BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Metaphysics Debate 3

Because this is a metaphysical debate, both of your definitions are debatable by me. That being what knowing nothing, what a wise man is, and what knowing at all is. If you want to have a true metaphysical debate, you will have to prove your definitions outside of a dictionary. The burden of proof is always on pro (he whom makes the claim of a belief as being true.) So, pro, now that the parameters of a metaphysical debate have been set, you must show me proof that your statement is logically correct.
Metaphysics Debate 3

Okay, I feel like debating metaphysical stuff, but I don't know which, so here are some topics, if you want to go PRO for the topics I list, we can change them to the negative, so as not to confuse anyone. 1. If we accept agnosticism, you can't prove anything. 2. If life is really but a dream, then we should still live it like it is reality. 3. Empirical evidence is not logically sound. 4. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is an unreasonable burden of proof. (The argument I have for this will be metaphysical.) 5. Cogito ergo sum is fundamentally flawed. 6. We should not acknowledge metaphysics. 7. The wise man is the man who knows he knows nothing For your r1 post, just say which topic and which side you want, R2 we can discuss parameters, R3-5 are for the actual debate.
LoL is better then Dota 2

First of all, we are talking about the games here, not the community or competitive scene, so lets stick with the games and their mechanics. Lets begin comparing with characters. Characters in LoL must be constantly released for Riot to make money. This means that they often release heroes that are unbalanced. If you deny this, google "riot plz nerf". That should indicate that there are some imbalances. In Dota 2, the balanced problem is solved with counters. Dota realizes that perfect balance is near impossible, so instead of releasing OP heroes and then nerfing them trying to find that perfect balance, Dota as some heroes that play very well against others. A good example is Slark and Bloodseeker. This means that even if a hero is slightly OP, there is always a hero to counter them. The heroes in Dota also have better abilities. Where LoL champs have spammable harasses, the abilities in Dota are far more powerful and cost a lot of mana. This rewards timing and strategy as you need to use them at just the right time. For example, the stuns in Dota are way longer, so if you time them right you can wreck the enemy team. Also, LoL champs have only one passive that you can't level up. Dota heroes have two usually and you can level them up These passives usually really change the game and the fact you can level them just adds to Dota's snowball effect. Dota has agility, intelligence, and strength which really makes the heroes different. Intelligence boost mana regen which makes spell-spamers like storm spirt totally differnt from agility heroes like faceless void which are mainly right clickers. LoL just has attack speed, attack damage, magic resistance and the like. Supports in LoL are mainly just healers, while in Dota they have more varied abilities. Over all the heroes in dota just feel so much more unique and specialized with totally unique skills. In LoL heroes seem so much more generic. Honestly, we also have to consider which of the two is more fun. In Dota, with a good start you can start snowballing so much easier then in dota. With good playing it's possible for you to get tripple kills on your own which is pretty fun.
Hitler went to Heaven

>Thanks to Brian_Eggleston for his response. >My opponent accepts my definitions. They are as applied below. >I'll move to the arguments which are as follows. (1) [The arguments] are under the grand assumption that heaven exists My opponent concedes that this cannot be proved either way. I agree to this, but if he can give us no proof at all except asking for a draw, why believe his claim? His cites that four fifths of the world believe this. And? That majority of the population is OFTEN wrong. As an example, EVERYONE used to think that the sun revolved around the earth (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Thus, the majority cannot always be trusted unless there is proof. There is none, thus this is the first way you negate. (2) [Proof] that God exists My response is identical to my last one; no proof ergo the second way you can negate. (3) [Assumption] the Holy Bible is entirely true My opponent against asks me to make a huge assumption. In an argument I can do that, in a debate everything must be proved. This cannot be, thus it is the third way you negate. Moving on to my argument about Matthew's bossiness, my opponent seems to agree. The essence of this argument, though, is that the Bible DOES NOT SAY THAT GOD COMPLIES. Thus, even under the assumption that the Bible is always true, it is here unyielding and thus proves nothing. Further, if you do not consider it new evidence (it is a part o the Holy Bible), in Jeremiah 3:12 God says that "[He is merciful, and [he] will not keep anger forever. " Thus God does actually claim to be omnibenevolent. (4) Hitler did not go to heaven My opponent describes this as "fair," thus you must negate here - the fourth reason.
Hitler went to Heaven

