BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The media isn't liberal

Media will be all forms of print (newspapers, magazines, etc), TV news, radio, and the internet. You all should know the definitions of liberal and conservative. Anyway along with the opening: I would argue that the media isn't liberal. In this I contend that their is a wide range of philosophies of reporters and news stations but the media IS NOT overhelmingly liberal. Conservatives have just said "the liberal media" so many times without any evidence that it has become a fact. A great quote that I have come to love from the 1962 movie "The man who shot liberty valance." A man was credited for shooting this notorious outlaw, Liberty Valance, but he never really shot him. This brought the man fame and many years later (in the movie) he was telling his biographer the true story, and admits he didn't shoot the outlaw, the biographer rips up his notes and walks out saying, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend" We are printing the legend. As i said before, the media is not liberal, are there liberal outlets, of course. But are there only liberal ones? What about moderate outlets, or conservative outlets? Are they non-existant? They must be, the liberal media isn't bashing itself for being liberal. The only radio station that gets any kind of real listenership is "Air America" which cannot compete with Rush, Hannity, O'reily, Imus, and the scores of religious stations. TV news has a slightly more even playing ground. On the conservative side you have Fox, MSNBC on the liberal, and CNN somewhere in the middle. There are so many news papers and magazines that it isn't possible not to find a "non-liberal" source. Sometimes it isn't the media outlet either, to quote Geoffrey Lean "There just isn't enough ideology in the average reporter to fill a thimble." So depending on the story, it could be bad reporting, the way the reader takes it, or the fact that it even shows the liberal viewpoint to contrast can get conservatives screaming about the "liberal media". To quote Paul Simon from the Boxer "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." The media isn't liberal, thats just a legend that's been printed as fact.
Troll Debate On CHEEZ-ITS!

Hello, Everyone! Sorry, I have been very busy lately, and have been unable to debate for a while. Now, for the debate....This debate is over which is a better way to eat Cheez-Its:1. Pick cheezits out one by one from the bag.2. Grab a big-a$$ handful and go from there.I have option 2, because bigger is better (hear that, Lickdafoot?). Please only accept this debate if you agree to these terms:1. Thy shalt troll. Troll like hell.2. Chickens are the dominant animal over humans.3. Alaska is a place of tortilla chips and polar bears.4. Satan does not smell like gargonzola.THAT IS ALL.ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE..... NOW.
Troll Debate On CHEEZ-ITS!

As it's the last round, I will not touch on my opponent's responses, as that would be highly unfair of me (which makes me half-tempted to do it anyway, but alas for classiness). Let's go through my opponent's case. " If you are hungry, you have no time for itty bitty cheez-it's one bye one. "Yes you do. It's called a lifespan. We are not fruitflys that live for 5 minutes and then die. You actually have plenty of time to take things slow, WHICH IS WHAT MOST CHICKS WANT. Taking Cheezits slow means that girls know you can take things slow, which means they know you can take relationships slow, which makes them trust you more and get you around the bases THAT MUCH FASTER. On the other hand, taking a massive handful means you rush into things, which is NOT WHAT GIRLS WANT. So by taking a big handful, you tell girls that you can't go slowly, which means they don't trust you, which means YOU DON'T GET LUCKY. So, in quick summary: Going slow = sexy fun time. Going fast = No sexy fun time. That's fairly simple enough. " its Ricky Bobby"Ricky Bobby? What a tool. The only kind of chicks who like guys like that are gold diggers and red-necks. Neither get you anything good. "No, i'm talking about the unofficail man rule of 'calling',"P1: Using dibs is for bro'sP2: Chicks don't like bro's, but like cool regular guys. P3: If chicks don't like you, then you don't get laid. C: Using 'dibs' doesn't get you laid. Entire contention de-railed there. "3) POLITENESS: "Okay this is as far as I got into that contention before laughing my a** off. Shoving cheezits down your face, stealing them from the rest of everyone else and leaving them starving, is anything BUT polite. Girls dig guys with manners. And if girls dig you, then you're more likely to get lucky than a guy with no manners. In conclusion:Obviously how you evaluate this round is by which option gets you laid more. I've shown you far more scenarios that you get laid if you get the one-by-one approach instead of taking a massive handful (like a d*ck) and going from there. Thus, I win this debate. :PA VOTE FOR ME IS A VOTE FOR THE FREEDO DICTAT--ERR I MEAN THE FREEDO EMPIRE. A VOTE FOR CHEESEDINGO IS A VOTE FOR CELIBACY.
Troll Debate On CHEEZ-ITS!

