BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Zombies are possible.

If there is no specific virus than there is no grounds to say that a virus could reanimate a corpse. "thousands of scratch marks adorned every surface of the tomb, as if the corpse had tried to claw its way out!" That doesn't mean the body was reanimated. The person may not have been dead and tried to get out. In 1892, they don't have the science today that we have in order to prove bodies are dead. "The book (The Zombie Survival Guide) is divided into six separate chapters, a list of fictional attacks throughout history and an appendix. The first chapter 'The Undead: Myths and Realities' outlines Solanum, the fictional virus that creates a zombie" http://en.wikipedia.org...
God exists

After my recent debate concerning my view that social patterns suggest the lack of a supreme being, I was thinking that I should expand the debate to the all too generic, but nonetheless extremely important, debate of god, with the opportunity to use any evidence you see fit, other than one narrow category. As is the case with most debates of this sensitive a topic area, since I took the unpopular side, I do not expect to win. To that, I can only say that I don't really care, because if I can get just one person to read this and make them think twice about their belief, even if they don't change their mind, that is more important than winning. You have probably heard the saying, "It is not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game." I'll be honest, I like winning, but how I argue is much more important; always, but especially so when I try to debate the unpopular end of an issue, as I am doing here. I will allow my opponent to argue first, and I am excited for what is destined to be a great debate!
God exists

Please forgive me if I am wrong, but I think you are saying something about how you need a seed to grow a dandelion, but God didn't. I'm sorry, but that is exactly what I'm saying. Nothing is capable of breaking the laws of physics or biology. Well, now, I have laid out my reasons for why I don't believe in God. And you have one poorly put together sentence to support your claim, while you haven't effectively refuted any of my claims. Perhaps you're a final round debater? If so, so be it. Perhaps you figure that you don't have to do anything to win because of predisposition? Remember that there are other categories which, by this stage, seem to be an imminent issue for you unless you write a phenominal round 3. One somewhat coherent point is not going to win you anything.
Women Should Be Required To Change their Last Name to Their Male Spouses

“This is a well-known tradition, dating as far back when surnames are created. It is a good tradition because it is the males surnames. This doesn’t even answer the question. And just because it is the male’s surname does not mean it is a good tradition. “If they both do not like they can change it to whatever they please. ” But that goes against the title of the debate. Unless I am misunderstanding it. “I have never met a male who encouraged women to keep their last names. ” This is not a valid argument and I can combat it by saying that I have met many males that encourage women to keep their last names.
Women Should Be Required To Change their Last Name to Their Male Spouses

"Why do women need to accept this? Why is this a tradition? This is not a good tradition because it limits the couple"s choice in choosing their name." This is a well-known tradition, dating as far back when surnames are created. It is a good tradition because it is the males surnames. If they both do not like they can change it to whatever they please. "This seems sexist. I know many males that believe that women should not keep their surname, and they are not feminist or self-centered." It may sound sexist but I am certainly not trying to. I have never met a male who encouraged women to keep their last names.
Women Should Be Required To Change their Last Name to Their Male Spouses

Thank you for that response Pro. “Women need to accept that it is a well-known tradition for females to take their husbands last name. ” Why do women need to accept this? Why is this a tradition? This is not a good tradition because it limits the couple’s choice in choosing their name. “Only self-centered and feminist women believe that they should keep their surname. ” This seems sexist. I know many males that believe that women should not keep their surname, and they are not feminist or self-centered. “How horrible is it for a child to have two last names. ” This is an opinion. A child might want to have two last names. Arguments: “The tradition of changing one's name, as you've been told a bazillion times, has its roots in the idea that women give up their rights to own property and exist as a separate entity from their husbands when they marry. ” (1) It is discriminatory to require women to change their last names for only a tradition. Laws should not be based on traditions, especially a tradition as prejudice as this. Conclusion: I ran out of time this time in the debate, hence the short response.
why dogs are better than pigs

