BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself.

Rules:1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions per round.2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. Clarification may be added to any answer.3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5.4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over.5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, CON wins.7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate.8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate.9. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses.10. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.11. Slang terms will not be used (i. e. a horse means the animal, not heroin)12. No asking questions about in-debate questions. (i. e. Was the answer to question #17 No?
[Short Debate]: This House Believes that Socialism is Superior to Capitalism

Hi, and thanks for such a quick reply! I'll go ahead and accept your definition of capitalism, since it's pretty similar to the one that I gave you. Keep in mind that this is the last round, so asking me questions won't really help, and new points shouldn't really be brought into play unless they refute the opponent's case! Alright, let's get into this.REFUTATIONS: My opponent has stated, "The big names in Socialism are Russia, China, and Cuba", while the Russia and Cuba parts of that statement are not true (China is technically Socialist). People in the modern era do not know the difference between Communist States and Socialist States, but that's okay! You are on the right track of thinking, however these nations have a much more extreme sense of Marxist Socialism so it is not true to say that they are, in essence, socialist. Here are some nations that are, indeed, Socialist: China (you are correct in saying China!), Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand, and Belgium [1]. Comparing these nations to the happiness index of the world says that the Capitalist Countries that you mentioned are behind that of socialist ones, [2]. My opponent has also said that socialist nations oftentimes do not work, but I would like to point out that many of the nations that I mentioned are working just fine, and are expected to actually grow in GDP faster than the United States. My opponent has implied, in his second contention, that socialism oftentimes leads to dictatorships and authoritarian governments (such as the example of Stalin), but this is simply not the case. I'm thankful that he spelled out that too much power wasn't indeed socialism, rather communism, but the fact that he implied that socialism leads to this is wrong. If you look at the Netherlands, they are in fact a Kingdom with a socialist economic system. Now, the Netherlands is not leading into an economic recession, so it is not fair to say that a dictator will rise from the ashes of what you say will be left of all socialist nations [3]. I would also like to point out that my opponent only has one source for his entire case, so the validity of his information is sketchy. For the reasons that I outlined in my case, as well as my refutations, vote PRO on RESOLVED: SOCIALISM, ON BALANCE, IS SUPERIOR TO CAPITALISM. Again, thanks to my opponent! I hope you had fun, since I did too! [1]: blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/[2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Planet_Index[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands
[Short Debate]: This House Believes that Socialism is Superior to Capitalism

I stand in negation of the resolution: Resolved: Socialism, On Balance, is superior to Capitalism. Definitions: For the sake of this debate, I will define Capitalism as: the economic system under which the ownership of goods and services are privately owned, and decisions concerning pricing, investments, and distribution are determined in a free market system, primarily on the basis of competition between businesses. [1] Case: Contention 1: Socialism in the past has never truly succeeded. Capitalism is the only type of economic system that can truly succeed for long periods of time. Capitalism in countries like The United Kingdom, France, Spain, Etc. have been working since the mid 1700"s. Socialism is a relatively new concept when compared side by side to Capitalism. The big names in Socialism are Russia, China, and Cuba. All three of those countries have not been extremely successful in keeping a socialist economic system. Russia and China have only been socialist countries for around 60 years, where Capitalist countries have been around for thousands of years, and have been successful at it. Contention 2: Secondly, capitalism is a better economic lifestyle because it limits the power of the government. "In a socialistic economy, the government owns and controls almost everything, from the businesses to the means of production. Capitalism also has what is known as a free market economy, and with the free market economy come competition. Socialistic countries are the complete opposite, which means that their products are sold at prices set by the government and the idea of "individual or corporate profits" Some see the government controlling all the means of production and businesses as a wise and wonderful thing because they believe that being "divided from one another by inequalities of wealth" will give the power to control the economy to the most wealthy instead of to everyone, and they would rather the government control it instead of those elite and wealthy few. However, sometimes giving the government too much power and control can lead to communism. This is exactly what happened to Russia and several other countries. 'anytime, an individual will take advantage of the failing economy of a country and become a dictator, as Stalin did. In Conclusion, Both capitalism and socialism have their high and low points, but on balance, a capitalistic economic structure is far more superior than a socialistic economic structure. [1]http://www.academia.edu...
Donald Trump is a facist (or his works eventualy will lead to a facist nation)

I fail to understand why you would even begin to think this. What it means to be a "Fascist Nation" is that he would have total control over the government, The people, Over everything. And this would never even work in the first place, Because first off he would have to change multiple amendments and make new ones, Which takes about three-five weeks each. And while he is doing that Republicans, And Democrats would see what he is doing and veto those laws amendments asap. The whole idea that Trump is turning this government is a joke.
universe,time ever existent

