BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A smarter way to communicate with your toddler is thru sign

with all the respect to the instigator i would like to say that there is minimal research to determine that teaching babies sign language increases their motor and auditory skills, meaning that the instigators main argument as to why teaching young children sign language is good or rather helpful is very inadequate. Not only are there very few researches done but the amount of babies in these studies were quite small. As to the last part stated by the instigator " Signing has been shown to decrease tantrums on kids due to not knowing how to express their needs and wants " some Researchers would counter with the fact that when the baby that has learned signing is left with someone who cannot sign they often times begin to throw tantrums because they cannot be understood right away. Therefore teaching babies sign language in order to limit tantrums would cause the child to be irritant when they are not tended to immediately thus causing what they intended on preventing. this will be the end of my round one argument. Any sources used will be placed below: http://babyhandsignlanguage.blogspot.com... http://everydaylife.globalpost.com...
A smarter way to communicate with your toddler is thru sign

A child should be taught baby sign language in order to increase their motor and auditory skills at young age. Kids that have been taught baby sign seem to have better motor and auditory skills then those kids who don't know how to sign. Signing is a great way to communicate with your child and teach them a way to talk to you with their hands while they learn to talk. Signing has been shown to decrease tantrums on kids due to not knowing how to express their needs and wants.
the name domenico is homosexual

No, i'm no homosexual. I'm just deducing information from the limited amount of data i've got. I try to expose reality to healthy skepticism and scientific data so i can extract information that will in turn let me acquire truth (And who knows, maybe even win the debate). Obviously there was another option, which is the one you said: "^^^^ me and my friend domenico made this as a joke calm down you homosexual, you are obviously one" First, I would suggest using punctuation marks. They are useful. Now, let's proceed by making an analysis of what you are saying. Let's assume that the fact that it is a joke is true: "calm down you homosexual, you are obviously one" Once again this is not a rational statement since there is no logical justification, nor it makes sense with the topic of debate, so we can deduce that it has an irrational origin. Now, why would someone say that? He could have only said "Calm down, it was a joke". But there was a motivation to imply that I am homosexual. If there is a motivation, there is a need. Calling someone else a homosexual is not a natural need, it must have been gotten from experience, through conditioning and learning. And this pretty much looks like an aggressive self-defense response (Since calling names can be considered aggressive). So we have two options: 1.- You have homosexual/bisexual tendencies and deny them. 2.- You have been conditioned to respond in this way by experience. In any case, your arguments aren't valid since you are not even aware of the reasons that make you act this way. I suggest taking a look at this link and using the most appropriate procedure according to your state and your friend's: http://curehomophobia.org...
the name domenico is homosexual

Since there has been no response i might have to get this information through research. Now, obviously names don't make any difference in sexual orientation. At least, there is no proof of that. Epigenetics is believed to be one of the causes. There is no proof that names have an impact on epigenetics. Other theories involve cultural influence, taking the Greeks' cultural perspective into account, in which men were not seen any better or any worse if they had sex with another man, unless they were the passive ones in sex. As I see, your account was created 3 days ago, just exactly the same as this debate. So we can easily assume that if one creates an account and directly creates a debate called "The name Domenico is homosexual", there is some personal motivation for doing so. Now let's examine Pro's words: "i have a friend called domenico he is a homosexual idiot" There's no rational thinking in these words, no logical pattern. Just simple statements. So we can assume that he didn't acquire this information through abstract thinking or logic, but emotional and passionate thinking (aka irrationality) He joins the words "Homosexual" and "Idiot", somehow implying that there's a relationship between "homosexual" and "idiot" (Either way he would have said he is an idiot, not a "homosexual idiot"). He doesn't justify this through logic, so we can assume again this is an irrational statement. "Idiot" is an offensive word. Since Pro uses this term in an irrational way we can deduce that he has something against homosexuals and/or his friend being gay. In any case, he has a problem with homosexuality (That's called homophobia). According to a relatively recent study, Homophobia is associated with Homosexual Arousal. http://www.landman-psychology.com... So we can safely say that Pro has not yet accepted his homosexual/bisexual tendencies. Now how does this justify my point? If you know he is homosexual, more people probably know. If he told someone about the way he is, that means he is accepting himself, just the way he is. Self-acceptance is a smart decision to choose because it is one of the healthiest ones. "Idiots" don't make wise decisions. According to Merriam-Webster: Idiot: 1 usually offensive : a person affected with extreme mental retardation 2 : a foolish or stupid person Your friend Domenico (From the information i can deduce) does not appear to be idiotic, since he can make good choices for his own physical, mental and social health.
Rap battle