1) Pigs are smarter than your three year old, your dog, and probably you. Numerous studies have proved that you can teach your pig more, better tricks than your dog and that they are smarter than 3 year-olds. 2) Pigs will snuggle with you like a dog, but will not smell or slobber like a dog. Pigs are very social creatures, and will often snuggle with each other and you when they sleep: very much like your dog. But, their general cleanliness and lack of thick fur means they won"t smell like damp dog. Dogs also drool excessively because they cool off with their mouths, unlike pigs whose toys will still be tolerable after an hour of play. 3) They won"t leave hair all over your couch and your boyfriend and your toilet seat and your breakfast and the inside of your mouth and".
Sports and Obesity

Sports can get rid of obesity by making a huge difference in weight gain. According to the article "Sports promote healthy weight in teenagers" it says " The study also found that while school-based exercise can reduce or stem weight gain, it is sports participation in particular that makes a difference." In the same text it also says " They calculated that if all adolescents played on at least two sports teams per year " in other words, one team per season " obesity rates would plunge 26 percent."
Homosexuality is immoral

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13). "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you." (Leviticus 18:22-24). "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27). Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).
Gay Marriage

Contention 1: Homosexuals should not get married.First let me give you a Bible verse that is against the Bible.Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." An abomination is anything that is disgusting to God.Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."Now I state that homosexuals should not get married, because it is against many different religions and we can all agree that marriage is a religious Sacrament where that the church says it is between a man and a women. ( http://www.americancatholic.org...) Now the US has the Separation of church and state, so my point is that the federal government should stay out of a religious affair as it has no right to intervene.Contention 2: Civil Unions are a better alternative to Gay marriageNow I know my opponent will probably bring up that I don't want two people that love each other together, but that is false. I as fact have two homosexual uncles, but am still against Gay Marriage. I instead support Civil Unions. What are Civil Unions you may ask? According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a Civil Union is a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that gives them some of the same rights and responsibilities that married people have. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Now reading this you may ask yourself why are you against gay marriage then? Simply for the reason stated in Contention 2. Let me show you it's effectiveness. New Jersey and Vermont both have legalized Civil Unions instead of Gay Marriage and they give you the same exact right as a married couple. Here's who can enter a Civil Union. the same sex over 18 years old (or meet requirements for an exception) not a party to another civil union, domestic partnership or marriage not closely related to each other (for example, not an ancestor, descendant, sibling, niece, nephew, aunt or uncle) (http://www.lambdalegal.org...) Also according to Pew research Center, 57% of Americans approve of Civil Unions (with a 37% oppose) while 53% of Americans oppose Gay Marriage (37% favor). Here are the support numbers between men and women. Men Civil Unions: 54% for 40% against, women Civil Unions: 60% for 35% oppose, Men Gay Marriage: 34% for 59% oppose, Women Gay Marriage 43% for 48% against. (http://www.people-press.org...) Contention 3: Financial gain from Civil UnionsCivil Union produce tons of money. In Hawaii on one single day then generated, $1.4 million a day it also increased tourism to Hawaii by 43%! They have shown that if the current status quo continues then they will produce $2.2 million a year due to homosexuals visiting the state. Also in Hawaii they get health insurence. (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...)
Gay Marriage

I think that gay people should be allowed to get married. I mean why not? They are no different than us.. They haven't chosen to be gay. So many people say they choose to be gay. Some people take their lives because they don't want to be gay. Think for a minute about this.. Did you ever just choose to be straight? Or were you born like that? People can't help who they love, and they shouldn't be punished or feel downgraded. They are the same as us. They are just humans. Everyone's different. If this has to do with religion, doesn't god say love everyone?
being a non-member on club penguin is better than being a member

Didn't expect someone to take this debate seriously. I guess its your opinion and you are entitled to it, but being a member, just the title, makes your higher up in something. Member entitles you to more benefits which is just something extra you get. Seems as if you are being semi-ignorant to this and you just want to say that not being a member in some weird game is better. Have fun in your penguin game, I suggest League Of Legends but what ever floats your boat. Thanks.
being a non-member on club penguin is better than being a member

