BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The eurozone should get rid of the 1 and 2 cent coins

Many countries in Europe currently have the Euro. At the moment there are coins of 1 and 2 cent in circulation. Some people believe we should get rid of them. This debate will be about that question.I as pro am going to argue that we should get rid of the 1 and 2 cent coins. I have the burden of proof, because I'm challenging the status quo.The participants have 72 hours to write their posts and the character limit is 8.000. Terms: Eurozone: A geographic and economic region that consists of all the European Union countries that have fully incorporated the euro as their national currency (1). Rules: 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. My opponent accepts all definitions 7. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 8. Violation of any of these rules merits a loss Structure: Round 1: acceptance (no arguments) Round 2: presenting arguments (no rebuttals) Round 3: rebuttals, a few small arguments (optional) (no defenses just yet) Round 4: defenses (no new arguments) I’d like to thank con in advance for participating in this debate and wish him skill. Sources: 1) http://www.investopedia.com...
Theism is more beneficial than atheism

I challenge you!Lets debate. Resolution: Theism has more benefit than atheism. Beneficial meaning in the debate: Producing or promoting a favorable result; Law Receiving or having the right to receive proceeds or other advantages Rules: 1. Debate must stay repsectful. 2. Witty responses will be tolerated. 3. Must stay on topic. 4. Resources must be provided. Rounds: 1. Approval/Con may provide arguement if so desires. 2. Arguement/Rebuttal 3. Rebuttal 4. Rebuttal 5. Conclusion
Math Debate #1

It was close, but incorrect, Con. You were on the right track, but you forgot about one thing. If the radius of the ball is two, and it rolls along the semicircular arc R1, then R1 would lose four inches in diameter and two in radius because the ball rolls on from one end to another. R2 would GAIN two inches to its radius due to the ball rolling around it. Same for R3 as R1: it would lose two inches for the same reasons. Therefore, the actual answer is pi(98 + 62 + 78), which is simplified to simply 238pi. Here is the actual solution:The radius of the ball is 2 inches. If you think about the ball rolling or draw a path for the ball (see figure below), you see that in A and C it loses inches, and it gains inches on B. So, the departure from the length of the track means that the answer is . For now, Pro 0, Con 0. Now continuing to Con's problem. I was extremely tempted to just put 10 seconds and be done with it. And I almost did. Almost. But then I realized that the time starts from the first strike, which means the next six strikes took seven seconds. A clever trick from Con's part; and I almost fell for it. :P Anyway, that means each strike takes 7/6 seconds. So, (10-1)(7/6) = 63/6 = 10.5 seconds. Therefore, it takes the clock 10.5 seconds to strike 10. Now for the Junior High Problem.Note: the answer WILL contain radicals. Eight semicircles line the inside of a square with side length 2 as shown. What is the radius of the circle tangent to all of these semicircles?
Math Debate #1

The distance travelled by the center of the ball from A to B=circumference of 3 semicircular path formed followed by center of the ball. The radii of the semi circles will be 98,58 and 78 inches respectively. (Radius of path travelled by center of the ball = Radius of the track-radius of ball. distance travelled by center= 3.14159265*(98+58+78)=735.13268 inches. Here's your question: Suppose a clock takes 7 seconds to strike7. How long does it take for same clock to strike 10 ?
Math Debate #1

Thanks to Con for his speedy acceptance! I will submit the first problem. And one more thing: omit all multiple choice answers so that it will be a free-response instead. I also noticed that I screwed up the URL, so here it is again: http://www.artofproblemsolving.com...Round 2 Middle School Problem A ball with diameter 4 inches starts at point A to roll along the track shown. The track is comprised of 3 semicircular arcs whose radii are inches, inches, and inches, respectively. The ball always remains in contact with the track and does not slip. What is the distance the center of the ball travels over the course from A to B? Yep, this is actually a legitimate middle school problem. Good luck to Con in solving this one; for the next three will be much, much harder!
Math Debate #1

