BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists.

Note: I'm here as a competitive debater, so I don't necessarily agree with ProTime for my actual argument.The debate over the existence of God is very important. Most people have determined that God exists - here are a few reasons why their choice is rational.1. The Creation of the UniverseIf the universe came into existence at some point, it must have a cause, just like everything does. Scientists agree that the existence of the universe has been finite - the Borde-Guth-Vilenken theorem shows that expansion phases of the universe must be finite.That means a cause with immense power which transcends the universe, can make decisions independent of spacetime, and at some point along the causal chain, necessary being must exist.2. The Design In The UniverseIt is very unlikely for any random universe to support life, especially when considering the constants of the universe, which, if ever so slightly varied, would make a universe which does not support life.It seems unlikely that this is necessity, chance, or evolution.The being mentioned in our previous argument, then, might also have a mind with an intent to create humanity.3. Plausible MiraclesThe Disciples of Christ mentioned in the New Testament had every reason not to trust Christ(they were Jews and in a theocratic dictatorship), but clearly were convinced by the resurrection. Why would they lie?Many Christians also experience happiness, and a feeling that God is speaking to them, during religious rituals. This is clearly normal, and requires an explanation, the simplest of which is God, doing something to their soul to produce an effect on the brain.
God exists.

I've reached an agreement with my opponent: 1. My opponent's round 1 speech will be disregarded during judging. 2. My opponent's next two speeches will argue for the claim that God exists as stipulated in the rules. 3. My next speech will attempt to undermine his arguments for the existence of God as stipulated in the rules. 4. All other rules relating to this debate stated in my round 1 speech remain in force. Basically, the resolution will be the same, but it will be a two round debate instead of a three round debate.
Minecraft sucks 4

Since you failed it, you must say "i will not debate in this round, as stated" in the last round to make up for it. But anyway i will start my introduction: So minecraft sucks bacause: Laggy Bad graphics Lame combat Wrong kind of music during the wrong time(minor) Glitchy Unfinshed product as there are TOO many bug fixes which seemed like they planned it from the start to keep it fresh. Addictive Minecraft merchandise and handbooks are also expensive scams. I will save my words and will debate more later. I said suck as the way the game is BAD. So sorry for the misunderstanding. And i like mexacian food. okay, lets move on with life.
Minecraft sucks 4

Minecraft cannot suck anything because it is a video game. Your mouth can suck. Now that I've stripped away your argument with a possible misunderstanding of your semantics, I will dignify the slang meaning of suck. Minecraft is a game. There are many ways in which you may consider said game sucky. So for clarification, you need to provide further analysis as to why this game may suck, such as, this game sucks because the graphics are weak compared to Skyrim or Dying light. If we were to use this measurement to determine why Minecraft may suck, I would agree. However, I would say that Minecraft does not suck based on overall reception of the game. Furthermore, Minecraft can suck based on your subject experience. It is your opinion that this game sucks. My opinion is that it doesn't suck. I don't know if this is even worth a debate. I like Mexican food. You don't. Okay. lets move on with life.
Debate Resolutions Should Not Be Questions

Pro's argument rests on the definition of "resolution". He argues that a resolution is a statement and therefore it cannot be a question.And yet, as we all know, debate resolutions are often framed as questions. Here are some examples of debate resolutions framed as questions, which went on to perfectly good debates:http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org... These are just some recent examples of something that is fairly common practice. Pro had the burden of proof to show why the intiator in these and similar debates were wrong to phrase the resolution as they did. It's not enough to say that the word "resolution" does not mean question, when debate resolutions on this site at least obviously do include questions sometimes. Those debates where the resolution is phrased as a questions go ahead in exactly the same way as those debates where the resolution is framed as a statement, so I think that people should continue to phrase their resolutions as questions if they like doing it that way.
Debate Resolutions Should Not Be Questions