Well, hello everyone. I feel thouroughly embarrassed over what happened and my inability to type up my amazing argument. For some reason my password wasn't working, and i found out that it was because my little brother found out how to change the password on this site. Anyway, its no excuse for not beating it out of him. I will now input my argument. And, by the way, I ignored Zaradi's arguments and did use any of them to come up with rebutles, to make it fair.First, MY ARGUMENTS.1. HUNGER: If you are hungry, you have no time for itty bitty cheez-it's one bye one. You gotta go for the gold. If anyone can say it better than i can, its Ricky Bobby. http://www.youtube.com... He is a perfect analogy. If your not first, your last. Same with cheez-its. My opponent may say something along the lines of " If your not getting a sh!tload of cheezits, you shouldn't get any. Go for the gold, motherf*cker.2. DIBS: No, not the incredibally delicious balls of chocolate covered ice cream treats that I eat 10 containers of when i watch the "Dark Night Rises". No, i'm talking about the unofficail man rule of 'calling', if you will, something so that you automatically get it no matter what. Like a spot on the couch if you go to take a leak. If you grab a huge handful of cheezits, and someone else wanted some, but took the Zaradi path and went piece by piece, they're screwed. Not enough cheezits for them. It's either kill or be killed. You either get some, or you don't. A good analogy for this is being pregnant. Your either pregnant, or your not. There is no in between. On a side note, some might say in the process of getting pregnant is in between.(As in causing the baby milk to run through the trench, not over it.) But you are still not pregnant then. When little mister spermy meets miss eggy, then mister or misses baby happens. Untill then, they are not pregnant. After that, they are. NO IN BETWEEN! Same with cheezits. 3) POLITENESS: Cheezit's are most often found at casual parties, usually with friends. It is a snack food. Now, where do you have snacks? SPORTING EVENTS. Please type in "crazy american football fans" into google images. The reason im not posting all of the pictures is because there are soooo many, and i'm too lazy. The point is, they are all crazy. They are guzzling beers, stuffing hot dogs down their throats, and making fools of themselves (this is directed to all vikings fans). Again, the point is, you will fit right in shoving cheezits in your face. You will fit in perfectly.THOSE ARE MY POINTS. try to rebutle THAT, Zaradi!And now, for Cheesedingo's random sentence of the day: I prefer my Chimichanga's roasted at 99.8 degrees for 10 minutes, untill they are a golden brown. -Cheesedingothank you.
Troll Debate On CHEEZ-ITS!

A troll debate? Sounds enticing.... I shall argue for option number one, that being selective with your cheezits and eating them one at a time is more beneficial and overall better than just getting a massive handful and shoving it down your face (something that cheesedingo is quite familiar with doing, only with something that's not cheezits. But what happens in vegas stays in vegas so yeh). As for the parameters.... 1. Agreed hitherto thy debate shall be trolled to thee fiery depths of hell. 2. Because the chicken definitely came before the egg. And all other things. 3. Agreed, so long as you will concede that Alaska is secretly the home of the Aztec god, Quetzalcoatl. It would explain the tortilla chips. 4. Gorgonzola? Hell no. He definitely smells like Parmesan.
There is Probably no God (Aimed at Christian believer)

I will begin with my rebuttal of the Kalam argument. Claiming that everything that has a beginning of existence also must have a cause of its existence is an observation based on the confines of existence itself. Based on your assumption that the universe has a beginning, which I agree with under the expanding universe theory, it follows that there was a time before its beginning. There is no proof that the laws of cause and effect apply in this instance or that cause must happen before effect. As for your second argument; Even if an intelligent designer did create earth to be just so does not also provide that said creator is the cause of the universe. However, no designer is needed to create the conditions we find so hospitable. Given the massive size of the universe with its billion of galaxies containing billions of stars orbited by many planets, the conditions needed for life as we know it were almost bound to occur. And given that our universe had a beginning, who is to say that a universe did not exist prior to the one we exist in, offering infinitely more possibilities for perfect life conditions? As for your final argument, I have know idea how a God existing in one possible world would lead it to exist in all possible worlds. My Arguments Throughout history, humans have tended to label any unexplainable phenomena as "The work of God". Seeing as God has a very poor track record in explaining the nature of things better than science, further advancement in scientific research will begin to give God less and less credit for the grand design. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it is the work of God. That admittance of scientific defeat put Western Europe in the dark ages for one thousand years. I will now state my definition of the scientific method- The use of repeated systematic observations to draw conclusions and gain knowledge about an observable phenomena As we can not use this method to prove the existence of a God, this further supports my point that there is probably no God. As for my billion sided die analogy, I was stressing that there is a tiny chance that there is a God, as there are an infinite number of other possibilities.
There is Probably no God (Aimed at Christian believer)