Keep me in prison? Bitch, you can't afford dashiki, so listen. I'll push you out of the way like I'm a piston, my rhymes shine though me like a prism. Your flow is outlawed because it's noise pollution. Mix some lil Wayne with one D, you're the solution. Think you stand out like a purple circle, But you're done already, you never lasted. And by the way, "busted" doesn't rhyme with flabbergasted! My mind is intricate as my lines are infinite. As for intricacy, I have no sympathy for my enemy, You can try your best and act like a friend of me , You're definitely not a rapper, you just pretend to be. You know me, I'm smooth as the trail of a zamboni. You look like you live in a motorhome, When it comes to weakness, you are an epitome.
Rap battle

Ray is into antidisestablishmentarianism, I'll let him keep Anglican status while he prays in the prison I never meant to lock him there, he went as a volunteer When I started to rhyme, he had no gut to stay here My flow is banned, it's illegal, but I've never been busted Three hours passed and my opponent is still flabbergasted I don't need fossil fuel, I work on solar and blow steam Even if Ray had a drone, he couldn't escape my regime I am smarter then Einstein and stronger then Barbarian I am like an all-powerful God, except I am humanitarian I show mercy to every one of bitches that praise my cock Which is bigger then the mountain and harder then any rock
Rap battle

You're pissed man, look kinda soar, left you twisted up like a wind-up doll, After I crack apart your spinal-cord Til it ain't a straight line no more, shitt stickin' out of your back like a dinosaur! Listen, no one's a fan of a man in a bandana who's styles been banned 'cause we all can't stand ya! I demand that you stand, while I backhand ya. You never planned to be as endangered as a panda! You learned to rap, as soon as you read mine, "The entire land"? b*tch, you still have a bed-time, You can't rule shitt, 'cause nothing said rhymes! This wasn't my flow, just an introduction. You're not the first to taste my lyrical destruction. Syllables react in my head like combustion, Hard to battle you kid, when you need to be tucked in.
Rap battle

First of all, my sight is outstanding I closed my eyes not to see your ugly face You can't rap, but you keep pretending So I am boarding you into the outer space It is good that you told me your name Because I have never heard of you before You have no money, power or fame I am the guy that all the beautiful girls adore As for the fame, you even knew my age I have money neither, I ain't gotta pay *hit I am both absolute monarch and sage Kingdoms I rule, and deepest wisdom I spit What I feel for you is not hate, its pity Give me ya finger and I'll bite of entire hand You try hard, but your rhymes are *hitty You take orders in your house, I rule entire land Your bars were really lame Sorry for burying you, but that's point of the game.
Rap battle

Listen again cold mind, you sound old, blind, Unaware of what's going on around you, it's only round 2, and failure surrounds you! You're saying you're as fly as a bird with plate-male? You're just gonna fall hard and end up with hate mail. And yes motherfuckker, my rhymes collide side-by-side Challenge my mind, after 5 lines, you'll commit suicide You and I were meant to be enemies, who am I? My name is Ray P. I'll make you hate me, cause you aint me! you'll suffer greatly, you're 18, but rap like you're 8, geez. And the only thing I let linger is when I toss up my middle finger, Declare myself the winner and leave it pointing at every singer. Including the guy who's rhymes I'm facing Since he cant rap, look at all the time I'm wasting
Rap battle

I listened to your verse because you made a request You sound like a baby bird then fell from the nest But you ain't that big, you are a small-sized pest You are trying to rhyme two words standing together Your flow is as fly as bird with not a single feather My armor is from steel, and yours is from leather You are not my friend, because I don't hang with scum Get some balls, you are so soft, I linger you like a gum It's okay - you can't rap, but you can't even make a girl cum Throw all your rhymes on pile and make them burn Before you can battle me, you have a lot to learn I'll spare you for a while; Go on, your turn!
There Is No Such Thing As "Human", As It's All Subatomic Particles.

