BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Missionary style is the best way to have sex.

The best sex position is that in which the female is pleasured most (must I explain?) If that is the case, studies have shown that the position that is most pleasurable for the woman is that of "on top" of the male. The clitoris tends to get the most stimulation this way. With the woman first in mind of pleasure, all three of your points are valid with woman on top. The first one even more so because the "work load" is of equal share in this position. "1.) Missionary is more comfortable for both partners. I think this is obvious and intrinsic with the positioning of missionary. 2.) Missionary is inherently more intimate. Because you are face to face with your partner it is more intimate and in a way more thrilling because all of the emotions associated with sex are shared. 3.) It is pleasurable for both partners. It doesn't have a bias towards one gender, both benefit and both are involved. Some might contend that it is primarily the man that participates but I would disagree. I think both parties can involve themselves and when combined with the woman on top it establishes a give and take system in sex that is important to any relationship." With that being said, very perverted topic that was probably easier to debate/test on your own.
Missionary style is the best way to have sex.

Granted this is all subjective but I think that missionary style is the best way to have sex. I'm not saying that one's sex life should involve exclusively the missionary position. Good sex involves a variety of sex positions and experimentation but this isn't to suggest that there isn't a single superior position. I'll present my basic arguments for this opening section and I hope the Con can offer an alternative position to contend with my assertion. 1.) Missionary is more comfortable for both partners. I think this is obvious and intrinsic with the positioning of missionary. 2.) Missionary is inherently more intimate. Because you are face to face with your partner it is more intimate and in a way more thrilling because all of the emotions associated with sex are shared. 3.) It is pleasurable for both partners. It doesn't have a bias towards one gender, both benefit and both are involved. Some might contend that it is primarily the man that participates but I would disagree. I think both parties can involve themselves and when combined with the woman on top it establishes a give and take system in sex that is important to any relationship. Just trying to present new debate topics that we haven't gotten to see on this site. Enjoy! -connor
predestination or free will

Well since my opponent forfeited, All of my arguments are confirmed without resistance. I stated earlier the terms for witch I should win this debate with this statement witch is....."If I can prove that humans have free will and a conscience, and can tackle the claims of predestination then pro should win this debate"I have effectively done so while proving these points.....Humans have free will evident by the choices we make, and We arnt foreordained to salvation.Sources1..Romans 2; 152....Jeremiah 17:93......acts 16;304....Philippians 2:125.....Matthew 7:13
predestination or free will

Well I'm glad you wanted to use the bible because that is the only source that should be used. Its the inspired word of God and I agree that that is what will be used. I think that the bible does say christians are predestined because in Romans 8: 28-30 it gives a sequence of what God predestined to those whome He called for salvation. "And we know that God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His son, so that He would be the first born among many bretheren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." That is in the bible right there in romans and there are other text that prove it too.
predestination or free will

I will prove biblically and logically that all humans are not under predestination. I will also provide solid proof that humans do have free will, and a conscience. If I can prove that humans have free will and a conscience, and can tackle the claims of predestination then pro should win this debate. Also between my opponent and I it should be agreed upon that our only sources should be the bible because it is the only trustworthy evidence in religious disputesStructure1. acceptance2. positions3.rebuttal's4. conclusions/summaryDefinitions1. predestination-the decree of God by which certain souls are foreordained to salvation......http://dictionary.reference.com...2. freewill- made or done freely or of one's own accord; voluntary:........http://dictionary.reference.com...I accept
CHEESEDINGO1'S TROLL TOURNEY: Chickens are Superior To Humans

CommunismMy opponet keeps on bringing up that numbers are the best and chickens will win because of that, well he's wrong. Why? Simple because we are advanced, have better wepons, and we have bigger brains. This will have chickens running like crazy. And lets not fouget the consentration camps for the chickens, a slaughter house. You also think the numbers still mean something. Here's a fact for yah every day in the U.S. alone 23 million chickens are killed and that's 269 a second. http://www.vivausa.org... Kansas Isn't FlatOne sentense for you. Car kills millions of ants. So this would be the samething for chickens versus a heavy armored death machine. Alaska with Chips and polar bearsReally with the numbers again. Did you even watch the video. How many chickens could take down a walrus eh? More than billions I beat. Besides the bears have armor (stated last round) do to the war with the majestirian. Besides the U.S. did the polar bears a favor and gave them a home in Alaska. As you see I've tackled everything and more.Vote Con.Doing so ensures that you can still go to KFC
CHEESEDINGO1'S TROLL TOURNEY: Chickens are Superior To Humans

