BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The NCAA in football should change to a playoff system.

Thank you for accepting this argument. This is my first time on this site as well. Refutation 1: My opponent claims "Revenue is lost to many of the sponsors of the bowl games if the bowl games in question are dropped to make room for bracket games." Just because some of the games are in tournament form does not mean that companies couldn't still sponsor it. The games could keep their title and still be in the tournament. Refutation 2: My opponent also claims "The BCS has the 5 biggest sponsoring companies of all the Division I bowl games, and tends to choose larger-market teams to help generate even more monetary gain..." This is exactly the problem. The BCS is usually more concerned with the teams that would generate the most money than with the teams who deserve it the most. He also says that "larger schools will almost always still come out on top no matter if the rankings are biased or unbiased..." Yes, this is true but there are almost always more than just two prominent teams which is the problem we run into with the BCS. That's why I propose that the top 6 to 8 teams participate in a tournament to decide the national champion. Refutation 3: In my opponents third contention he elaborates on how, if we were to change to a tournament system, the much smaller schools would not be able to compete, stating "It is wiser to continue the BCS normally and keep bowls alive for smaller schools that may not have the same abilities as a larger school." Nowhere in my argument have I stated that these schools would not be able to compete. In fact, most if not all of those teams will be unaffected by this. As I have stated previously, I would propose that only the top 6 to 8 would participate in the tournament. Every other school that did not make it would compete in the same bowls they would have. I thank you for reading this and hope that you will side with the Pro.
Islam

The Quran encourages people to defend themselves The only problem with you people is that you tend to link terrorism with Islam and make it seem like terrorism is what defines Islam. What is the actual meaning of terrorism? It is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims, according to Google. Where does it say religion? It says POLITICAL AIMS. And seriously what about other terrorist groups huh? The white supremacists that attacked the USA and they were responsible for 115 incidents. What about in Burma and India where thousands of innocent Muslims and young children have been killed? So clearly Islam is not linked to terrorism Go do your research lil boy And seriously you're not providing info,
9-11 Cover-Up

https://youtu.be... "The inquiry has often been made of us in the course of our history, why we do not contradict such and such statements, "Why do you not confute this or that?" "Why do you not enlighten the people in regard to certain statements which are urged against you, and disabuse the public mind?" . . . As for offering refutations to charges made against us, it would be impossible to keep pace with the thousands of freshly invented falsehoods that the powers spiritual and the powers temporal would produce to feed the credulity of the ignorant masses."- Brigham Young War is its own Economy- The concept of permanent war economy originated in 1944 with an article by Ed Sard (alias Frank Demby), Walter S. Oakes and T.N. Vance, a Third Camp Socialist, who predicted a post-war arms race. He argued at the time that the United States would retain the character of a war economy; even in peacetime, US military expenditure would remain large, reducing the percentage of unemployed compared to the 1930s. He extended this analysis in 1950 and 1951. https://en.wikipedia.org... Faced with the prospect of more spending cuts, the defense industry has been arguing that they would cripple many local economies by ending well-paying jobs in the weapons-building sector. In fact, the Aerospace Industries Association went so far as to commission a study by George Mason University professor Stephen S. Fuller, whose analysis shows that up to 1 million jobs could be lost if sequestration takes place, as now scheduled, on Jan. 2. But at what cost? There"s a new George Mason paper by Thomas K. Duncan and Christopher J. Coyne, a pair of GMU economists, that focuses on a long-overlooked side effect of military spending. GMU has a highly-regarded economics program (including two Nobel economics laureates) and " located just outside the Washington Beltway that encircles the capital city " an ideal perch from which to study federal policy. http://nation.time.com...
The sky is blue

I didn't mean to come off as a rude person before. I wanted to point out that the title says a statement that is pretty vague to discuss. Truthfully, I think you won the "perception and what the sky really is" argument, while I think I stood by the statement "The sky is blue". I appreciate the time you put into this question, which will probably not benefit either of us in any way whatsoever. Its just a fun fact really.
The sky is blue

The original question was asking whether the sky is blue, and not whether the sky appears blue, I would also argue the sky is not blatantly blue, in fact it looks like white and blue, but what it looks like is not the question. I don't believe in the theory you have compared to my argument, I have come across those people on twitter. I agree the sky appears blue, but someone in the comments made a good point that color is mostly our perception, so I guess I lost this argument in a way
The sky is blue

Perception is perception. Your original question is if the sky is blue. Obviously the sky looks blue to the vast majority of people who have vision. So when you ask what color the sky is and you tell me that what you see when you look up is not blue. then I don't know what you're trying to accomplish. The color is blatantly blue, regardless of perception. I don't know what so fascinating about what color we see when we look up. Being a skeptic is alright, but now you have started to sound like one of those guys that thinks some politicians are reptilians and that the Illuminati exist. Please just end it for us and accept that the sky, the plain definition of sky, is blue in color, regardless of how it came to be blue to us. Looks can be deceiving? Great, who doesn't know that? Trying to say the sky is not blue is just sounding conceited. Respectfully, Trust
The sky is blue