My opponent merely says that in regards to a question that "Obviously, the pro will be answering yes, and con will be answering no." [sic]. I do not think that this is obvious at all. If someone asks a question, a) I am not assuming that they already know the answer or b) if it is a question of opinion I cannot assume which side they are taking just merely based on the fact that they have asked a question. My opponent claims my arguments have been "entirely semantic" when I have not used semantics to bolster my arguments at all. Rather I have been using common sense. I am trying to convey that the common sense way to take a stand in a debate is to affirm something. I already conceded that questions can start a conversation that leads to an actual resolution being stated which then leads to a debate. But the question itself is not a resolution but rather a segue. My opponent has completely ignored my arguments by saying they were semantic, which they were not. Then merely says we are to assume something when a person makes a question their debate resolution. Making such assumptions is risky and in bad form while debating or trying to make a good point or argument in the first place. In conclusion... My arguments were not rebutted in any meaningful way other than being dismissed out of hand by a weak claim of semantics. A claim which isn't even true. My opponent basically states what I already clarified in my first round, questions can be a lead up to debate but in order to actually debate a resolution must be stated. One cannot debate "Is the United State the Best Country On Earth?" without one person making a clear resolution (yes or no). If the question merely stands there is nothing to debate. Therefore, my opponent has made no good arguments as rebuttal and has offered no good arguments of his ow to counter my points made in the first round. Please Vote Pro. Thank you.
Debate Resolutions Should Not Be Questions

My opponent has the burden of proof to show that debate resolutions should not be questions. Put another way, he has to show why phrasing the resolution as a question is wrong.In a practical sense, it's perfectly fine to phrase the resolution as "is America the best country in the world?" or "Are traditional doors better than automatic doors?" Obviously, the pro will be answering yes, and con will be answering no. It's especially appropriate when the burden of proof is shared, and the structure is not one of a statement being defended by one side.Pro's argument has been entirely semantic, but he hasn't shown why we should care about semantics. Just as most people would agree that hamburgers don't have to have ham in them, and that women and married men are entitled to hold bachelor's degrees, I think they would agree that resolutions can be phrased in any way that is clear and useful for the debate to follow.Perhaps in formal debate settings, for the sake of convention, resolutions are phrased in a particular way, but Pro did not specify formal settings for this debate. Given the context, I think we can assume the topic is any and all debates, and particularly online debates such as the ones we do here on DDO. So far, I can see a problem at all with resolutions phrased as questions.
Debate Resolutions Should Not Be Questions

Definitionresolution - a formal expression of opinion; a decision or determinationBy its very definition a resolution is incompatible with a question. A resolution is a formal expression of opinion or a state of determination. This is why debates are generally started with a firm resolution. For example:America Is the Best Country In the World That is a resolution. An expression of opinion that should hold up with some determination. Now lets compare this to a question:Is America the best country in the world? This is the exact opposite of a resolution. You are inquiring into something which shows a lack of determination as it implies that you do not know the answer. How can you debate off of a question? 2. AnswersQuestions can lead to resolutions. If you ask the question: "Is America the best country in the world? " and person A says YES and person B says NO it could start a debate. But the debate will not be started by the question itself but the answers received. When person B says NO they are in reality saying "America is not the best country on earth" which is a resolution. Answers can be resolutions, questions can not. This is a common misconception. Again, a question can be a segue into a resolution via an answer but they themselves are not defensible positions. 3. IndefensibleQuestions are indefensible. Debates require that one or both sides defend a position. This is not possible for questions. Are traditional doors better than automatic doors? You cannot defend this sentence without making an affirmation of some sort. Once it becomes an affirmation it is a resolution but until then it is merely a question and is, by definition, not a resolution. If you do not make an affirmation (a resolution) then you can only expect an answer, which is not a debate. ConclusionQuestions can be used to create resolutions but they themselves are not resolutions. The definition of a resolution and a question are incompatible, therefore a question should not be placed in a spot that a resolution is designed to go. Questions are indefensible and therefore debates are really focused around answers and not questions. Thus, debate resolutions should not be questions. Thank you.
Who is better Frozen or Little shop of horrors

'Don"t forget to share these awesome facts of Disney FROZEN with your friends as well (icon smile)'It is very obvious that, once again, my opponent has plagiarized without creating an argument for the debate regarding why 'Frozen' is better than the 'Little Shop of Horrors'. Seeing 'icon smie', it is likely that they retrieve these 'facts' from un-credited source, and is therefore invalid and is plagiarism.Successful troll/10, Debate.org, please remove this user now!
Who is better Frozen or Little shop of horrors

Okay, I wish to not continue this debate, because once again, the same opponent has plagiarized their argument or statement for that matter, and do not propose any form of argument catering to their position. That being said, I thought this would be an interesting debate, but I was apparently wrong. ... Closing argument: Everyone has their own opinions on films, which I totally respect and promote. However, if a person chooses to create a debate, they must have an argument ready,
I will win this debate

"My computer is sun-heat-resistant" no it is not. There is no computer or solid object in general that can withstand the sun's heat as the sun is 27 million degrees F at its core (http://www.space.com...). Also, your profile says that you are 14, so you must be smart. My profile says I am 40, which is not true. I will tell you this: I cannot legally drive a real car yet.
I will win this debate

Welcome to DDO, SolSun! You will probably win because this is your first debate, so your profile does not yet say anything about your Elo ranking. "I learned the answer to 2 + 2 when I was only 55 million years old." You cannot possibly be that old as there is no reliable record, nor scientific possibility of a person living that long. Logic also deems it impossible for you to actually be the sun as the sun is literally 10,000 F (http://www.space.com...), which means that you would have already melted your computer before you could have posted your argument before even reaching Earth.
Videos for people is a good Youtube channel.