Counter-Argument 1: No, because you're either particles - or still particles, just they are called "human" for whatever distinctive purpose there is to distinguish one thing from another - to distinguish something is not to define something, therefore calling particles human, animal, plant, or whatever does not remove the grand picture behind the notion of which they are still particles beneath the appearance they have given. Counter-Argument 2: They don't make us human - they are particles which created something that we call human. Us calling it something does not have any effect on the thing in itself. Counter-Argument 3: "We" are not; the particles "Are". The Universe planned our existence billions of years ago before the birth of stars, by creating photo receptors; they are what allow us to observe this world today. There's no "human" - just like there's no "ghost", "faerie", "boogeyman" or "alien". It's all particles - these distinctions rip us away from the oneness we have as a relationship with the Universe. Counter-Counter-Argument 1: Being conscious is merely the water of our bodily system reflecting upon the world via the eyes of this Universe - we are experiencing the experiencing Universe; we are not experiencing anything more than what the Universe is. It's not "our" experience; it's the Universe's experience, hence why everything that "we" are, was premeditated before the birth of stars. Being intelligent is still based on observation and analysis - these are not high-grade elements of the brain, hence why tyrants, serial killers and psychopaths are highly analytic. Counter-Counter-Argument 2: They are merely cosmic sponges that soak up already existing information throughout the Universe, then managing that information via an already built-in system of reaction and assessment. There's nothing "human" - it's all particles in the end. There's no "I", "me" or "what is", because this Universe isn't finished - it's an unfinished design - so are we. When someone asks me how to answer "Who am I?", I tell them specifically: "I Am Everything (The Unfinished Design); I Am Nothing (Being The Unfinished Design).
There Is No Such Thing As "Human", As It's All Subatomic Particles.

Argument 1: We are both composed of particles and human. These two do not have to be mutually exclusive. Argument 2: Our particles are arranged in such a way as to make us human with complex parts such as ears, eyes, heart, etc. Argument 3: We are highly intelligent and are capable of novel ideas and actions. We have made discoveries about the universe. We have built machines that can take us to the moon. Any arrangement of particles could not do this. Argument 4: We are sentient and self-aware. Particles in any arrangement cannot see, think, feel, and wonder about their existence. Consciousness is a property of particles which is just dead matter. Consciousness is either an emergent property of particles when they are arranged properly, or the result of a soul. Counter-argument 1: One can draw analogies of our parts and actions to things in the universe, but our actions are done while conscious and intelligent while those in the universe are done from natural processes. Broad analogies does not mean sameness. Some elements of human processes elsewhere does not mean we are not human and unique as a whole. Counter-argument 2: Our emotions and minds may be based on matter and physical laws, but they are still capable of producing consciousness and high intelligence.
There Is No Such Thing As "Human", As It's All Subatomic Particles.

What you don't get is, that what you call "nice poetry" is the genius you are unable to comprehend because it's far beyond your current state of thinking. It's how the brain deflects what it does not understand - it makes things seem small, in spite of it being grand. The wise are wise, because they learned this and escaped from this illusion to accept their self-humility. You are ignorant - I'm not going to support anything that hasn't been taught to anyone or thought by anyone, as my entire brain has expanded beyond every man on this planet. You know why? I did not stop at wisdom - I did not stop at being humble - I mutated myself into this juxtaposition between holism and nihilism; Monster & Man. These are my genius ideas that are based on my research and my aggregated assessment based on my diligent analysis and all the things I sacrificed to come to these conclusions, just so an idiot like you can come onto this site and ask me to support it, when I have given you everything you need, just so you can call it poetry and miss the entire point that what you're doing is the result of your brain proving to me that you know nothing and I know more than you, as I truly self-disciplined myself to no end throughout these years of killing myself over and over again, while you never die once, which is why you're still ignorant, chemically imbalanced and causing me a lot of pain and frustration with your stupid lack of questioning and your political need for an answer that will never exist until you stop living for an answer - we are questions; this Universe is unfinished; we are unfinished; this Universe is a question. To want an answer in a cosmic slate that can destroy itself and recreate itself over and over again, is the pinnacle of your own idiocy, hence why you want "proof" when it's all around your negligent experience.
There Is No Such Thing As "Human", As It's All Subatomic Particles.