I thank my oppoenent for his arguments. Sadly, this is my last round, but I hope you all will enjoy it! Communism: My opponent's main argument is that the humans will be able to destroy chickens because of human weapons, and because they eat chickens. But as I said, there are 2,902,500,000,000,000 chickens on this earth. I did the math, and that means that there 45 THOUSAND chickens for every one person on this earth. If hundreds upon thousands upon millions upon billions attack the united states, the chickens just by pure numbers could take over. As I said, When the humans see that they are up against chickens, they will not be as serious about killing them. Plus, the chickens have secret underground weapons that we humans have yet to know about and have yet to know how to defend themselves against. My opponent still hasn't combatted my argument on the mayan apocalypse after 2 arguments, so he agrees with my points about that and how they will win because they have the capability to take over the world.Kansas Isn't flat:The humans may have revolted, but they were still dominant. They were able to enslave the humans, therefore showing their dominance. And as I said in my first argument, chickens have secret weapons that can destroy the chickens. And if the U.S. bombs the chickens with hydrogen bombs, it's not like bombing another country. The U.S. will be bombing itself! They will do more damage to themselves than the chickens! The chickens will regroup after a bomb with their massive numbers, while the U.S. is still suffering. And, in the video, it show's one tank VS one chicken. If 45,000 or more chickens attack one tank with weapons of mass destruction, the tank will fall with ease.Alaska with Chips and polar bears:As I said, the polar bears are an endangered species (i know about this because I am alaskan, and there are many sources about it). I did the math for the ratio of chickens to polar bears.145,125,000,000:1Really? One polar bears can beat this many? I doubt it. There is no possible way one polar with no weapons versus 145125000000 with weapons can win. My opponent can come up with no way that the polar bears can win this massive of a fight.My opponent has yet to tackle a ton of my argument and igores the number of chickens, the friendzone argument,the chicken weapon argument, and the mayan apocalypse argument. My case is still strong and I see no other side to vote for than pro.I thank my opponent for this funny and entertaining debate, the voters for putting up with my ridiculousness, and the other debaters in this troll tourney. You all have been a great audience.VOTE FOR PRO.Doing so might prolong the date of the chicken apocalypse.thank you
CHEESEDINGO1'S TROLL TOURNEY: Chickens are Superior To Humans

CommunismU.S. is the center of the world market and the world Superpower. U.S. is also the world's most obese nations so when we want our fried chicken and our chicken wings we are going to get our FOOD!!! But yet again lets do the math 100 chickens versus a tank. I wounder who will win, it's easy a tank. Or even an air craft vs. millions of chickens, bomb equals death. It's not that hard to see that the U.S. alone could easily take out the chickens. We our also a moralistic country we were controlled by Republicans and Conservative who believe communism is a bad thing this lead to the whole cold war. Kansas isn't flatI'm not agreeing with you. I was refurring to the older movie where the humans revolted. Second of all we have great tech now like the hydrogen bomb (thousand times stronger than a nuke), Nuclear submarines, nukes, jets, tanks, and a stockpile of smallpocks. Now this maybe what happens to a single human (see video), but a tank and arm vs a group of chickens. http://www.youtube.com...Alaska with Chips and polar bearsPolar Bears are very violent http://www.youtube.com... Have you ever seen Golden Compass when the bears fought against the Majestirum. Tanks can easily take on chickens (see 3rd vidoe) http://www.youtube.com...
CHEESEDINGO1'S TROLL TOURNEY: Chickens are Superior To Humans

I thank Lannan13 for his arguments. This is getting sweet. Commy: The U.S. may be a Capitolist nation as well. I would like my opponent to show how the U.S. is better than chickens just because they are also capitalist, unless we drop the point as a tie considering both Americans and chickens are communist. Also, as I said, the chickens are plotting secretly without detection. When the humans see that they are up against chickens, they will not be as serious about killing them, because they are, as you say, "the food item in isle nine". They will be totally caught off gaurd, and the chickens will use the element of suprise to defeat them. As I said, the chickens have a super weapon that will obliderate the humans.Kansas isn't flat:As you see this is another sterotype people have, people fear what they don't know. So going against sterotypes is typicly bad. If chicken take over was possible we couldn't advance in technology and ultamatly we would revolt latter. Like in Planet of the Apes.Exactly, people fear what they don't know. They don't know that chickens will revolt and kill them. And for planet of the apes, in those movies, the monkeys were shown as being dominant, therefore agreeing with my argument that chickens are superior.Alaska is a place of Chips and Polar bears:It's a good thing they leave Alaska alone, but the Bears want to conquer the chickens and keep humans in power, because the humans give the bears a supply of vaxcine.They would want to, but polar bears will be overwhelmed by shere numbers. "Scientists can only provide informed estimates. In 2008, scientists estimated that there might be 20,000 to 25,000 of them."(http://www.polarbearsinternational.org...)Now, there are 2,902,500,000,000,000 chickens. Do the math.(http://answers.yahoo.com...)My opponents arguments against me are destroyed, and he didn't attack my points on the mayan appocalypse or the friendzone. He only attacked some of my points, so the rest of my argument is still strong.WATCH OUT!.....the chickens are closer than they appear....thank you
CHEESEDINGO1'S TROLL TOURNEY: Chickens are Superior To Humans