>I thank Brian_Eggleston for starting this debate. I hope that it will be a good one. >Brian has made the assertion that Hitler (I am assuming Adolf Hitler) went to heaven (I assume religious a reference; I will treat this as Christian). To win this debate, we will have to prove this. I will start off with some basic definitions. >Adolf Hitler: the Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP), also known as the Nazi Party; the ruler of Germany from 1933 to 1945, serving as Chancellor from 1933 to 1945 and as head of state (Fï¿½hrer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945 >Heaven: an afterlife (often held to exist in another realm) in various religions and spiritual philosophies, often described as the holiest possible place >Went: past tense of go >Go: move to or from a place >I hope that these definitions are acceptable. I will now move on to Brian's arguments. >To start Brian gives us a passage, commonly referenced, from the Holy Bible. It came specifically from Matthew 6:9 to Matthew 6:13 (http://www.worldprayers.org...). He then goes on to claim that the verses say that God is all-forgiving. Additionally, he adds that Adolf Hitler would gain extra privleges due to the crowd which he killed (Jews). >There are 4 flaws in Brian's argument. They are as follows. (1) They are under the grand assumption that heaven exists. As he has not proved this, he cannot have proved Hitler's going to heaven true. (2) Even if we are to assume that heaven exists, Brian has not proved that God exists. (3) Even if we are to assume that both heaven and God exist, Brian has not proved that the Holy Bible is entirely true. He says, "there is also something about this somewhere else in the Bible, so it must be true." Next, he is asking us to assume that the God (who may not exist) follows the commands of earthlings. The bible verses clearly command God, "Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses..." Matthew (who may not be existent either, but I will let that go) is clearly commanding God to be forgiving. These verses NEVER SAY THAT GOD COMPLIES. Additionally, Hitler gains no extra privileges even under the above assumptions. While the so-called God may not particularly like the death of his son, he is also supposedly omnibenevolent, meaning that he would have no particular vendetta against the Jews. (4) The most fatal flaw in Brian's list of arguments, even under the grandiose assumption that all of the above are true, is that Hitler did not go to heaven. Go, again, is defined as "move to or from a place." Hitler, by this definition, never WENT to heaven. This would require moving, "to change position or location," though Adolf Hitler's ashes still lie in the Elbe River (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com...). Whether or not they WILL go to heaven is irrelevant due to the past tense used in the word "went." >So, as you can clearly deduce from the above, Adolf Hitler clearly did not go to heaven. Your vote should be for CON. >Good luck to Brian_Eggleston in his closing arguments. Thank you.
Hitler went to Heaven

For those unfamiliar with The Lord's Prayer, it is a sort of poem written by some bloke called Matthew (or it could have been Mark) years ago and the ancient scribes liked it so much they agreed to publish it in the Bible. If you haven't heard it before, it goes like this: Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, For ever and ever. Amen. So, according to the Lord's Prayer, God is all forgiving. There is also something about this somewhere else in the Bible, so it must be true. Therefore, it must follow that God forgave Hitler's many trespasses against his fellow man and the former Nazi dictator is up in Heaven having a wail of a time right now. In fact, thinking about it, God probably gave Hitler extra privileges because he killed so many Jews, and it was the Jews that killed His son (Jesus). Yes, no doubt about it, Christians should definitely expect to bump into Hitler when they go up to Heaven.
The Hafele-Keating Experiment Supports Special Relativity

AveThe resolution of this debate states that "The Hafele-Keating Experiment Supports Special Relativity". Pro will take the position that the Hafele-Keating experiment supports the theory of special relativity. Con will take the position that the Hafele-Keating experiment does not support the theory of special relativity. The burden of proof is on Pro. This means that if both arguments are equally matched, then Con wins by default.The first round of this debate is for acceptance. The second round will begin with my opening argument, followed by back and forth rebuttals throughout the remainder of the debate. Voters should vote for the debater who has a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. when weighted on balance, the arguments favor their side over the opposing side).The Hafele-Keating experiment refers to the experiment conducted by Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating, where Hafele and Keating measured the times on atomic clocks from as they were stationary, traveling westward, and traveling eastward. Hafele and Keating found that the three sets of measurements were inconsistent with each other. This experiment was later published in the journal Science, and is now taken as support for special and general relativity.Although the word "supports" is more metaphorical than analytic, I believe we may all decipher its meaning on our own, at an intuitive level. However, the operational definition I will offer is that an experiment supports a scientific theory if it is consistent with the predictions of that theory.Special relativity refers to Einstein's theory of special relativity. It postulates that the laws of physics are invariant across all inertial reference frames, and that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all inertial observers. A prediction of special relativity is a phenomenon called "time dilation". In special relativity, time dilation entails that clocks moving with respect to an inertial frame of reference will be measured as running more slowly. In this debate, I will not attempt to distinguish between rivaling interpretations of special relativity, as they are all empirically equivalent.I appreciate Con's acceptance of this debate, and look forward to a civil, thoughtful, and productive conversation.Vale
the united states should require universal background checks for every gun sell or transfer of owner