I never have issues with communication on my side, as I understand everyone to a grand level - if you cannot understand me, it's not because of how I say what I say; it's what I say - you can't fathom the knowledge I bare...[rambles on for couple paragraphs] Poor conduct. Tries to paint me as less intelligent. We are an experience - that's it. Nothing else to it. Unsupported claim. We experience - there's this blanket of nothingness that separates us from the Universe, everything in between is where we draw onto this nothingness with our speculations and conjectures. Unsupported claim. You are either the misunderstood Universe, or the Universe I do not understand this argument. Everything that we "are", is nothing because we exist in an unfinished design as unfinished projects - we are still evolving and learning outside of our individual experience Just because something is unfinished does not mean everything it is, is nothing. An unfinished cookie is definitely still an unfinished cookie. It is certainly not nothing. individual experience that is really the Universe experiencing itself, as we are the Universe, hence why oneness is even plausible. Unsupported claim from the last round. Our experiences and ideas are not even ours. It comes from the Universe. We just interpret our ideas and experiences poorly as we're ignorant and transient compared to the temporal spacial tapestry which encompasses us. Unsupported claim. I know consciousness through and through. Water reflects, so does consciousness. Water has proven that it can create picture and surreal worlds, as the chemicals that bathe our spinal cord and our brain create those dreams we have at night during our slumber. Nice poetry but still unsupported. the Universe can feel, thus experience Unsupported claim. I like how you ignored the part where I have mentioned that we are only able to observe today as we do because of the photo receptors located within our eyes, were formed billions of years ago before stars. If that's not evidence that the Universe planned human life after creates everything before it to specifically sustain human life - or more accurately, the Universe experiencing itself, then you are behind the most basic of knowledge. We are able to observe because of photo receptors, but there is no evidence they were formed billions of years ago. Unsupported. No, there's a reason why the wise manage to communicate with the Universe - we are the Universe. No if's, and's or buts. All inventions that stand today through the minds of geniuses, were given to these geniuses via dreams and daydreams - not the genius, themselves. Unsupported. We are not "human"; we are the holy trinity of fire, water and electricity throughout a system of subatomic faculties that all conglomerate so the Universe can evolve by experiencing itself. We are both human and made out of particles. You have no evidence the universe can evolve or experience itself.
There is no true evil naturally, and absolute good doesn't exists too

Thank you for your argument. Well, if we look at this problem from the evolutionary side. We evolved from previous species of genus Homo and other pre-mammal's, but as we and you know there is no evil in any animals and other species. So where did the evil naturally come from. As some monkeys we also live in groups, but our are very much more complicated and not only this ,our species lives also in a different hierarchy. The most, if not all "evil" people come from societies. This is because of rejection,humiliation, bad standards and other psychological problems that a society can cause. Like depression form the school inequality (guys make fun out of losers)... This isn't new, monkeys have a similar process of rejection, but they usually don't kill after that, except if there's a fight with the alpha male. Evil as described, can be everyone for a moment, just for fun, try it. But still all bad guys and bad woman's come from bad influence or bad growing up. This is also visible if we compare a child that lived in a rich moralistic family and a child that lived in garbage and fight for his food. Who is more likely to be "evil". The one who has everything or the one who has nothing. And what if bad beliefs (like Nazism) affect a person, his automatically "evil"? True 100% evil, of course cant exist. But a still quite very evil person can exist. But a healthy person simply couldn't be "evil", therefore evil cant exist naturally. A absolutely good person cant exist as well.
There is no true evil naturally, and absolute good doesn't exists too

Let me begin by saying that plants and animals do not apply to this arguement. Good and evil are ethical concepts, and ethics require sentience to be understood. Therefore, you are correct in saying that "absolute evil cant exist naturally," but incorrect in thinking that it must be natural. You also argue that humans "cant be evil without any disease or psychological problems or bad childhood." I don't quite understand how you think this furthers your point, but in reality, you admit that they do exist with these conditions. Even without these conditions, there are many, many examples of acts of tremendous evil committed by healthy people who had good childhoods. Adolf Eichman, for example was the right hand man Adolf Hitler, one of the most reviled, evil men in history. As for your examples, Osama Bin Laden is neither justified nor pardoned for his religion. Tomás de Torquemada, the first Grand Inquisitor of Spain was also a truly evil man, despite the fact that what he did was fueled solely by religion. Hitler was true evil, and no cloak of nationalism protects him from the fact that he was wholly evil. No one believes in a perfect, absolutely good human being. However, this does not mean that absolute good does not exist. "Evil People" can do good deeds. Similarly, "Good People" can do evil things. When you accept this, the question goes from whether there is true evil or absolute good, but what they are. Talking about God turns this debate to a theological one, and that's a completely different argument. It would be an interesting one, but off topic. And you are right, that is an amazing video.