The title's pretty self-explanatory. Because I'm a whole lot better at mathematics than debating, and there's really nothing math-related here, I'd like to start perhaps the first math debate in all of DDO. Here are the rules.Oh wait, first, I'd like to tell you to do something: Hold your tongue with your fingers and say "I like to math debate." If you know what I mean...anyway:The first round is always acceptance only, and the opponent must be fairly proficient with mathematics (although I'm only thirteen :P). In each round, you must submit one mathematics problem in a certain level of difficulty for each level. Once I submit a problem, Con must do his best to solve it, with the answers and the work provided, and in turn, submit a problem for Pro, and vice versa for the next round. I will now state the level of difficulty for each round:Round 2: Middle School Level - You can take any problem from a middle school textbook or a middle school level competition that is specifically meant for 6th-8th grade.Round 3: Junior High Level - You can take any problem from a textbook or competition that is designated for 9th-10th grade.Round 4: Senior High Level - You can take any problem from a textbook or competition that is designated for 11th-12th grade.Round 5: Asian Level (lol) - You can use any problem you want, be it meant for preschoolers or doctorate mathematicians.If the problem is too complex, then upload an image of it in your argument. I would highly recommend my opponent to take problems from http://www.artofproblemsolving.com... contains problems from the American Mathematics Competition and has problems in grades 8, 10, 12, and just a bunch of ridiculously hard ones, all of which can respectively correspond to rounds 2, 3, 4, and 5. You must make sure of the answer of the problem before you submit it to your opponent in order to confirm that he's right. NO CHEATING!!! If you do find my problem on the website above, and find the answer, you still must write your own work w/o copy/pasting, and must make sense. Each problem will be worth the number of points equal to the round number. That's pretty much it. I wish good luck to Con!
Greatest Political Speeches II

I will accept your challenge. I accepted the challenge because I have aspirations to either become a history teacher or lawyer. It is a topic that is not normal seen; which I respect and admire. Good luck to you. My first speech from 1950's will be from Richard Nixon. At the time of the speech, Nixon served as the vice president for then president Dwight D. Eisenhower. To save his position with Eisenhower for another term, Nixon made this speech entitled: My Side of The Story (The Checkers Speech) http://users.wfu.edu...
Greatest Political Speeches II

The Jimmy Carter speech sums up the aura that his administration gave off to the American public. The "Crisis of Confidence" speech is also known as the "Malaise" speech. My last choice is Nikita Khrushchev's 1960 United Nations speech. Better known as the speech where Khrushchev said the phrase "We will bury you!" He also took it upon himself to bang his shoe on the lectern while giving his speech.Nikita Khrushchev was the Premier of the USSR. Khrushchev was giving a speech to the UN denouncing colonialism and what he considers American "imperialism." The United Nations at this time was having a fierce debate on what they should do in relation to the Congo Crisis. Khrushchev was giving his opinion in his speech about what should be done. The video I provided contains some parts of the speech but not all. https://archive.org... http://www.youtube.com...
Greatest Political Speeches II

I have never heard of the previous speech you listed above. After I post my next speech, I will look into that speech, The next speech I will use is Jimmy Carter's A Crisis of Confidence. Despite not being a very famous speech, it really drives home the point on how important saving energy is. It is good to see president's stand up for what they believe in. It gives them more confidence and a better leader. Here is the speech A Crisis of Confidence- Jimmy Carter July 1979 http://www.americanrhetoric.com...
Greatest Political Speeches II

I haven't heard that speech before. I will choose a less radical speech this time. I have chosen former Vice President Spiro Agnew's "Generation Gap" speech which he gave to a Republican dinner in Houston 1970. Agnew is referring to the radicals that became popular in 1967 ranging from hippies, yippies, anti-Vietnam War protesters, and others. Here is a sample of the speech. The full speech is in the link I have provided.Vice President Agnew:"Education is being redefined at the demand of the uneducated to suit the ideas of the uneducated. The student now goes to college to proclaim, rather than to learn. The lessons of the past are ignored and obliterated, and a contemporary antagonism known as 'The Generation Gap.'"http://www.hark.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Greatest Political Speeches II

As I contemplate what speech to do next, Huey Long was the first person that came to mind. Even though Long was at the time very successful, I decided to get with FDR. In Chicago, FDR Quarantine speech was in 1937. The speech was about keeping peace in the United States. I am certain that you will like this speech. Here is the link:http://www.emersonkent.com...
Greatest Political Speeches II

Interesting choice. For my second choice I will choose Kingfish, Huey Long. Huey Long's share the wealth speech to these Congressional interns is my choice. Here is a sample of a part of the speech. The full speech is in the link provided. Senator Long: "How many men ever went to a barbecue and would let one man take off the table what's intended for 9/10th of the people to eat? The only way to be able to feed the balance of the people is to make that man come back and bring back some of that grub that he ain't got no business with!" http://130.18.140.19/stennis/longsharethewealth.html http://www.youtube.com...
Pick your own debate - 1A

