Dead, instantly for your immoral actions. That"s what you call justice is it? So those who lie, cheat, steal, murder, kidnap, rape .... Gods to blame eh! So that those souls are going to spend eternity in FLAMES of Fire .... not punishment enough huh? So what"s your plan ... send them all to Hell BEFORE they do the deed? Kinda like Minority Report huh? You should make up your mind? You just whined an entire paragraph about Gods heartlessness .... for what? Injustice? Did you not just do the same thing to God? Unjustly accuse Him guilty for a crime He did not commit! What else have you been unjust in! Oh yes.... incompetence! You emphatically accuse God of incompetence outright for what? Your presumption! You THINK man can jumble up the scriptures through mankinds ignorance, though the entire Bible foretells the whole of human History FROM BEGINNING TO END! Excuse me .... but that"s YOUR UNPROVEN OPINION. you haven"t proved that accusation? Where is your evidence proving humanity has been sucked beyond yourself! I certainly haven"t been fooled, i"m fully Biblically knowledgeable. God has seen to it that I study, and am provided guidance through the scripture. Obviously since you doubt Him He leaves YOU ODF"n.That"s military for "Out Der Flappin" cause Bud you know squat! No wonder why. Your a Legend in your own Mind. No one can teach you. So what do you say. How bout showing us scripture that PROVES GOD tells humanity to Make His own interpretations of His word. How bout some scriptures that Tells Men to go to Scholars, Theologians, commentaries, or even to Schools at all to learn how to understand His Bible? Or because YOU don"t believe that MUST mean He doesn"t exist .... I mean because your so smart, so educated, so FAIR and Just. Oh wait ... thats right you Blame God because your a pervert, rapist, thief, liar, charlatan, crook, dead beat dad, adulterer, bully, evil through and through ..... but wait ... IF Gods to Blame for all that .... men by this theory are all guiltless ... according to YOU, maube its God who needs to go to Hell. Not happening sweetpea. God created Heaven and Earth, and He HOLDS YOU GUILTY, for your OWN stupidity and SIN ... and He"s gonna say it by sending your arrogant butt to HELL junior! So when you speak of Your Creator ... how bout you show some respect son!
Not buying our pets from pet store and adopting them from shelters

Ok first of all that is not b.s. That is fact. And second of all that is not an argument. I have looked up stuff for this debate be I wrote a paper on it. Look up facts if you want your point to get across. Most animals are not tortured. They might just be strays. And not all of them are old, just some. And the animals from the pet store have done almost nothing with their lives. They only sit or run around a glass cage and only come out when someone wants to play with them. In some shelters they can go outside to play and run around. Another common misconception by close to half those surveyed was that shelter animals will be reclaimed by their owners, adopted, or transported to another shelter or rescue to continue to look for a forever home. The numbers of successful reunions of lost pets with owners is increasing, as are adoptions and transports. A pet purchased from a pet store is a complete unknown. And, once you walk out of the store, you are on your own. Most pet stores don"t provide any support if you have questions or problems with your new pet. When you adopt, especially from a rescue group, you know what you are getting because the group has a history on the animal. The rescue group will also help you through the familiarization period because they are invested in providing a good home for that animal.
Not buying our pets from pet store and adopting them from shelters

If they got attached they could just work at the shelter and some people actually get paid for fostering from the shelter. Fostering animals from shelters is better because you get to help animals find place to live so you're helping animals no matter what when you foster or adopt an animal from the shelter. Actually having an animal from a shelter can help you with your happiness. With pet store animals all they do is run around in a tiny glass cage and they see people and sometimes their not even allowed out of their cages because no one wants to play with them or see them.
Is man slave of machines or technology

Thanks for the challenge, and good luck on your first debate! Rebuttal "There are many people across the world who's life is completely dependent on the machine and one of the great example is of the great scientist-Stephen hawking(who cannot even speak without the help of the machines)" I think this helps my case more than it does yours. He is dependent on the machines, so they have control over him. "The technology has given the power to the man to control over natural hazard over great extent and if it doesn't stops the hazard completely at least it makes the people aware of the disaster and the amount of the misshapen to be created by the disaster ,so that people can either migrate to some safe place or can take steps which can reduce the amount of the damage created by the disaster." Even if it's for our own safety, the technology is still controlling our actions (telling us to prepare things for a disaster). "but he has made the use of the technology for a better life, mentality, comforts, etc.." Without the technology, we couldn't have these things. We have become accustomed to it, and change doesn't come easily. If something breaks, then you either have to fix/replace it, or you have to do without something you are accustomed to having. A lot of money and time is devoted to the maintenance of technology, because it is crucial to the lifestyle we are used to. Argument Society has become dependent on technology. There is medical equipment necessary to keep people alive, technology that provides convenience, technology that is a part of our daily lives (electric lights, plumbing, the refrigerator), and even robots to babysit children. [1] As we are dependent on the technology, it has a certain amount of control over us. If, for example, your electricity goes out, it becomes a priority to fix it. You might reschedule something else you had planned to have the repairman come out, or take the time to fix it yourself if you know how. The technology in this example (electricity) has control over you. Sources [1] http://www.nec.co.jp...
Is man slave of machines or technology