I agree with my opponent's definition of "God". Now, I'll move on to the arguments.My opponent states that "Claiming to know god exists is much like claiming that there is a 100% chance that a one billion sided die will land on the number three. The basis of my arguments lies in that we do not know for sure if a god exists, much like we can not predict the outcome of a 1 billion sided die."However, this does not apply if evidence and reasoning are applied to prove the existance of a God. Plus, this does not have a billion possibilities, as there are only 2 possibe states: A God exists or No God exists. Therefore, this analogy does not apply to this case.My Arguments1. The Kalam Argument: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;The universe has a beginning of its existence;The universe has a cause of its existence.[1] Therefore, the universe has a cause. I'll prove that the cause is a God. The universe is near perfect. The Earth is at a just right distance to the Sun for life to evolve. The Moon stabilizes the Earth's axis. These are all evidence that a God could exist as the chances of these happening by chance is really slim and the chances of it being created is high. Another argument: P1: A God could exist P2: If a God could exist, it exists in some possible world. P3: If a God exists in some possible world, it exists in all possible worlds. P4: If a God exists in all possible worlds, then it exits in the real world. C: A God exists. As my opponent is Pro, he has the Burdn of Proof to prove it. Sources: [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
There is Probably no God (Aimed at Christian believer)

First of all, I would like to define God as an intelligent being, whom humans were modeled after in the supposed creation (The "Christian/Bible God"). As humans have used the scientific method more and more in recent history, it seems this thought process is skipped completely in the belief of a God. Claiming to know god exists is much like claiming that there is a 100% chance that a one billion sided die will land on the number three. The basis of my arguments lies in that we do not know for sure if a god exists, much like we can not predict the outcome of a 1 billion sided die. I believe my thoughts are grounded firmly in logic and I am interested to see what points the CON may argue.
Homosexual Marriage

This will be a short debate on whether Homosexual Marriage should or should not be accepted and legalized in the United States. Pro must support the claim that homosexual marriage is positive for society, while Con must explain why it is detrimental to society. Rules: 1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.3) Support quantitative and qualitative data with valid sources.
Swearing is, on balance, a negative influence on society

The astute reader would no doubt be enjoying this debate right now, laughing at the debaters incompetence. What tomfoolery am I talking about? I said in round 1 that this debate was a 4 round debate, at least, that's what I intended. Of course, many will have noted that this is a 3 round debate and that I made a mistake.To readers, we have decided to simply have a second debate with our first 2 rounds copied and pasted. So, no need to reread, just go straight to round 3 in that debate if you've read this one! Link:http://www.debate.org... For this debate please vote it a tie unless you believe that some gross violation of conduct has occurred (which I believe has not) . I implore readers to finish reading the debate in it's entirety, for that was what you originally intended to read!
Swearing is, on balance, a negative influence on society

"And on swearing, let us be abundantly clear that we are not talking about swearing an oath or promise"This is about f*cking swearing, loud and clear. "Due to the nature of this debate though Con is allowed to use swear words (I will ardently refrain from doing so), although I don't want an excessive degree of swearing."Loud and clear, I will try to not f*cking swear so much like I do in other debates. F*ck, I just swore.....Aw sh*t....Arg, Let the debate begin!!!! :D
Swearing is, on balance, a negative influence on society