CommyU.S. is a Capitolist nation so that's one reason why we're going to cap the chickens. I'm also pretty sure that the U.S. with the worlds largest military won't fall to the food item in ille 9. The Chickens will look to the book of Animal Farm as a propacy. Look at it this way who would win in a tank vs. 100 chickens. It's obvesous tank. Only people that can do work get the most, the disabled chickens are left out. Kansas isn't flatChickens can't alter reality only Dr. Who can do that. As you see this is another sterotype people have, people fear what they don't know. So going against sterotypes is typicly bad. If chicken take over was possible we couldn't advance in technology and ultamatly we would revolt latter. Like in Planet of the Apes.Alaska is a place of Chips and Polar bears.It's a good thing they leave Alaska alone, but the Bears want to conquer the chickens and keep humans in power, because the humans give the bears a supply of vaxcine.Chickens are same except for sex
CHEESEDINGO1'S TROLL TOURNEY: Chickens are Superior To Humans

CHEESEDINGO1'S TROLL TOURNAMENT ROUND 1:Cheesedingo v.s. lannan13Topic: Chickens are superior to humans.Perimeters: 1) Alaska is a place of Tortilla chips and Polar Bears.2) Chickens and roosters are the same except for their sex.3) The friendzone exists. (meaning one that is trapped in a relationship where they are only regarded as a friend when they want an actual realationship).THAT IS ALL.BRING IT ON.
Abortion: Prolife or Prochoice

opposition making another falsely claim again. Do you know a one day fetuses have no DNA? most chromosomes is not in development, why the law stated the time period for abortion is alright, is legal? all country set law and agreed abortion is allow, if abortion = murdered are you saying the law is allowing murder to be happen? its a serious claim you have just make. pls do not copy and paste stuff, pls support ur idea . i could copy and paste any articles which contain random proof of fetus is not human, but this will seriously defect the purpose for this arguments by it debating on those unknow ,un proofed , articles claim. do you not have your own point before you start debate. -------------------------------------------------------------- this is not a analogy debate, this is the logic you are trying to put across. don't be confused by claiming its a analogy. --------------------------------------------------------- look at oppositions, you are making yourself a fool by keep copy and paste , bbc is not 100% true, they sated its suggested idea on their website. also am i debating u or with bbc writer ? anyone could do a copy and paste but rare are thinker. swordandspirit.com is ever worst...its just someone thought, OPPOSISTIONS DO U KNOW THERE IS OVER FEW MILLIONS OF articles on whatever fetuses is or not a life. post proof , else we have to agreed on the law which enforced for many years , that the fact Abortion is allowed. unless u lie thorough your eye that the law is wrong.without proof. ----------------- oppositions fail to set up a proper debate, oppositions copy and paste random articles oppositions fail to proof there is life in all stage of fetuses Abortion is allowed under the law in most country but depend on the period of pregnancy. vote for me now. its a clear win.
Abortion: Prolife or Prochoice

'opposition making falsely random copy and paste with no solid supporting proof,and claim fetus is a human'It's not false information, it's actual evidence from REAL Embriologists. Read it again. In fact, fetuses have 46 chromosomes, unique dna, and fetus is latin for 'little baby'. Now answer this question, if it is not a human, than what is it exactly ?'let rephrase it, the beginning of chicken, when cell of egg in development or when chick hatchery from egg. eating egg is killing chicken. is it logic ? NO. therefore killing chicken is eating egg.'A chicken and a human fetus is not the same species. Therefore pro makes a poor analogy that has no depth and makes no sense what so ever.http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.swordandspirit.com...
Abortion: Prolife or Prochoice

opposition making falsely random copy and paste with no solid supporting proof,and claim fetus is a human i like to remind opposition to start direct on the debate due to its already round 2. opposition claim , the beginning of human ,when cells in development . let rephrase it, the beginning of chicken, when cell of egg in development or when chick hatchery from egg. eating egg is killing chicken. is it logic ? NO. therefore killing chicken is eating egg.
Abortion: Prolife or Prochoice