I think I would be wrong if i say that man is a slave of the machines or technology as the nature of the human being is to make life better and better and for this he is making machines or using new technology to give us better and better ,and there is nothing wrong if we care about our comfort .Now the man has become the friend of machine and gain total control over it .He is using machine for the improvement in the mankind .There are many people across the world who's life is completely dependent on the machine and one of the great example is of the great scientist-Stephen hawking(who cannot even speak without the help of the machines) The machines have completely changed the living standard of the people it has modernized the world .Now we cannot even think our life without the use of the machine .Technology have lighten the world .It has being successful in growing the mentality creation of a human being .The technology has given the power to the man to control over natural hazard over great extent and if it doesn't stops the hazard completely at least it makes the people aware of the disaster and the amount of the misshapen to be created by the disaster ,so that people can either migrate to some safe place or can take steps which can reduce the amount of the damage created by the disaster. So, can we say that the man is not a slave of the machines but he has made the use of the technology for a better life, mentality, comforts, etc.......?
The Earth is spherical in shape.

This is a challenge specifically for Edlvsjd. No user except him should have the ability to accept this debate. If for whatever reason you aren't Edl and are capable of accepting, I ask that you don't. This debate will take a small step away from the traditional "flat earth" debate with Edl, as he will no longer have an obligation to present a case for a flat earth, or any shape earth. Instead, I will be arguing that the Earth is spherical and Edl will attempt to show that my arguments are wrong or otherwise insufficient. Burdens The burden of proof rests on Pro (me). As this is a scientific topic, my burden is satisfied should my arguments leave no room for reasonable doubt concerning the spherical shape of the Earth. While my opponent has no history of making this type of philosophical argument, it should be recognized here that there are epistemological limits in place that make it impossible to prove the existence of any physical system in an absolute way. (See Brain In a Vat.) As such, it is not my burden to absolutely prove a spherical Earth, but instead to provide enough evidence for it that it is considered far more likely than any other alternative. Round Structure R1: Acceptance R2-3: Argumentation R4-5: Argumentation/Rebuttals (No new arguments.) This is fairly standard. I'd like to thank Edlvsjd in advance for accepting. Should you require any changes, just tell me in the comments and I'll make said changes.
do pokemon really exist

What is existence ? is it when an idea is palpable to the senses or when conceptions materialise ? I have known Pokemon from time as nothing more than "Fiction". If for any reason, a character had been existing, it would have been clearly stated in the course of the game, as it was being used, and for that reason, It would become popular, people would breed and cross breed. Experiments will thrive, discoveries will be made, and so on.... On the other hand, if a character materialised by virtue of fictional application, Then we would rightfully say that we can "Make real creatures by imagining them", which won't be of a human tendency. Still yet, Pokemon might obliviously exist prior to concept, and then imagination could be said to lead existence. This means that whatever I imagine must have been existing. If Pokemon exists, and I, not knowing, imagine it, Then, whatever I imagine, although not knowing should have been existing.
The US Should Leave the International Monetary Fund