OK, so this debate comes down to differing interpretations of the Bible. Both sides have been presented, and I will show you how only one can be correct. Due to this simple process, this round will be kept short, and to-the-point. First off, my opponent misinterprets my request of him. I did not ask where in the Bible did it say that it was true, as he would have you believe. (Please see above rounds) I asked him a very blatant question, which I will address shortly. My opponent is a very sly one. He uses a tricky sidestep maneuver that I see often when debating this topic. Please refer to my quote from round 3 :" I must demand this of my opponent: If you want to claim that the Bible reflects reality, SHOW ME WHERE. GIVE ME THE EVIDENCE. If you cannot cite your finding, then you are just making rash claims. You evidence only becomes valid in this debate if you can show me the verses IN THE BIBLE. Then, and only then, will I accept your claims." This is EXTREMELY important to this debate. Again, please stay true to the resolution. We are not debating the validity of the Bible, but whether or not it supports YEC. I have presented my interpretation, and validated it with explicit verses from the Bible. My opponent only can say why he thinks that I mis-interpreted them. HE SHOWS NO EVIDENCE. He cites no verses, only claiming that the Bible reflects reality. While this may be the case, he must show where in the Bible it supports OEC. He cannot, as it does not. The debate for radiometric dating is for another time. This debate is purely based on evidence FOUND IN THE BIBLE. There is Biblical Evidence for Young Earth Creationism. Affirmed.
Pick your own debate - 1A

I applaud my opponent for his timely response - onto the debate! ===== Where in the Bible does it say it is true? ===== So my opponent's only rebuttal is to ask me one question: where in the Bible does it purport itself to say it's true? He demands that I must "show the claim [in the Bible] that the Bible reflect reality". Really? Is this really one of your responses? So I simply have to a cite a verse declaring the accurate nature of the Bible's content? This basically entails that I find verses proclaiming the Bible is infallible and inerrant[1]. I'd think it be very troubling for Christians to find no verse affirming that what the Bible says is true. It's obvious that the Bible says it reflects reality. It purports to be the "word of God", who is the divine creator of the universe. If there was a divine creator (according to Biblical evidence), then he would've created the universe and the world (according to Biblical evidence). If independent evidence from outside the Bible show the world is old, then the correct interpretation of the Bible is that it is OLD. Speaking strictly in biblical terms, this is easy to deduce. ===== Usage of the word "day" in Genesis ===== The Hebrew word "yom" was translated into day, as seen in Genesis. However, "yom" can also be interpreted as millions or billions of years - basically an indefinitley long period. How do we tell which one (translation is always tricky)? Simple - look at the context and meaning. My interpretation is supported by the fact that the Bible is infallible and inerrant and thus must reflect reality. Since reality says the Earth is old, the "yom" must mean the same. For example, look at the genealogy my opponent uses in an earlier round. He cites this for the reason why the Earth is around 4000 years. However, the Hebrew words for father and son, 'ab and ben respectively, can also mean "forefather" or "descendant". So the chronology my opponent gives is most likely several "snapshots" of important figures to give a better image of the genealogy. It's liking going through your own family tree, and highlighting important people-events. ===== Conclusion ===== I have refuted my opponent's interpretation, which is itself baseless. We two have differing interpretations, but mine is backed up by reality. What is his? ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Pick your own debate - 1A

Well, this is turning into an enjoyable debate. Thank you opponent for keeping up with the postings. That is unfortunately becoming rare on this site. Lets begin. I will first address my opponent's evidence, and then my own. His entire argument is based on the fact that the Bible reflects reality. Again, please stay true to the resolution. You are straying from it. He claims his evidence is so old. The debate of radiometric dating is for another round. We are debating on EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE BIBLE. NONE of my opponent's evidence is relevant. He says that the Bible reflects reality, but he does not show you where in the Bible it says it. He must do this in order for his evidence to become valid. On to my case. His only attack is that my interpretation is faulty. His only defense of this is that "reality shows" the Earth to be 4.54 BYA. Again, please keep your evidence relevant. If you want to say that the Bible reflects reality, SHOW ME WHERE. Where in the Bible does it specifically support OEC? My opponent claimed in the second round that the Bible is true. Why would it not be written with truth then? Why is THIS part of it not true? If anything else was meant, that is what it would have said. Please see specifically :"...there was day, and there was night, and that was the first day." This is explicit content from the Bible. Day, night, one day. What is confusing about this? Having supported my side, I must demand this of my opponent: If you want to claim that the Bible reflects reality, SHOW ME WHERE. GIVE ME THE EVIDENCE. If you cannot cite your finding, then you are just making rash claims. You evidence only becomes valid in this debate if you can show me the verses IN THE BIBLE. Then, and only then, will I accept your claims.
Pick your own debate - 1A