Judges, this fool did nothing but waste my time. If I could have declined, I would. Obviously if you think the YouTube channel has talent or good quality, then you are mentally impaired, it isn't hard to tell talent from utter garbage. I believe it was no point in me having this incredibly stupid debate, again from the videos and not just through his arguments, you yourselves should vote whether the channel is good or not. Lesson learned to stay away from these kinds of meaningless debates that have the potential to ruin my reputation, I will say it from the last time, not even from HIS arguments, but from your viewing of the videos, you have to vote on whether you can agree or disagree, and not just because [Con] did not provide enough to refute his claims/arguments. Thank you.
Videos for people is a good Youtube channel.

I grow annoyed at your foolishness, as Captain Kirk said in episode 3 of star Trek. throughout this debate, you have done absolutely nothing to prove your point, and you refuse to communicate in an intelligible manner. In the previous argument, note how you don't point out any aspects of his work, you don't bother to think about what the videos are or what they mean, you simply state that they are garbage, and while this is a reasonable opinion, you have to provide some kind of evidence as to why they are garbage. Don't just talk about the layout and design, but rather, the plots and the characters and the intricacies of the whole thing. Your argument above is very weak and I hope you provide a little more in this last round, or you'll have lost. All your arguments are below four thousand characters, you can do better. Argue strong for the last round and you could nab the whole thing. Otherwise, you're probably going to lose. Just saying. You state your opinions as fact and do nothing to substantiate them. Videos For people is not a bad Youtube channel, but it does take a certain knack to understand. I can see that you, Debatinghorse, don't have that knack. Because of their uniqueness, you fear them, and so you refuse to consider them any further. they take a while to get used to, but after that, they're easy to understand and very funny. Videos for people is very underrated, but he's much better than some popular Youtubers, and I'm sure that his being underrated is only due to the fact that nobody has found him yet. I predict that, in five years or so, he might have a cult following. Overall, his stuff is a little hidden gem, and I'm proud to enjoy it. Judges, I implore you, vote reasonably. If you seriously think that my opponent has debated better than me, then by all means, vote for him. I think he didn't do a very good job. I think I did pretty well. Look at the links I gave, and watch every piece all the way through, and then decide for yourself whether or not it's a good Youtube channel. I await your votes. Thank you.
Videos for people is a good Youtube channel.

So with the three links, that led me to see and dislike the videos, I will say that the YouTube channel is completely garbage. So you my assumption is that you take parts of wasting your life watching the pointless garbage? Are you trolling? Why should I even continue to debate this incredibly stupid topic? It is only wasting my time. How is it from those clips you call that talent or things of good quality? Come on, it is obviously garbage, and something must be wrong with you.
Videos for people is a good Youtube channel.

You've got to do better, Sample debater. You've got to actually rebut what I say and argue otherwise, or you don't have a chance. Because you asked, I'll give some links: His art style is wonderfully reminiscent of old fifties cartoons, but it has a sort of new aesthetic too. It seems both modern and old at the same time. He's very funny, but not immature, and his humor is very highbrow and intellectual, but not snobby. Pop culture references are scattered throughout, like pepper added to a stew. Everything about his videos reflects the mind of a genius. I feel as if the whole series is building up to some sort of big surprise, but it might not be doing anything. He reached his two hundredth video a while back, so I have a lot of catching up to do. His channel is like a labyrinth. Everything is different, but it has a sense of unity. Please, sir, I strongly encourage that you don't just give short inputs and say that I'm wrong just because nobody else knows about this or because it's my opinion. Sure, there's no fact or anything. Just argue with whatever I say, OK? I want a neat debate, and we're already to round three. Go a little deeper here. Ok, sir. I'm all set.
Videos for people is a good Youtube channel.