My opponent likes to claim that the Argentinian government grew due to the IMF, but its original policies towards Argentina crippled the country. In a Washington Post articled by Paul Blustein cited by the website Global Policy Forum, evidence is shown that the IMF crippled Argentina and an internal audit confirms that. (http://www.globalpolicy.org...) "It would have been an ugly crisis anyway, but perhaps not quite as bad if the fund had supported a change in strategy earlier," said Isabelle Mateos y Lago, an economist from the IMF's Independent Evaluation Office, the group that made the internal IMF audit. So even if Argentina eventually leveled out, it was not do to the IMF, as in 2005 the country was already re-investigating the benefits of the deal. Greece is a great example of another IMF failure, (http://www.imf.org..., http://www.npr.org...) "There were also notable failures. Market confidence was not restored, the banking system lost 30 percent of its deposits, and the economy encountered a much deeper-than-expected recession with exceptionally high unemployment. Public debt remained too high and eventually had to be restructured, with collateral damage for bank balance sheets that were also weakened by the recession. Competitiveness improved somewhat on the back of falling wages, but structural reforms stalled and productivity gains proved elusive." So as we can see, the IMF does not help in any way. The other two examples of return stated by CON are isolated and not fully due to the IMF intervention, in the majority of cases the IMF does not assist. Another example is that of 1999 Brazil, where in the Cato Institute said "Yet another financial crisis has arrived, this time in Brazil. It wasn"t supposed to happen: last fall, Washington replenished the treasury of the International Monetary Fund, which then organized a $41.5 billion loan package to bolster the Brazilian economy. Brazil"s experience demonstrates yet again that the IMF is a problem, not a solution." (http://www.cato.org...) Finally, my opponent claims I am not following the resolution, but why should the US support a bad organization. If I can prove the IMF is not beneficial then the US should leave and not support it. It is an unfair system that does not promote economic tranquility for the globe. I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate, with us both accidentally skipping a round. Thanks to anyone who votes and I urge you all to vote Pro/Aff
The US Should Leave the International Monetary Fund

As pro, I am arguing FOR the exit of the United States of America (US) from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). I believe the pro side, me, should prove that the IMF is flawed and the United States should not be in it or supporting it. In essence I need to show drawbacks of IMF. The neg case must prove the IMF is good, and has beneficial impacts. The case should be decided on who has proved that the IMF is either more beneficial than harmful or more harmful than beneficial. Thank you, looking forward to a good debate, and my first debate on debate.org.
All forms of gambling should be legal

Sorry, but 'forms of gambling' should be pretty commonsense. Go into any casino and ask 'what forms of gambling do you offer'. They won't look stunned not knowing what you mean. "Are they asking do we have unregulated forms of gambling??" According to you, I should have also defined 'money' 'goods' and 'primary intent' lest you get to define them in some absurd way yourself. If you were unclear of what a phrase meant, you should have asked for clear definition in the comment. Again, the phrase is pretty obvious. Do any search for forms of gambling and you will get something close to the list I provided, not legal, illegal, regulated, or unregulated. As my opponent has given no clear argument, other than a conflation between legality and regulation and the action of wagering and what is being wagered on, I am left with little to rebuttal. I am finishing this last round by again repeating that con has not debated the position of pro, by avoiding the issue of legality.
All forms of gambling should be legal

For one, you never set up the base for the debate seeing how the resolutions states : "ALL FORMS" of gambling should be legal this includes all forms of gambling which includes legal and Non-legal things as of right now. Since you did not set up the debate i did, If you wanted to argue what you have stated now you should have changed your resolution. Clearly what i have set up is valid seeing how the resolution says all forms and you must argue all forms.
All forms of gambling should be legal

My opponent has made a few categorical errors. First, legality does not infer regulatory status. Again, I am arguing all forms of gambling should be legal, not unregulated. By 'forms' maybe he mistook it as meaning regulated or unregulated. For the novice, here is a general list of forms of gambling: Sports betting Card Games Horse Track Gambling Stock Market Video Poker Insurance Slots/Keno Scratchers/Lottery Video keno/slots Many of these are already made legal everywhere, such as insurance and investments. I am arguing that all other forms should be made legal everywhere as well. Again, regulation is not my argument, rather the legality. I do not have to agree that you can bet your house, as again, that is an issue of regulation. Fwiw, you already can in the market and I would not personally be against it, but that is not material in this debate. I, as well, must not argue for private corporations to open up arenas in which people fight to the death. One legal thing cannot beget another on its back. That is, legalizing gambling does not legalize the action of killing a person. Only the legalization of the wager is at hand, not what is being wagered on. Ie, wagering on a voluntary game of football is of no issue. On the other hand, opening up an illegal establishment, is not only clearly wrong-headed, but not material in this debate either. Again, my opponent is, either innocently or purposefully, conflating the issues of legality and regulation. He is conflating the acts of wagering with such issues of what it is being wagered on (and thinking that we must open up illegal establishments to create something to wager on) and how much is wagered.
All forms of gambling should be legal