The first issue I have with my opponent is with his use of citing public opinion polls. If his theory was correct and that almost every american supported these laws then action would have taken place. People often vote with their feet and its clear they are not as no laws have been passed. Secondly these polls are often used as tricks and are immediately asked after a national tragedy. Of course no one on the phone is probably going to admit they are agaisnt checks over the phone. It is not a violation of demoracy to entrust the politicians WE ELECTED instead of encating policy on some scruff polls collected by left leaning news agencies. My message to Pro if you want gun control laws changed and this movement is as popular as you say then you and the "80 perccent of americans" who support this should vote in politicians to make laws for background checks. This throughly disproves his POV on this being a violation of democracy. My opponent commits a logical fallacy by assuming causation = coorelation. He fails to say why someone who would committ suicide would not use a different intsrument if not the gun. And just because someone commits suicide with a gun does not mean we take away the rights of other americans. I want further elaboration on these points as right now his arguement is not clear. Universal Background checks ultimately have one final goal. To register and track firearms so confiscation in the future would be easy. With a federal system in place for all firearms the feds will know where all the firearms and when the time comes to take them away they will know where they all are. I suggest to the Pro that he should move to a state where they love gun control or try and make progress in his own state and try to enact his policies there instead of using the feds as a oppurtunitiy to impose a calforinian agenda on the rest of the country.
Gays break the laws of nature.

I will now answer firemonkey's objections to my arguments for the innateness or "naturalness" of homosexuality. "ok for starters 1,500 species is less than .1 percent of animals thats less than enough to convince me its even worth the time talking about." Surely this objection is a non sequitur. I have shown instances of homosexuality arising in nature, which is the topic of this debate, rather than the 'popularity' of homosexuality within the natural kingdom. There are innate features that are only observed among certain birds, such as the instinct to fly south for the winter, but the fact that no other kinds of animal exhibit this does not mean that it isn't 'natural'. Furthermore, the vast majority of animal species are invertebrates, and so do not have the intelligence to form any kind of sexuality; any homosexuality is due to a mistake between viable and non-viable mates. There are, in fact, only 57000 or so vertebrate species, out of the 1.5 million known animal species. "now to cover your points of number 2. ok so the whole right handed article that you put up there holds no weight it says well they were left handed now there right handed with older brothers taht makes no sense." The article states that, if you have no brothers, and you are right handed, that you are more likely to be homosexual than if you were left handed. From the article itself: "In the new study, results indicate that the number of "older brothers moderates the relationship between handedness and sexual orientation." That is, the extreme right-handedness finding is only seen in men with no or few older brothers." The fact that number of siblings alters the results is a clear sign that something links homosexuality to prenatal states, meaning that, during pregnancy, an unknown factor causes certain people to have a predisposition to homosexuality. "next to the two brain pieces you put up there well ok they have contorted and twisted there minds so much duhh things are wrong in there heads." However long you try for, no amount of straining, thinking, wanting, visualizing, will ever make a part of your brain shrink to half its size. If this ever did happen, it would be well documented, and scientists would alert the general public, because such a feat would be potentially fatal. The last two objections mentioned by my opponent are good examples of 'Armchair Science'; analysis of the results of a scientific study without scientific literacy or understanding, leading to misinterpretation. "Next this homosexuality brings no positve affects except violence." I have no idea what you mean by "violence", unless you are referring to violence against homosexuals, in which case your argument is circular, as you'd be arguing that gay people are bad because they are hated by people, because those people think they are bad... "my turn now well here this is simple name 2 positive effects of homosexual relation ships." Would you accept the happiness of the people involved in the relationship as positive effects? If not, why not? Happy to help.
Gays break the laws of nature.

ok for starters 1,500 species is less than .1 percent of animals thats less than enough to convince me its even worth the time talking about. Next this homosexuality brings no positve affects except violence. now to cover your points of number 2. ok so the whole right handed article that you put up there holds no weight it says well they were left handed now there right handed with older brothers taht makes no sense. next to the two brain pieces you put up there well ok they have contorted and twisted there minds so much duhh things are wrong in there heads. my turn now well here this is simple name 2 positive effects of homosexual relation ships.
Gays break the laws of nature.

