BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
David walliams is better than jk Rowling

well j.k rowling is on the news every week, well yes david walliams has got some good books but j.k rowling has way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way better books!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
9-11 who did it!

1. there is more of a chance that an anarchist did it than the CIA. 2. why would the CIA attack the U.S., what were there motives. 3. It was simple that a group in the Middle East did it and all signs point to AL-Quida. 4. Nosotrodamus predicted this. "In the seventh month of 1999 the king of terror will regin out from the sky." The date may not be accurate but try predicting a world changing event in 300 years. He obeviously means Bin Ladin. Voters: Max will use the Crowsnest which is a Conspricy website. Max: why did you accept if you don't
Books are better than movies.

I have forfeited nearly all of the rounds because of the fact this debate is ludicrous. How can I spend hours of my life writing arguments on things like, " Books are better than movies," when I could be debating things that actually matter to people? I feel contrite that I did not inform you of this sooner, but I was busy at school. Everyone who reads this, please vote for Pro. She deserves it, and she put a lot of work into her arguments, she also took this seriously when I could not, (I know that I should have, but when I got on the site today and saw all of her arguments, I just thought, "Wow, I can't beat this.") I hope you all understand, and please vote for Pro. Thank you for reading this to the end.
Books are better than movies.

Well, now that's quite a shame. I was really looking forward to an intense debate, Con. I hope in the next round Con rebuts on my reasons, and introduces some reasons from their side. Meanwhile I will introduce new reasons, and elaborate more on some reasons that I have mentioned above as to why books are better than movies:Books last longer, have a more intense relationshipe, and are generally far more personal than movies.A movie may be great and exciting, albeit this is done in 3 hours at most! That's all you can squeeze out of it. A book is a friend, you can take it with you, drown in it when you're bored, and turn to it when you need a healthy distraction. It transports you into another world, a movie rarely, if ever does that. Also, when a book transports you into another world, it's only you to transport, not the other 200 people sitting in the cinema with you, just YOU. Reading is also a much more personal experience, where you get to know the characters on a much more in-depth level, because you see them grow and because they are YOUR characters, they look just the way you want them to look, not through a director's eyes. In movies there is much less engagement. You get what you get and that's it. They may be exciting, possibly even more exciting than a book depending on the story, but its a short lived thing, you're a spectator and no more. It's much harder to really identify with characters in a movie, unlike a novel. Thank you :) I also apologise for the numerous grammatical mistakes which I have made in the previous rounds (I was typing on an iPad, which made it increasingly difficult, I do apologise for the misconvenience, guys.)
Books are better than movies.

I think that movies are better than books for a couple reasons that I will discuss in my argument. My first reason is, if you are a busy person you probably don't have a ton of time to read books. So it would save time if you watch the movie. If you don't read the book, (you only watch the movie,) you can't be disappointed if the movie isn't exactly like the book, because you never read the book. The movies have all of the important things from the book, so reading the book is pointless, because you get all the important details from the movie without spending hours reading a book. So the movie is a quicker way to get the same information.
Books are better than movies.

Now, movies are great, almost perfect, when it comes to simply sitting on a couch and viewing them, and that too, while entertaining yourself the same time, without that difficulty of flipping a page. But books let you live everything. Once a filmmaker decides upon settings and characters, we are limited to seeing those characters and settings through their eyes. However, 500 different readers of the same book may have 500 different ideas of a character’s appearance. And if an actor does not measure up to what you imagined when reading the book, there is disappointment.Well, I'm sure we've all come across this topic multiple times! Albeit, this is quite an interesting topic, which I would love to debate on, on an intellectual level! I have written my opening argument above, and the rule(s) are below. Rule(s): All references, and bibliography are to be listed at the end of every round.I look forward to anyone open to debate! :)
chsTG has epically failed as a debater