Club Penguin is "Clearly" the best game ever. I played it 4 (I think) years ago and it was a great game to play with my cousins (I am currently at the age or 15.) Clearly being a member is 100 times better because of that weird card dojo thing. Spent like, an hour a day in that stupid dojo, that was the best part of the game. You also got cool looking puffins instead of bland ones (which also in terms didn't matter because they always ran away from me anyways) But being a member in almost everything is better (except for the payment itself which isn't really factored into this discussion) But overall it is. Also I am confused. If your honest its rubbish but honestly its quite good? Like. What?
being a non-member on club penguin is better than being a member

clubpenguin.comWhen people talk about the benefits of club penguin membership, I think they are forgetting about the two best features on the site, which are available to all members: waddle around and meet new friends People talk about being able to buy stuff but that's just like pixels on a screen. Other benefits of Club Penguin non-membership include: less empty space in your wallet you are less materialistic (be self less like the budder) you spend less time on Club Penguin which is a rubbish game if I'm honest to be honest it's quite good Thank you.
Latter-day Saints are not racist.

It's a well-known fact that the Church of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) have racist tendencies that stretch back to the religion's founder, Joseph Smith. Native Americans and Africans, for instance, are viewed in the Book of Mormon as "Lamanites." "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey." -- Nephi 5:21-23 The LDS Church has through the years attempted to either diminish the racist remarks of its founder or to simply conceal them. Because of this, the Mormon Church is officially attempting to change its image. The demographics within the church, especially of the younger generation, grow up not knowing or understanding its own scriptures on the subject, and the Doctrine of Salvation of Joseph Smith on the subject. For instance, "There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.... There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits." --Joseph Fielding Smith Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, pages 66-67 So there comes a question of whether or not they take the modern view of "racism is bad," or whether The Book of Mormon itself is fallible. The two cannot be reconciled logically. You must either admit that the book, and therefore the religion, is a farce, or it must maintain its racist origins as being divine revelation from God. SOURCES: http://saintsalive.com... http://www.mormoncurtain.com...
Interactive Drawing Cartoon Contest.

I came up this this fun little drawing contest debate that I'd like to try out if someone is interested!Rounds will be structured as follows:Each round Pro/Con gives an instruction of something to draw. for example:IE. - Con must draw a dog. (Good)IE. - Con must draw a firefighter (Good)IE. - Con must draw something with slime (Good)IE. - Con must draw someone slipping (Good)IE. - Draw something happening (Bad)IE. - Draw what you want (Bad)IE. - Draw Mexico (Bad)IE. - Draw a man in a las vegas casino winning 3 million dollars next to his jealous wife who's having an affair with some broke mexican dude that is part of a gang (Bad)Please be specific about what you want your oponent to draw and dont make it impossibly difficult or vague, this should mainly be people or things. Or things happening to people (!KEEP IT SIMPLE!).So the catch is as follows - Every round, you must draw all the things that have thus far been listed already plus whatever has been added. At the end of the round you add something for your opponent to draw.For example -Round 1Pro - "Draw a dog".Round 1Con - *Con draws dog* "Draw a flower"Round 2Pro - *Draws Dog and a Flower* - "Draw A motorcycle"Round 2Con - *Draws Dog, Flower and Motorcycle* "Draw a sofa"etc....The idea is that whoever makes the most relevant pictures wins. pictures should be drawn in a unique cartoony way. -No digital drawings--Sign your drawing with your name--colors are allowed-=============================================First round is for acceptance and Con instructs pro what his first drawing should be (dont make it too hard because you'll have to draw it every round also).---------------------*DRAWINGS SHOULD BE DRAWN UNIQUELY EACH TIME*----------------------If you're interested in this debate please let me know in the comments and I'll challenge you to it.
Interactive Drawing Cartoon Contest.

And yes, the weird other wire wires to the lasagna, and the dark "thing" behind the window is actually the flag. It has an electric lightning-like structure at the top, but the poor photo quality just blurred it. I actually used watercolor in some parts, so that may have contributed to the blurring of my flag. Sorry if my drwaing seems too "realistic" to be considered "Cartoon" by you voters, but I was really really busy, and so I searched online for inspiration. The left side of the drawing is inspired by the board game "Power Grid". And yes, I know it looks exactly the same, but realistic stuff is super hard to draw.Original cover: Looks alike, eh?As for me admitting defeat, what kind of jerk is Denny Bug, defining the words the last round possible and claiming I broke the rules? Why not the round before that? Oh, that's right--he has no arguments against my drawings. Because such, pro has conceded (rather in a peculiar fasion), and this debate is in the favor of con. This was fun!Vote me!
Interactive Drawing Cartoon Contest.