All right then. My opponent has conceded the debate, so even if you think my counter-objections aren't that good, you should still vote for me as my opponent hasn't in fact rebutted them, whilst I have his. I'll use this time to quickly sum up my arguments against the proposition. I think they are good arguments that show the innateness of homosexuality: 1) Homosexuality has been detected in animals, even when it would be more convenient to do otherwise. 2) Homosexuality has been shown to have some physiological basis, and so is at least in part due to genetics or a prenatal disposition, and as such, it is not a voluntary choice. 3) The supposed non-naturalness of homosexuality hasn't been shown by my opponent to entail the immorality of homosexuality. Thank you all for taking an interest in this debate, and my opponent who has been very civil and courteous.
God would not put your sin on Jesus.

He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to Yahweh. Proverbs 17:15 He who justifies the wicked (that's you). he who condemns the righteous (that's Jesus) So, G-d will not you because G-d would not commit an abomination. G-d would not condemn Jesus (the only righteous man as per NT) on the cross for your sin because that also would be an abomination for G-d. The law says specifically that the one that sin should be put to death and no other. Deuteronomy 24:16 Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin. This is repeated in the book of Jeremiah Jeremiah 31:30 say: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children"s teeth are set on edge. " But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. Ezekiel 14:14 says even if these three men--Noah, Daniel and Job--were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign LORD. So again, those 3 righteous individuals could only saved themselves because of their own righteousness. Ezekiel 18:3 says: As I live," says the Lord God, "you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel. 4 "Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die. Nowhere in the Bible someone else can be punished for somebody else's sins. This is just unbiblical. So how can someone be considered righteous? "But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? " says the Lord God, "and not that he should turn from his ways and live? Ezekiel 18:21-23 Thus, by turning from your sins G-d will forgive your sins. G-d would not punish the innocent for you. Isaiah 1 says: "Come now, and let us reason together," Says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. If you are willing and obedient, Isaiah 55:7 says: Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the Lord, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon. So if we turn from our wicked ways, G-d will forgive. But G-d will put your sins on Jesus and worshipping Jesus itself is Idolatry (But that's another debate). Thank you
Imabench's 300th Debate!!! Resolved: Cats are Liquids

Ok Ill make this quick. Let us diagnose the definition of the word 'liquid' and see if cats meet all parts of the definition. "Liquid: An object with a fixed mass. .. .. ." Cats take up the same amount of space and therefore have the same amount of mass, so this part of the definition is met. "fixed volume. .. .. ." Volume is the # dimensional measurement of how much space an object takes up. So an object that has a constant mass will naturally have a constant volume when placed in water. "match the shape of the container they are poured into. "Here is the main point of contention. If cats do in fact take up the shape of the container they are poured into, then they would meet all the requirements needed to be a liquid. Here is my evidence showing that cats do take the shape of the container they are poured into. Here is a picture of a cat who currently is taking the shape of the window it is stuck in Here is a picture of a cat that has taken up the shape of the sink it is sleeping in A picture of a cat that has taken the shape of the sock it is in. Here is a picture of multiple cats taking up a shape to fil this jar Here is a cat that has taken the shape of the jar it is in Another picture of a cat that has taken the shape of the jar it is in Another picture of a cat that has taken the shape of a sock it is in. A THIRD cat that is taking the shape of the sock it is in. And lastly a cat that is currently taking the shape of the bottle it is in. We can conclude that cats do take the shape of the container they are put into, and therefore meet all of the requirements of a liquid as defined in round 1. Therefore the resolution is affirmed :DPossible counter arguments:"To be a liquid you have to pour it and it has to flow, cats cant do that so they cant be liquids. "Contention: You can pour cats into a container, it just wont flow as smoothly as water or urine. Just because it doesnt flow smoothly doesnt mean it doesnt flow at all. .. .. "Cats have a fixed shape when they are not in a container"So does toothpaste. It holds its shape because it is just a super condensed liquid. In other words it can hold its own shape Cats are the same thing.
Imabench's 300th Debate!!! Resolved: Cats are Liquids

This is my 300th debate and I wanted to debate something ive always wanted to debate, whether or not cats are indeed liquids. We all have that one crazy belief that no one else thinks is true, this is my crazy belief. Me and Magicr agreed to debate this, and yes it is only 2 rounds long. Definitions: Liquid: An object with a fixed mass and fixed volume, but does not have a fixed shape and instead match the shape of the container they are poured into. Cats: Demons sent to Earth from Hell that have tried for years to rule over us. Also known as the four legged felines that are the same species portrayed by Garfield, Tom from Tom and Jerry, and those 8 things my crazy old lady neighbor has.