I will now show why each of my opponent's rebuttals are irrelevant to the debate at hand. First, my opponent brings up a level of arrogance and insult outside of the debating area. This is irrelevant, as the resolution regards chsTG's debating skills. Second, my opponent again brings up chsTG's forfeits. The majority of the forfeits mentioned occured after I accepted this debate and should not be considered (because the resolution is in past tense). See my first-round clarification. The remainder of the forfeits (there were two), as I have already said, were probably not the result of poor debating skill. chsTG likely just couldn't post an argument in time or lost interest in Debate.Org altogether. This is evidence of negligence, not failure. My opponent brings up chsTG's forfeit with theLwerd exclusively. That forfeit can be explained by lack of time to post an argument, which is not evidence against chsTG's skill; rather, it is evidence against his commitment. Third, my opponent states that my facts (The user chsTG has won two debates while losing none) and (One of his opponents admitted "I know I lost this one.") are false. At the time i accepted the debate, as I have quoted, these facts were entirely true. This is all that matters within the context of this debate. Future losses are entirely irrelevant. The resolution is in past tense. Fourth, my opponent has asserted that the past two forfeits are failures. However, such forfeits are not indications of chsTG's skill at debating. Even if for some reason they were, they'd have to be weighed against his 2-0 debating record, which means that he can not be considered an "epic" failure. In conclusion, events that occur after the start of the debate are irrelevant within the context of the debate, chsTG cannot be considered a failure AT DEBATE of epic proportions, and negligence is not an indication of skill. Thank you. I ask for negation.
chsTG has epically failed as a debater

This debate is assumed to be about chsTG's debating at the point at which I accepted the debate, and so all my references are up do date as of that point. I negate that chsTG has epically failed as a debater. Definitions: epic- of unusually great size or extent http://dictionary.reference.com... fail- to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved http://dictionary.reference.com... Obviously not a failure: -The user chsTG has won two debates [1] while losing none [2]. -One of his opponents admitted "I know I lost this one." [3] Clearly, the user chsTG has succeeded as a debater, and therefore, he has not epically failed. My opponent has asserted that forfeits constitute a failure. However, one that has not been online cannot be expected to post an argument. Therefore, the lack of an argument does not constitute a fail. Further, even if it did, such a failure would not be of epic proportions, for it was expected. As a debater, chsTG has clearly succeeded, having lost no debates and having won multiple. The resolution is negated. [1] http://www.debate.org... "chsTG has won 2 debates. Showing 1 through 2 records." [2] http://www.debate.org... "chsTG has not lost any debates." [3] http://www.debate.org...
Elf on the Shelf!!!

My opponent uses an ad-hominem attack fallacy, stating that I have a dirty mouth, and inferring due to such my arguments are invalid. Yet, who is she attacking? She is certainly not attacking my arguments, but rather my personal character. For such false accusations, the voters must take this into consideration and possibly vote conduct in my favor. As for my arguments, they still stand and my opponent has not addressed any of my contentions.
Elf on the Shelf!!!

Some people say Elf on the Shelf is wrong, rude, and a lie. I must disagree. There is nothing wrong with letting your children make believe that the elf moves and reports back to Santa. Yes, they may believe in Santa and when they find out you lied about the elf, they may think you're lying about God. But just tell them the truth, people. Elf on the Shelf is not a bad thing. It's for fun, just like TV.
Best story

No body liked my poop story debate, so now I'm changing it to be general. To make sure this debate doesn't get removed, there will be no vulgar or considerably gross plots. But we will tell a story. You must appeal to your audience with some sort of a story told in any way you want. It may be a drama, comedy, adventure, etc. You can tell it in any manner or genre you want. Ask any specific questions in the comments. Basically, just make sure Airmax won't feel compelled to remove this debate because of your story. S&G is obviously part of judging. Conduct is still the same. More convincing arguments and sources should go to whoever had the most compelling story to the viewers. You have the max amount of time and characters to write your stories. I want to best you at your best. So challenge me!
Many religions detract from the beauty of our earth.

Point 1: Although if I had the time I would refute this, I don't, so I won't. Just a note though, I can still easily win. Point 2: Yes, we compare things, but comparing things does not make the less beautiful thing worse. For example, if there was a man that was considered the smartest man alive, but then some other person takes a IQ test and is found to be smarter, that man does not become less smart, he is still insanely smart. The same goes with the diamonds, even though I see them everyday, they are still beautiful, if I saw the earth I would think it much less beautiful (If I could see that is, I think those diamonds would actually blind me) than the diamonds. Compared to the earth, diamonds are insanely beautiful, no matter how much one sees both. The beauty of one object does not detract from another's. Point 3: Although I would see the world as the least beautiful existence, it is still beautiful. It's just like the apple pie-chocolate cake example. Just because I find out that chocolate cake tastes better does not make apple pie any less tasty. I can enjoy both, but just think one is even more beautiful. My opponent's analysis: Although we may spend less time thinking about earth's beauty does not make it less beautiful. Just because I have never had chocolate cake does not make it less delectable. Our time spent on an object does not change its beauty. My analysis: Well, first, my opponent ever addressed my argument that the concept that the earth is a divine creation makes it more beautiful, so that's one reason to conclude that my opponent is wrong. Also, I have shown that just because an object is not the most beautiful object in existence does not mean that it isn't beautiful. Quod erat demonstrandum
Many religions detract from the beauty of our earth.