I think it is admirable that you are 17 years old and already pondering some of the most complicated and mind boggling problems that we face in trying to determine the origin of basically everything we know today. Curious minds and bold questions are what drives new discoveries and explanations. I do believe in this case that your curiosity may be misguided sadly. It is the uniformity of the CBR which rules out interference from the death of stars or the creation/destruction of matter. If it was caused by such things then a higher or lower value would be measured based on the direction in which you measured it in. Stars are not uniformly distributed in space, they exist in clusters known as galaxies and within these galaxies there are areas of high densities of stars such as nebulae as well as individually. The Universe couldn't expand from a steady state as the whole point of a steady state is that it is in equilibrium and has no reason to expand. It would require a massive influx of energy or an "explosion" to cause it to expand. This explosion would have to be of a magnitude far greater than that of the big bang, no remnants of this magnitude is measured today. If you are still not convinced by this debate then please feel free to contact me in a message and I would be happy to recommend some textbooks, reading material and other sources which may be able to persuade you. I like you have always been curious about the origins of the Universe and went on to study physics and cosmology after school at University, I do alot of reading and research in my own time and the big bang theory far surpasses the steady state theory in evidence and logical sense.
universe,time ever existent

i have read about the cosmic background radiation and doppler effect but my ignorant mind never pondered those paths. for CBR i can say that what we belive now is that this after-radiation is the result of big bang and death of old stars but one can also say that since matter was created and destroyed throughout infinity then these radiation was coming from matter destroyed long ago and not from big bang, as for uniformity we know that stars are distributed uniformly so it means they were destroyed at same time which can be the explanation of CBR. for doppler effect we state that if universe was expanding for infinite time then we would not be able observe the shift but it doesnt state that universe had a begining. maybe universe just started to expand and before it there was a steady constant universe it doesnt point that it had a begining. if i were to join steady state theory with expanding universe theory them i would say that for time universe was a constant entity (steady state) and due to some reason it started expanding (expanding universe theory) the reason may be still unclear or maybe i am wrong and you won the debate. :) it was my first debate and next time i will make sure universe was never created.
universe,time ever existent

the steady state theory states that matter is produced and destroyed simultaneously thus there is no net change. it supports my theory, since matter is produed and destroyed then there is no point in space time coordinate that must show a begining; because begining would mean only production and no destruction of matter, so both time and universe is existing forever. i got this idea when i was reading 'the theory of everything' in that book, stephen states three possibilities of origin; one is big bang and expanding universe till infinity, second was big bang and big crunch, and most importantly third was universe and time existing forever.
universe,time ever existent

Hi, This is a theory known as the "Steady State Theory". Interestingly enough it was accepted by many prominent physicists when it was first introduced. It has now been disregarded, and the big bang theory has shown such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it is now widely accepted in the scientific community and does seem to be indicative of the reality in which we live. Before we start this debate, I would just like to clarify what evolution you are talking about. Do you simply mean evolution of the universe as in the big bang and expanding space or do you include the evolution of species? If you could reply in the comments or perhaps your following argument then that might clear some things up for me. Thank you, and I am looking forward to this debate.
Richard Dawkins' refusal to debate William Lane Craig is cowardly and hypocritical.

Richard's Dawkins refusal to debate William Lane Craig is obviously not cowardly and hypocritical. Craig is not a top debater and supper effective. Craig has lost debates to many atheist such as Lawrence Krauss. Dawkins has no reason to debate Craig, what does Dawkins have to prove? He is obviously a master debater and is much more effective than Craig.
Richard Dawkins' refusal to debate William Lane Craig is cowardly and hypocritical.

Although Dawkins travels around the world, debating religious people of all stripes, he refuses to debate William Lane Craig. Dawkins claims, among other things, that Craig is simply trying to use Dawkins to add to his own reputation. There is no evidence for this view, as Craig has, for years if not decades, also been traveling around the world debating both atheists and theists. It is not unreasonable to infer that Dawkins is afraid of Craig, who is one of the most accomplished and effective debaters alive today.
THB: Extraterrestrial life exists