A fetus is a human being/person.A fetus is clearly a human according to many embriologists below. Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being. (Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2) The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote. [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3] Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote. [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, This concludes that a fetus is a human, and a termination of that fetus is murder.
Cruise Tasik Putrajaya should be stopped

I disagree, people don't use the Cruise Tasik Putrajaya just to go site seeing. They go for the experience. I mean how many of us can say that we've been on boat. . http://www.cruisetasikputrajaya.com... Let alone a cruise! Something like this is special and is also key for the Burmian (aka Malaysia) economy. We can see that one way to make money is through the tourism industry . http://mytourismtv.com.... That is exactly what Burma is trying to do here is make money through the Tourism Industry and if you put a stop to it you will hurt their economy.
Cruise Tasik Putrajaya should be stopped

I believe the Cruise Tasik Putrajaya, in Putrajaya Malaysia should be stopped. Unlike the Venice reviers, there's nothing much to see in Putrajaya except for the massive government complexes.Yes, the catamarans and the traditional boats look nice, but apart from that, there's nothing much there.The place should have a water extreme park instead.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.cruisetasikputrajaya.com...http://www.jomjalan.com.my...
Can this work be considered existentialist

1)con says "Firstly, even if that is a satisfactory framework, Pro offers no response to my brief comment that he has not even established that the work provided is relevant to angst. In my previous round, I defined angst as "a negative feeling arising from the experience of human freedom and responsibility". Such a definition has not been contested, and at this point, it is presumed that Pro is willing to accept it. Yet, Pro has not justified his claim that the work is about existential angst at all; he has only been making bare assertions. He has not been able to link the portion of his work towards "human freedom and responsibility", and as a result of this, he has been unable to show that his work pertains to the concept of "existential angst", let alone "existentialism". if con had studied philosophy instead of relying on google he would have known existential angst can be http://en.wikipedia.org... "Angst is often described as a drama an adolescent troubles with during their developmental years. This adolescent trouble or self-loathing is often tied to sexual attractiveness," and if he had read the poem which con seems not to have thinking in a clever dicky way that he can win a debate by just be cleaver-in his case very superficially he would have seen the old man suffering self loathing and longing for his lost identity and sexual prowess and further if con had read his Stanford article fully he would have read http://plato.stanford.edu... " In thus robbing me of the possibility of practical self-identification, anxiety teaches me that I do not coincide with anything that I factically am. Further, since the identity bound up with such roles and practices is always typical and public, the collapse of this identity reveals an ultimately first-personal aspect of myself that is irreducible to das Man." thus again this characterization depict the old man in the poem 2) con says "Secondly, he has not justified the assumption that because a work has themes that pertain to the concept of "existential angst", it by default can be considered "existentialist"." again the Stanford and wiki links clearly show that angst is an important concept in existentialism but con does not know this as he thinks he can debate without knowing anything about existential he thinks he can just rely on google in conclusion con has refused to debate and just rely upon picky comments which just show con has no real idea of existentialism my point was this work is existential as it looks at the existential angst of an aging of an old man and I have proved that in the preface I quoted from the work con himself gave a Stanford link which if followed show just what this existential angst can be con has given no proof that this work is not existential all he has done is try and avoid the debate-as has been shown because he knows nothing about existentialism thus I should win debate
Can this work be considered existentialist

con says "we ought to reject any claim provided by him that the work is "existentialist", for the sole reason that we do not know what an "existentialist" work entails," con is full of crap this is a philosophy debate so it is assumed those who debate know philosophy ie existentialism ie have read the works of Sartre Camus Heidegger Kierkegaard even Dostoyevsky if con does not know the literature of existentialism then he has right to be debating here con says "Unless Pro is able to provide a framework, that can be used in order to judge whether a work can be reasonably considered to be "existentialist"" I have provided a frame work ie existential angst fact is cons comments show con knows nothing about existentialism and perhaps indicate a malicious intent for this debate ie to just derail it as I said if con cannot tell us why this work is not existential-which looks like he does not know what that is -then I must win e debate