I think it's the best thing he made. It's a short film, only about seven minutes long, but it's lengthy for what he usually puts out. There are these two cops, and one of them falls in love with a guy, and then the other one has trouble with his wife, or something like that. I forget exactly what the plot was, but I remember it was frickin' hilarious.This does not prove it is a good YouTube Channel. If it were good, others would agree, also you should have given links to the videos you mentioned in your previous statements. I know you are summarizing what you have seen, but I believe it would have been better for you to do so. (sorry for short inputs) but if there was more for me to speak about, my post would have been larger.
Videos for people is a good Youtube channel.

That argument was very lazy. Please, on the next round, provide a full paragraph or something. First, you said I was too vague on why it was a good Youtube channel. Then, when I provided evidence as to why it was a good Youtube channel, you said it was my opinion. Yes, but that was the reasoning part of it. I also gave distinct examples of what his stuff was like. Please, sir, just rebut my argument. It's not that hard to do, and I gave you a 9,000 word limit. I was expecting something powerful. Oh, yeah. I said I would talk a little about "Cops in the City". I think it's the best thing he made. It's a short film, only about seven minutes long, but it's lengthy for what he usually puts out. There are these two cops, and one of them falls in love with a guy, and then the other one has trouble with his wife, or something like that. I forget exactly what the plot was, but I remember it was frickin' hilarious. I suggest, sir, that you go see that. It's great. Then talk about it in the next argument. I need a better argument if you even want a chance at winning.
Videos for people is a good Youtube channel.

Ok, sure, maybe I wasn't too descriptive in that first argument. No matter, there are still four rounds, so I'll provide some more evidence here. Then maybe you'll be OK with it. The first argument was only intended as a rough sketch, now I'll go in deeper. Hmm. Evidence. I can tell you right here and now that the stuff from this guy is very high class humor. He doesn't mess around with poop and stuff. His humor is very intellectual stuff, and he illustrates powerful ideas with goofy stick figures. It is kind of a cheap ploy, but still, you can see the genius lurking behind it. One thing I like about his videos is that at the end of some, there's a little code that flashes onto the screen for about a second, and you have to pause the video and write the code down to solve it. It's a neat little trick, and it adds a fun little activity to the whole thing. I've already solved some, they're pretty easy, but I won't spoil any here. They are freaking hard to catch though, and very easy to miss. Still, it is a nice little puzzle that he always provides. OK, some more evidence. His recent video on the Stanford Prison Experiment was hilarious. He uses a lot of sight gags sometimes. In his Stanford video, he was very blunt and presented the topic very clearly, and you can tell from the way the video was that he knows a hell of a lot about the Stanford Prison Experiment. He even knows how much the volunteers were paid. he really researched the whole thing pretty well, and everything was very well executed. I also enjoy his videos because they're pretty short, usually, except for the seven minute epic "Cops in the City," which I might talk about in an upcoming argument. The point, though, is that his videos are always brief, and you never really get tired of watching them. Everything is new and vibrant. But the best thing by far that he's done is his rock and ROOOLLLLLLL guy videos. They're hilarious, not because of jokes or anything, but just because of the way the whole thing is presented. The videos show this blue stick figure guy in front of this colorful background, and some old timey guitar music. The guy never moves or plays the guitar, or anything, but in every description, he's treated as if he was a major celebrity. I think the videos might be a comment on how celebrities don't ever do anything to deserve their status. Another interesting thing is how his name is always spelled the same, with three capital o's and seven capital l's. There's also some kind of alien thing with him. I haven't seen it. i also like how frequent new videos are made. There are new ones every week at the very least. There's no waiting. I mean, the videos are kind of low quality because of the speed they're put out, and it's hard to watch all the stuff, by now there are two hundred or so separate videos, but they still come out reasonably and they're all equally good. Ok, I think I've given you plenty of evidence. I'm all set for your next argument. Good luck.
Videos for people is a good Youtube channel.

"Videos for people is the best Youtube channel I have ever uncovered. It's entertaining. When I see one of his videos, I laugh, I cry, and so on. His videos attract me. I am drawn to them like a moth to a porch light. I don't know why, but I like them. He has a zany sense of humor and a firm grasp of the world around him."This is an opinion, not valid evidence for why the channel is what you claim to be "the best". Using the word "best" simply because of your opinion on how you feel about the channel does not make your argument valid or true. I will say in this that I have watched three of some videos, they lack talent, and they most certainly do not entertain. "They are so funny that I can't stop laughing." Why did you laugh? What was so humourous in the video that caused laughter? "They do hilariously funny things. they do romantic stuff, funny stuff."You did not describe what they do. If you could have been more descriptive on what they do, i could go further. Your first argument does not prove that the channel is the "best", it is not true.