===== Premise 1-4 ===== My opponent attempts to throw out my argument on the sole reason that this debate is concerned with Biblical evidence only. It is important to lay out the premises so they flow together logically. Since I am arguing the Bible is true, then it must be so that whatever it says inside of it must correlate accurately with reality. Since I am arguing that evidence shows the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, it must be true that the Bible says the Earth is 4.54 billion years old (OEC). This is important, because there are varying interpretations of the Bible. However, only one of them can be right, so by what modicum do we choose? I argue that since the Bible needs to reflect reality, then what it says about it must be true. If reality says the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, then the correct interpretation of the Bible is OEC. ===== Opponent's evidence of YEC ===== The first verse can be interpreted metaphorically. My opponent sees it as 6 literal days. I see the term "days" as a metaphorical term. The reason my interpretation should be held over his is because REALITY shows that the Earth IS 4.54 BYA - therefore OEC is correct, and not YEC. ===== Earth is 4000 years old ===== The King Clone creosote bush is the oldest living Creosote bushy in existence[1]. Estimated to be 11,700 years old, it's one of the the oldest living thing in the world. If the world is only 4000 years old, how the heck did this bush survive? Posidonia oceanica is a type of seagrass found in the Mediterranean. In 2006, a huge colonal colony was found, and was estimated to be 100,000 years old[2]. Again, how the heck is the world only 4000 years old? There are many more examples, but these two will be enough to carry my argument. ===== Conclusion ===== My opponent and I have different interpretations of the Bible. The only way to find the correct one is to see which one is reconcilable with science. The science is behind OEC, not YEC. Therefore, vote PRO. ---References--- 1. http://www.hcn.org... 2. http://www.ibiza-spotlight.com...
Pick your own debate - 1A

Well, I was hoping that my opponent would not attack himself, as that takes the fun away from me. I will now destroy his "crappy syllogism." --HIS FIRST POINT-- This is irrelevant to the debate. We are not debating the truthfulness of the Bible, simply if there is or is not BIBLICAL evidence for YEC. --HIS SECOND POINT-- Again, this is irrelevant. Please stay on-topic. --HIS THIRD POINT-- IRRELEVANT! All evidence must be taken FROM THE BIBLE. --HIS FOURTH POINT-- In this debate, we are only looking to what the Bible says. NOTHING ELSE. --HIS CONCLUSION-- He only says here that the resolution is true. {[==MY CASE==]} -Observation 1- I would first like to point my opponent back to the resolution. We are not debating the truth value of the Bible, but BIBLICAL EVIDENCE. ALL evidence MUST BE TAKEN FROM THE BIBLE. -Evidence- Man was created four days after the first day. The first day was roughly 4,000 years ago. "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth...God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. So the evening and the morning were the first day." -Genesis 1:1, and 1:5. How do we know the Earth has been around for about 4,000 years you ask? Simple. The Bible tells us. There are many genealogies throughout the Bible. Here are a few: Genesis 5 Adam – Noah Gensis 11 Noah – Abraham Abraham to Moses is then counted Moses to Judges then Judges to Kings then Historical timelines. Here is a website that details it out for you if you want to read it: http://www.abiblestudy.com... So, if you count, this totals to be around 4,000 years, allowing for different calendar translations. With this evidence, we can clearly see that the Bible supports YEC. Please vote NEG. Thank you.
Pick your own debate - 1A

I will be targeting the first resolution, as I haven't really debated that in. .. well ever. I affirm the resolution, there ISN'T any Biblical evidence for YEC, but rather OEC (Old Earth Creationism). ===== Arguments ===== P1. The Bible is true. P2. Thus, what it says about reality must be true. P3. Scientific evidence points to Earth's age as being 4.54 billion years, and that evolution is true. P4. Thus, the Bible agrees with these facts. C1. Ergo, YEC has no Biblical Evidence. ===== Conclusion ===== This is all for now. I have spelled out my argument in a crappy syllogism, and it should allow my opponent to have many places to attack. I can't wait.
Pick your own debate - 1A

In the true spirit of copying people, I have decided to start my own "pick your own" debate series. If you have participated or read any of these types of debates before, then this one should be no different. However, for those who haven't: ROUND 1: This obviously includes my opening introduction and rules. For my opponent, he/she will post 3 topics he wishes to debate, and then post his/her position on each of the topics. Please try to add a mix of subject. Have some deal with religion, others with politics, others with art, others with social issues, etc. ROUND 2-4: I will start my case by supporting or attacking one of three positions my opponent proposed. It should follow throughout as a normal 3-Round debate. *NOTE* - I realize that politics are almost undoubtedly tangled with social issues, but a somewhat cut between the two would be fine. By politics, I imagine topics such as what is the best political system, what role does the government play, economics, taxes, so on and so forth. By social issues, I imagine topics such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, so on and so forth. *NOTE* - The "1A" notation is for purely for browsing purposes. If there's any concerns or questions, leave it at the comments sections.
James McCloud is still alive.

My opponent has asked if its possible for him to drop out of debates. I'm assuming this means he's forfeiting. Anyway. To my opponent, no, you cannot drop out of debates. But if you want to get the debate done faster, just post "Pass" as a response to the debate. It makes it easier on both of us. Anyway. My opponent hasn't made any arguments or rebutted mine. So I reaffirm all points and give it back to Con. Again, if you want to just get the debate over with, just type "Pass".