Firstly I'd like to argue against some of the claims my opponent has been making that mystery and relevance to his drawings are better and that he should recieve points for such. This is an Interactive Drawing Cartoon Contest. Interactive: (of two people or things) influencing or having an effect on each other. Drawing: a picture or diagram made with a pencil, pen, or crayon rather than paint, especially one drawn in monochromeCartoon: make a drawing of (someone) in a simplified or exaggerated way. Contest: an event in which people compete for supremacy in a sport, activity, or particular quality. -A Scientist wearing a lab Coat(Twice)-A Wedge of Cheese(The planet itself is a giant cheese ball)-A fluorescent Light(The sun)-A Flag(Twice)-Lasagna(Craters of Lasagna in this "cheese planet")I will add the color green for my opponents last round. I'd like voters to vote on Artistic ability, and how the competitors put all of the items listed to use. This is how I intended the debate. My opponent has mentioned multiple times that my drawings look better than his, therefor he admits to defeat by definition of the rules and purpose of this debate. -Link if the image doesnt show: . http://postimg.org...;
Interactive Drawing Cartoon Contest.

Hello! looks good spaceking.First off I'd like to clear up a few things, My opponent has tried to argue that because of the enigmatic nature of his drawing he deserves to have won that round. I disagree, In the description I stated that whoever makes the more relevant drawings is to win! How you make the objects thus far listed work in your drawing. This includes them interacting with eachother instead of simply drawing them side by side.I will repost my first image since a few members were not able to view it ( I think this was a size related issue)1st image ( A scientist wearing a lab coat) This is my 2nd image: (Scientist wearing a lab coat, wedge of cheese and a fluorescent light) Description - After drinking his strange concotion, our mad scientist transformed into a mad scientist mouse. He's now enhancing wedges of cheese to taste ten times as good with his fluorescent laser. I will be adding a flag to our current list of items.A scientist wearing a lab coat.A wedge of cheeseA Fluorescent lightA FlagGood luck to my opponent.
PC Gaming vs Console Gaming

I would like your definition of "gaming". Do you mean First person Shooter, Role playing, Sports, Adventure, board games, action? These can effect the preferred console. I would also like you to define "best way to game". Console is also a fairly vague term as it can mean any console from any time period like the Sega Dreamcast, the Nintendo 64 or even recently released consoles such as the Xbox One or the PS4. If you could be more specific about these things I think it will make it easier for both of us to carry out this debate. Until I have this information I will just speak generally. PC gaming has its pros and cons as does Console gaming. There are several differences between gaming on a PC and gaming on a Console, the type of controllers, social aspect, availability of games, the ability to manipulate games and servers, and the price of the device you are using to in game add-ons and membership fees. When gaming on a computer or console you can interact with other people over a headset or through some type of messaging/chat system. The social aspect you can only truly get while sitting around one screen playing on the same console with a few other people is pretty unique to console gaming. While there is the option for local multiplayer on some PC games you cannot compare it to the local multiplayer of a Console system.
PC Gaming vs Console Gaming

Hello everyone! This is my first debate! (On this website. I debate at school, so please don't count me as an amateur just yet =) Today I propose a debate that his been going on amongst gamers since the beginning of time. What is the best way to game, PC or Console? There are many interesting arguments and propositions from both sides, but I will be standing up for PC Gaming, as I personally believe that it is the best.My opponent will be advocating for Console Gaming. We will both be battling it out in 4 (technically 3) rounds of debate. The first round will be acceptance. I doubt anyone can beat me in this debate (I know I sound cocky - but I'm just confident). If you believe that you can, you may accept. Please only accept if you are serious. I've seen many debates on this website that just end up with a bunch of forfeits. I don't want that to happenFirst round: AcceptanceSecond Round Arguments presented (Con may NOT post any rebuttals. ONLY arguments)Third round: Rebuttals (Pro rebuts to Round 2 arguments. Con rebuts to round 2 arguments)Fourth Round: Rebuttals and conclusions (Con may not rebut to anything Pro states in Round 4)Good luck to whomever accepts =)