[reposting because someone accepted but then never posted an argument. Please do not accept the debate if you are going to fail to post any arguments] R1: Definitions, acceptance, pronoun introduction. No arguments should be offered. Any arguments offered should be ignored by voters. The definitions provided by pro will be the definitions used for the duration of the debate- Con needn't provide definitions, unless they are for a word which Pro has not yet defined. R2: Main body of argument. Con may add rebuttal. R3: Rebuttal and summation. No new points may be offered. New points argued in R3 should be ignored by voters. New rebuttal may, however, be offered. Please use she/her pronouns for me. I will default to using "they" pronouns for anyone else unless I am told otherwise. Definitions: "THB": Abbreviation for "This house believes" i.e. the claim being argued. "Extraterrestrial": Originating from a planet other than Earth. "Life": Anything capable of "MRS GREN" (see source 1 for explanation). Sources: 1: http://basicbiology.net...
LD is better than PFD

On my last debate regarding which was a better form of debate, Policy or Public Forum joshuaXlawyer commented saying he hated them both and prefered LD. As I did LD in high school (and can feel a similar sentiment) I though this would be a fun debate. Round 1 is for greeting and acceptance/declines rounds 2-4 are for the debate portion. Again, like I said I actually did LD, so my opponent if he so desires could even structure his arguments in an LD style, complete with Value, Criteria and Contentions. (just a thought any way) :P Rules- -All arguments, attacks, and rebuttles must be structured. -No hate speech, if you have a qualm there must be reason behind it. -No foul language, let's keep it clean. Other than that let's have some fun!
The Elo System Should be Changed in DDO

I may have been a bit unclear. Since in chess the only difference is between non-grandmasters and grandmasters, certainly the elo system could improve with the top-debaters haveing a different formula from the rest of the debaters. Once again, the distribution might be a bit different due to the K-factor, but as far as we're concerned, the same exact formula is used for noobies as it is used for Mikal, which is a bit unfair for both those noobs as well as Mikal. The same problems won't exist because the research shows especially in chess that using different K-factors can be more accurate. As for the argument you say for more accrately displaying debating skills, the big problem is multiple accounts, every single time the guy decides to switch accounts for some reason, they go back to 2,000 elo. I think the elo calculation formula should give a boost or a disadvantage each time someone switches accounts, so if some dude was 1,000 elo and wanted the easy way out, we'd still give him 1,900, (10% of his original elo) something to work with, and a chance to get back up, while still hindering him a little bit to display his skills before he switched accounts.Matchmaking system: this is an interesting idea. However this new system now prevents you from challenging a tough debater and getting a challenge. For example the two great debaters on this site, many people claim they are both the greatest on the website, however, their elo is massively apart. On one hand we have 4,386 elo Raisor [1], on the other hand we have the humongous 6,460 Bluesteel [2]. Based on your formula, these two amazing dudes can't challagenge each other for the ultimate challenge to see who's really the best. It also prevents other people from challenging top debaters. Although we know there is little chance for the challenger to win, the debate still increases your skills a lot, and you learn from the failure. Non-rated debates: I forgot to tell you. This is actualy already possible. If you agree to tie the debate and hire a good judge or an inactive DDO user, then certainly nobody's elo would change.Don't count full forfeits: Full forfeits are dumb. The noobs should be taught lessons about it, and the only way to do so is to have them lose the debate. It's the only way.Requires paid work: I told you. Here's the problem: the K-factor is too static, it needs to change depending on the elo of the DDO user. Once again, another good suggestion is a bigger advantage or a bigger disadvantage, especially for the lower-elo users. These changes certainly will improve the elo-system and make it more accurate.CONCLUSIONI've shown a better elo system than the current, and also shown the opponent's changes to be pretty much useless, as most of them already exist or fulfill a useful purpose.This was a good debate ArcTimes. I hope I become the second person to beat you (after Fuzzy). :PVOTE ME.[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...
Resolved: The USFG Should Act to Close the Gender Wage Gap