I thank Imabench for agreeing to debate this interesting topic with me. It is a controverial topic which I'm quite sure would rouse many a rabble, many a believer in free speech etc. I intend to show though that swearing is, on balance, a negative influence on society. On another note, this debate is part of MIG's temporary debate tournament, round 2. Resolution matters With regard to the resolution I wish to have no semantics games or stupidity. Readers, assume typical definitions where required. For instance, let's not argue what ‘on society' constitutes – it's obvious. That said, let's be clear on a few matters:‘On balance' refers to a weighing of positives and negatives. Basically, ‘on balance, a negative influence' refers to the negatives outweighing the positives. While the word ‘influence' is used, which tends to imply a factor into actions taken, this debate will also discuss the actual impacts of swearing and how this is bad for society. ‘Influence' therefore will refer both to actual impacts and how one's mindset is changed. More on this later. And on swearing, let us be abundantly clear that we are not talking about swearing an oath or promise. Chivalry is indeed a fascinating subject, yet we are not discussing oaths here. To outline a suitable definition for swearing, I sourced this . http://www.pement.org...: "By swearing, we mean the use of profanity, obscenity, or coarse language. .. To use biblical terms, swearing includes "corrupt words" (Eph. 4:29), "filthy language" (Col. 3:8, NIV), and "cursing" (James 3:10)"One might consider ‘to swear at' to mean:"To use abusive, violent, or blasphemous language against; curse" - . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...I think however that readers have a general understanding of what swearing is, so we needn't go be too specific about it. This debate is not intended to get stuck in a quagmire over specifically what constitutes swearing, although that is an issue at hand. Debate StructureRound 1: Definitions, resolution matters and acceptanceRound 2-3: Advancing of arguments, clash etc. Round 4: Final arguments and conclusionsIt should be noted that both debaters should not bring up entirely new arguments in their final rounds, although rebuttals and the introduction of supporting evidence is permissible. Basic debating rules of conduct and such apply. Due to the nature of this debate though Con is allowed to use swear words (I will ardently refrain from doing so), although I don't want an excessive degree of swearing. ..
God exists.

RebuttalsPart 1: The Kalam Cosmological argumentCon says: The Kalam argument refutes God. "P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause." In round one my opponent says that God is "uncaused" meaning that your God doesn't exist.God didn't begin to exist, so he doesn't have a cause. God exists, but he doesn't have a cause because if he did, we would end up with an impossible infinite regress of events which as I have proven, is impossible.Part 3: The Thomistic Cosmological argumentCon says: P1 cancels out C because something must have moved the first mover, in fact P2 makes P1 impossible.I apologize for any ambiguity in my argument. The first-mover is the name given to the being that causes the first thing to move, it does not move itself.Conclusion-Con has failed to provide any arguments of his own, which is quite a problem considering the fact that it's been specified that the burden of proof is shared.-Con has failed to make any valid rebuttal to either of my arguments.
God exists.

ArgumentsPart 1: The Kalam Cosmological argumentThe Kalam Cosmological argument, as popularized by William Lane Craig, can be summarized as follows:(P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.(P2) The universe began to exist;(C) Therefore, the universe has a cause.Justification of the first premiseThere are very good reasons to think that this is true. First, something cannot come from nothing, as if it could, there would be no reason why it came into existence and not something else. Hence, everything that begins to exist has a cause.Justification of the second premiseTo deny God's existence and this premise, there needs to be an infinite regress of events. But this is impossible, as infinity isn't a number as you cannot add to it or take away from it, so when you're asked the question "How old is the universe?", you'll have to come to the conclusion that the universe had a cause.Justification of the conclusionThis is the logical conclusion following both premises.Part 2: What are the causes' attributes?The cause must be spaceless, as it must've existed before space. It must be timeless, as it existed before time, and it must be uncaused to avoid an impossible infinite regress of events.Part 3: The Thomistic Cosmological argumentThe Thomistic cosmological argument can be summarized as follows:(P1) Whatever is in motion is moved by something else.(P2) An infinite regress of events is impossible;(C) Therefore, there must've been a first mover.Justification of the first premiseThis is virtually undeniableJustification of the second premiseI proved this earlier in this round.Justification of the conclusionThis is the logical conclusion following both premises. Since an infinite regress of events is impossible, there must be a first mover.
God exists.

RebuttalsCon says: If you say that everything had a first creator, God must have one. If you then say God doesn't because God had no beginning I can say that the universe had no beginning. First of all, I never claimed that EVERYTHING had a first creator. Second of all, I've specified why the universe must have a cause if God does not exist, and the answer is that there would be an impossible infinite regress of events.Con says: This will become a viscous game of Ping-pong which is why I resorted to Occam's razor which is true in everything in life but you can say what you like. God might exist but the probability is so low that assuming it would be like me telling you that because you didn't know where the first piece of poop came from, that it came from a unicorn. There's no reason why it should turn into a game of ping-pong. Also, I never made an argument from ignorance. Part 1: The Kalam Cosmological argumentCon drops this.Part 3: The Thomistic Cosmological argumentCon drops thisVote Pro!
God exists.

Any reasoning you use to disprove atheism will be reversible upon god's existence. If you say that everything had a first creator, God must have one. If you then say God doesn't because God had no beginning I can say that the universe had no beginning. This will become a viscous game of Ping-pong which is why I resorted to Occam's razor which is true in everything in life but you can say what you like. God might exist but the probability is so low that assuming it would be like me telling you that because you didn't know where the first piece of poop came from, that it came from a unicorn.