Point 1: There is neither a way for me to prove that there is a religion or there isn't. The same holds true for my opponent. Furthermore there is no way for either of us to prove that there is an evil deceiver or not. Thus this point is absolutely moot. We currently subjectively see beauty, whether that is because of a creator or not is unprovable. ============ Point 2: Okay let us examine this situation in a hypothetical. If for instance there was a room all filled with flawless diamonds and you spent your entire life in that room they would be all that you would know. You would have no perspective to describe the diamonds from, you would have nothing to compare them to. To you, in the room, the diamonds would just be. However if you had spent you life on earth, where there is dirt, mud, and rocks and then you came across a flawless diamond you would be able to compare it to these things and come to conclusions such as, "It is shinier!" "It is more geometric!" or perhaps "It is beautiful!" The same is true of all human relations, we automatically compare things we see to other things that we see. Things that are out of the ordinary or that are prettier than most things we usually classify as beautiful. Whether this human nature stems from a creator or not is of course moot considering that neither of us can prove such a point. Thus my opponent would still classify things as more or less beautiful if he did not have religion. ============= Point 3: No, the idea that there is an afterlife does make this world less beautiful. Let us examine the two scenarios separately: Scenario 1: (We accept afterlife) This means we consider two planes of existence. First off we have plane A: The material plane which we live on. Secondly we have plane B: Heaven, afterlife etc.... We can thereby compare to the two and come to the conclusion that Plane B is of a greater beauty. Thus Plane B is of a lesser beauty, and also the least beautiful. Scenario 2: (We reject afterlife) This means we consider one plane of existence. Plane A: The material plane which we live on. This means that Plane A is of the greatest beauty because it is the only plane. It is of course also of the least beauty. Comparison: In scenario 1 Plane A is of a lesser beauty and also is the least beautiful. In scenario 2 Plane A is the most beautiful and at the same time the least beautiful. Thus in scenario 2 more beauty is attributed to Plane A. Final analysis: Also if we look at this fundamentally as a time argument, in scenario 1 a persons time will be split between appreciating the beauty of Plane A and Plane B. In scenario 2 a persons time will simply be attributed to appreciating the beauty of Plane A. Thus in scenario 2 Plane A will have more beauty attributed to it. Fin.
Many religions detract from the beauty of our earth.

Contention 1: This argument only works if there is logic. an evil deceiver can do anything he wants, even mess with logic, so you have these thoughts, but thay don't necessarily mean anything. Arguing otherwise is useless, as the evil deceiver could be changing logic so that it isn't true. Contention 2: That's not necessarily true, beauty does not have to be with comparison. I don't have to think that a robin is ugly to think that a bluebird is beautiful. Beauty is not really a measure, but its an outlook. It will always be subjective. Contention 3: The fact that there is a supposedly better afterlife doesn't mean that this life is any less beautiful. It simply means that there is something even more beautiful. My opponent's argument is like saying apple pie is not tasty because chocolate cake is better. Apple pie still has the same amount of value, but chocolate cake is even better. Also, I would contend that religion adds beauty, as it gives the world meaning. It stipulates that the world is so good, it is a divine creation. Non-religion advocates for nothing more than random chance and luck, which at least in my mind is less beautiful.
Many religions detract from the beauty of our earth.

Alright, let me deal quickly with both of my opponents points. ============= Contention 1: My opponent states that nothing can be proven without the existence of a religion. Otherwise god could be evil and play tricks on us. This is untrue. I can at the very least prove that I exist as I think, and thereby I can also prove that I have a subjective perception, my thoughts. Thus, in my subjective perception I am allowed to view things as beautiful. In other words, my opponents second contention stating that everything is subjective actually nulls his first contention. ============== Contention 2: Sure, my opponent could consider the world beautiful to not exist if he didn't have a religion. This however doesn't mean that my opponent is not going to think things are prettier, better, nicer, happier etc.... . Thus my opponent will still consider some things to be beautiful if only in comparison with ugly things which he sees. This is my point. =============== Contention 3: Many religions offer the idea that after we will die we will possibly go to a better place (depending on behavior). This is the key to my entire argument. At one point before religion we had 1 existence to view the world through, that being our present existence. Now that religion is here we can view the world in its present existence but many of us also believe there is something better after it. Thus, by comparison, the world is less beautiful in perspective to the afterlife.
Many religions detract from the beauty of our earth.