I will argue that regulated gambling should be the only gambling that is legal like Las Vagas. This being that unregulated gambling rings can be made to cheat the players out of their money and have not even the slightest chance for winning, and scamming. As well my opponent says all types of gambling so therefore must agree that betting your house and car etc as viable options. As well he must argue that we should start a arena and have people fight to the death and gamble on the winner as he does say all forms of gambling. This is from poker to whatever you could possible bet on, so we must say this could be a wide range of absurdities to anything which is immoral.
Mono-word battle

This is a word battle where each person will post one word and the voters may decide who posted a better word. There will be restrictions on the type of word you can use though. The word must be appropriate and must not contain any extra meaning. If the word has multiple meanings, then all of the meanings must be appropriate. The characters of the word must be over 4. The word must also be a word that the person already knows and not a word that he will learn later on. This debate has two rounds because we will post our word in the second round.
student of different levels of intelligence should be taught separetly

Hello friend!You are welcome! I think you misunderstood because I said that if they study together students with less intelligence may demoralize when they can't solve problems as their intelligence class maters do.That's why it is unprofitable for both students.And they will ask from theirselves why I am so stupid? in the case of studying separately they will not know how intelligence students are? In my point of view students with less intelligence gain more than intelligence students do. Firstly,they will motivate each other by saying that we are like other students,in fact they don't know how thy are clever!Secondly,they will feel theirselves comfortable,they can ask when they don't understand something related to subject and there are nobody who will laugh at them even it is so simple question.if they study together students even can't say that it is not clear for them at all. Finally,students who are capable will go further and further but other will stick on one topic or chapter.If teacher will explain one topic lots of time it will be boring and uninspired for another students.And they waste their precious time for nothing!Moreover gifted students feel restricted in terms of intellectual freedom.They deserve more sophisticated and comprehensive assignments and deeper knowledge but cannot ,and this will cause them to de motivated later on. There will be advantage if they should be taught separately,and instructors can take advantage as well.Because they can take care of their students better and give them more appropriate education.And teachers will be satisfied from their final work!
student of different levels of intelligence should be taught separetly

Thank you friend for starting this argument... Firstly you contradicted yourself by saying that a student feels demoralized if other student solves a problem, which he couldn't. Then what will be the effect on a student if he is grouped under lower level of intelligence to be taught separately? will he not demoralize? The different level of intelligence is because of the difference in the interests among different students who are grouped together for studying a particular curriculum. It is only a difference but not discrimination and the students who mistook it as a discrimination will get demoralize. Teacher should take care that any act which brings the idea of division among students in any aspect should be avoided; exams,tests shouldn't be conducted.
student of different levels of intelligence should be taught separetly

Hello everyone!My position of student of different levels of intelligence should be taught separetly is Yes they should!Because everyone of us know that increasing the level of intelligence and knowledge is playing essential role in this life.Thats why they should be taught separetly at all.If we think from the point of different people views we come to conclusion that it is very valuable whether it is intelligent student or not.Fist of all if imagine that they study together in one group,and instrustor gave them exercise which is quite easy.No doubt students who have a higher level of intelligence and practice will solve the problem firstly.Even time is up other students couldnt do that exercise.What it will be after that situation?Do you know?if you dont know,let me tell.In this case students who didnt solve that problem will feel theirselves as a stupid one, as a loser as well.There will be always questions in the minds such as "How come my friends can answer such difficult questions but they cannot?" "Why other people can resolve the exercises but I cannot?"it will lead to demoralization and weariness in these students,
student of different levels of intelligence should be taught separetly

Exactly we should separete them in order to benefit and help them in their further future.It really help them,even scientist named Jeremy said in his online academic journal that it is our commitment to look for a suitable fashion to educate intelligence students. Because he mentioned that if the gifted child is not recognized he or she quickly becomes bored and disinterested with contend taught.And thats why we shouldnt be guilty of losing intelligence students's desire and demotivated at all.On the other hand students with less intelligence also will have a chance to involve another things which they interested in.And finally they will not distrub or interfere each -other in any way.I am not actually dicriminate them or blame them at all,i just considered a way which is beneficial to both students with different level of intelligence.
student of different levels of intelligence should be taught separetly

Lets make it clear... According to you, students of more intelligence are put together in one class and students of less intelligence are put together in other class, and they will be taught separately; and the students of latter class encourage one another. The main point you are not noticing is that once a student know that he was put in less intelligence class, will he not feel demoralize? Instead of encouraging one another if they feel that they are cursed and not capable of studying , what will be the effect?