I suppose I'll just copy and paste my opening arguments from the previous debate. 1. Wage DiscrepancyI thought it might be useful to first prove the severity of this institutionalized discrimination."Some argue that the wage gap is purely due to 'women's choices,' but such a characterization hides the cultural and social factors that go into women's decisions to enter or stay in a particular job. Moreover, even when women choose the same jobs as men, the wage gap persists... male surgeons earn 37.76 percent more per week than their female counterparts. In real terms, this means that a female surgeon earns $756 less per week than her male colleague, which adds up to nearly $40,000 over the course of a year." [1] We all know that a woman makes 78 cents to a man's dollar [2], but you say that thed gender gap disappears when you take into account whether or not men and women are working the same jobs. This is not so. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association conducted a study that concluded, "Gender differences in salary exist in this select, homogeneous cohort of mid-career academic physicians, even after adjustment for differences in specialty, institutional characteristics, academic productivity, academic rank, work hours, and other factors."[3] Thus, your claim that "...men do the hard work and labor. And hard labor usually means more money" is simply untrue.The National Women's Law Center published a report in 2014 that said, "Women with only a high school degree are 24 percent of the low-wage workforce, double theirshare of the overall workforce (12 percent). Men with only a high school degree are underrepresented in the low-wage workforce: they are 12 percent of the low-wage workforce, 0.8 times their share of the overall workforce (15 percent)." [4] This means that women need more education than men simply to acheive equal pay. As the Washington Post puts it, "Men in the United States...require less education to achieve higher pay." [5]I will add more arguments in further rounds as necessary. I believe I have proven that the severity of discrimination is sufficient to warrant legislative action.Good luck with your opening arguments!Sources1. http://www.newsweek.com......2. http://www.aauw.org......3. http://jama.jamanetwork.com......4. http://www.nwlc.org......5. https://www.washingtonpost.com......
Resolved: The USFG Should Act to Close the Gender Wage Gap

Hello! I saw your post on this opinion (. http://www.debate.org......) and thought that this would make an interesting debate, should you accept it. DefinitionsUSFG: United States Federal Government (specifically the legislative and executive branches)Gender Wage Gap: The difference between the amounts of money paid to women and men, often for doing the same work: (. http://dictionary.cambridge.org......)First
Start of the day is in the morning.

Thank you for accepting the challenge. Pro The scriptural day starts in the morning. Con will try and show, From scripture, That evening is the start of every day. Everything in today's western world is upside down. I believe it starts with each our hearts. Up all night, Sleep all day. Bad is good, Boy is girl. Nothing is true, Everything is permitted. It's my belief the whore of religion to be a major cause of the chaos of the world through exacerbated fairytales. Use you're bible to prove a scriptural day starts in the evening. *My main point is the (((scriptural))) day starts in the morning. *Con will try and show from (((scripture))) that evening is the start of every day. *You disagreeing on the signs of the times having relevance in this discussion is itself irrelevant. Day starting in the evening is indeed upside down as any example given. You seem to agree, Saying, "Of course the start of the day is morning". This leads me to believe you don't understand the following. *Judaism and Christianity make the claim each day starts with evening. As Con you prove this concept. I didn't ask for the more modern Roman concepts of time the world now uses. *Use you're bible to prove a scriptural day starts in the evening. I'm waiting.
Start of the day is in the morning.

Con will try and show, From scripture, That evening is the start of every day. Everything in today's western world is upside down. I believe it starts with each our hearts. Up all night, Sleep all day. Bad is good, Boy is girl. Nothing is true, Everything is permitted. It's my belief the whore of religion to be a major cause of the chaos of the world through exacerbated fairytales. " It is called Time Zones, Of course the start of the day is morning, But it doesn't turn into day automatically, It is still dark until around 8-10am, Then it is complete day. And other than what you said about time, You said "Bad is good" and "boy is girl" which completely has nothing to do with Time Zone (s) or nothing to do with religion or "The Bible" and it is completely baseless, I'm not going to prove that a "boy is girl" and that "Good Is Bad", It's complete nonsense. You can find the definition of a Time Zone here: . http://www. Thefreedictionary. Com/Timezone
Start of the day is in the morning.

The scriptural day starts in the morning. Con will try and show, From scripture, That evening is the start of every day. Everything in today's western world is upside down. I believe it starts with each our hearts. Up all night, Sleep all day. Bad is good, Boy is girl. Nothing is true, Everything is permitted. It's my belief the whore of religion to be a major cause of the chaos of the world through exacerbated fairytales. Use you're bible to prove a scriptural day starts in the evening.
Yo dawg joke contest

Yo dawg I heard you like cracking "In Communist Russia" jokes. So I relocated you in Communist Russia so you can crack "In Communist Russia" jokes while you crack In-Communist Russia jokes.Yo dawg I heard you like to watch movies. So I made a movie wiith movie references in it so you can watch a movie while you watch a movie.Yo dawg I heard you like rap music. So I made you an hour's supply of PB&J's so you can jam while you jam.
Yo dawg joke contest

Yo dawg, I heard you like to read memes. So I filled your pictures with the word "meme" so you can read memes while you read memes.Yo dawg I heard you like dawgs, dawg. So I put a dawg in yo dawg so you can have a dawg while you have a dawg, dawg.Yo dawg I heard you like video games. So I made a game that puts you in the role of a gamer so you can play a video game while you play a video game.