Okay, I will attempt to prove Yraelz's statement false. First Contention: Without a religion, nothing can be proven. (As a note atheism is going to be counted as a religion for this debate, it is the belief that there is no god, so it is a belief system. ) If we do not accept the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods, there will be many possibilities that would occur. One possibility is that there is some "evil deceiver" (like in Descartes' First Meditation). This evil deceiver is like the Christian God, except he is evil instead of good. Because he is a b****rd he likes to mess with our minds, you know, like randomly changing the laws of physics, logic, etc. That means, if he exists, you can't prove anything. That means that the world might not even exist, or beauty, or anything. This possibility detracts from the beauty of the earth, negating the resolution. This possibility arises because of lack of religion. Having a religion would replace that possibility, allowing the world to be definitively beautiful. Second Contention: Beauty is subjective. I may consider the world beautiful only if I have a religion. That doesn't really make sense, but I could do it. The very fact that beauty is "in the eye of the beholder" shows that while Yraelz can consider the Christian view of the world less beautiful than that of a nonreligious world while I think it more beautiful.
Internet trolls serve a valuable function in society

They deal with bullies? You mean they deal with themselves?Trolls are the bullies and exist solely to bring out the worst in everyone else. This is not valuable at all. Et voila.Sure, some trolls who do not troll well enough are kind people who are only slightly irritating. They can be valuable because they suck at trolling well enough to truly get at people's pain or anger emotion receptors.
Internet trolls serve a valuable function in society

Trolls DO serve a valuable function in society. They know how to mess with people who ARE bullies. Ever heard of the youtuber Lt.LickMe? Trolls also provide entertainment, and the people who respond to them get a good laugh at the end too (as long as the trolls aren't TOO malicious or the person who got trolled isn't butthurt). Think of trolling as comedy, or as a prank. Trollers can be funny if the troll is executed correctly.
Internet trolls serve a valuable function in society

I was being sarcastic in round 1 when I said:Frankly, the only valuable role/function trolls serve to society is being a good thing for parents to point at and say "hey kids, never be this guy when you grow up".Trolls have some attributes, such as bravery and resilience despite setbacks and opposition that are admirable despite their vast array of negative ones. thus this cannot possible be true.In reality, trolls (even the non-hacker ones which Pro is focusing on supporting) play a non-valuable function in society to bring out the worst in all other roles/functions in society. This is not valuable is and is undeniably destructive. Provocation of aggressive behavior is not valuable in any way whatsoever for any society, Internet-based or real-life based.By existing solely to instigate aggression and violent tendencies in other roles in society, trolls are making all other roles/functions not perform at their peak as they waste time and energy destroying what they previously contributed to society and the time they spend doing that could be spent bettering it, adding VALUE to it.Et voila, victory is mine. I give autographs on Saturdays.
Internet trolls serve a valuable function in society

Society is not just the Internet, where trolls are no more then censorship fighting anarchists disrupting any and all order to the Internet's "society". As for real-life society, trolls are no more than a nuisance for the news to write about getting arrested either for hacking or bullying someone to suicide and remaining unidentified.Frankly, the only valuable role/function trolls serve to society is being a good thing for parents to point at and say "hey kids, never be this guy when you grow up".
miracles occur, but almost never to atheists

con is just letting all his bad arguments sweep under the carpet, things like asking me to show how often miracles etc.. things that are irrelvant he doesn't bring up again, and ignores. he also ignores the point he made that we define miracle as highly unlikely, instead of scientifically inexplicable appearing supenatural i shown in another debate an example of a miracle that was used for the beatification of a saint in the catholic church. i also told you of the retina example. you are tying to argue plausbility, an alterantive explanation. problem is human eyes aren't like most eyes, and it's still inexpcliable, and apeparing supenatural. there might be an alt reason, but it remains to be seen if it's true. wouldnt it so ironic and tragic if we are having miracles stare us right in the face, the most probable sounding idea... and we refuse to accept it to justify our preexisting beleif in the lack of miracles being possible? if i had my arm cut off, and it grew back after i prayed.... and you said it wasn't a miracle, how much will it take to convince you? take it for what it is, yknow. plus at the end of the day, im showing examples of things that fit my definition of miracle and most definitions... and still to this moment, youve yet to show an example happening to atheists. you jsut say what i said in the beinging post, that they wouldnt call it a miracle is it's ignored. maybe, but you should be abel to find at least one example of something that woulda been called a miracle had it happened to a theist. yet you've not done. it was a simple request, and you've yet to show anything.