Nice, I like your persistence, so ill end it here. What we consider sky, regardless of the scientific research behind light, is blue. Here, follow simple logical statements, If what we see when we look up (outside) is the sky, then the color of what we see is the color of the sky. So if the color that we see when we look up is blue (in the day) then the color of the sky must be blue. I don't remember Geometry from high school, but these proofs were used there and then later in pre-calculus but with more stuff. I just used the simple ones. Using conditionals from mathematics, we have proved that the sky is blue. Your welcome. Respectfully, Truth
The sky is blue

You bring up some very good points, and I am glad you did not give a simple answer, but you are wrong, the sky does not appear blue because of the ocean, regardless of which side you're on, we have to both agree that the sky appears blue because the sun emits blue light (along with every other color light in the spectrum of visible light) what the video I linked explains is that the sky appears blue because the blue light is more likely to scatter due mainly to 2 things, 1. It's abundance in the light emitted by the sun, and 2. The short period length that blue light has. It also explains that the sky is also blue because the color on the other end of the spectrum, red, has the opposite situation where it is not abundant in the spectrum, and it has a very short period length (relatively speaking). The combination of those two things makes the sky appear blue, when in reality it is still a spectrum of light you are seeing.
The sky is blue

Well as explained by the video, the light is getting into our eyes but his explanation is kind of wrong. See, the light doesn't go straight to our eyes when we see the sky, in fact its is the suns rays reflecting the color of the water, which is not actually a color per say, but when you think about the colors as a mode of perception, its much more intriguing. The water can reflect a certain spot on that spectrum of white light, the blue, and when we see the sky, its just a light shade of blue of the water. So in the end what we see is blue, just like when we look at a lime; its green because the pigment reflects, or doesn't accept, green light making the only light going into our eyes green. Sunset and sunrise are just optical effects of the atmosphere as well. I cant really describe the whole scenario in detail because it requires both physics and math. Anyways, the definition of sky is basically, that blue stuff that is always above us. Welcome to the Real World, jackass. Respectfully, Truth
Women in the media

First, your debate topic, "Media and Women", it's a very extensive subject. Second, you brought up the subject that was to be debated in your first argument. "The media depicts a very bias and damaging image of women. It is damaging to them in every way. It is shallow and is, very much, depicting women as less than men, as subordinate to men, and as weak and needy." You have not argued your points. You're second argument talks about something even I agree with you about. Maybe you should have stated either in the title of the debate or your first argument, "the media exploits women in a sexual way which is wrong". I agree with that, but that was not the topic of discussion. I can see how you'd can pull it out of the phrase "it is shallow". As for argument points: The media is all about ratings, and it gives society what it wants to make money. Look at the t.v hit series The Bachelor. The target audience is women, and guess what, it is very damaging to women. But that is what their audience wants. Jersey Shore, 16 and Pregnant, Real Life, and so many others...many women watch it. When my wife watches The Bachelor, she says she likes the drama. So I would like you to take that perspective into consideration. I have noticed that they use Super Models all the time. But the media only gives the audience what they want. That's the reality of things. It's a business, and if you don't like it, don't watch it. The debate topic broad, and you ran away from your initial argument. How does the media portray women as subordinate to men? How are they depicted as less than men? I can see how they are portrayed as weak and needy. I would just like you to elaborate on you're original position because I already agree with you're second argument. Also in regards to the media, I am referring to news channels, cooking shows, sports channels, travel/discovery/history channels as well. They don't fit within the model you presented in your first and even second argument. You may be referring to CBS, Fox, MTV, and some of these other stations that have reality TV shows. So I will just argue that at least if not more than half of all Cable Channels do not portray women badly, if you want I will name them all out for you.
Women in the media

Obviously I accepted the debate, however there are no ground rules. I will go ahead and start the debate. I would like to start the debate with an example of how the media is NOT very bias nor are they damaging the image of women: http://www.msnbc.com... (Awareness for a War on Women) http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com... (A Republican Senator on Fox News claimed if a Presidential Election were held tomorrow, Hillary Clinton would win, That seems to be very empowering for a woman) http://www.foxnews.com... (Female obtains Gold Medal in Winter Olympics, this is very empowering) http://www.foxnews.com... (Raising Awareness for sex trafficking) I can continue to do this all day. The media has actually worked very hard to improve the rights of women, I hope you noticed. Look at MSNBC or CNN, they are great hubs for raising that type of awareness. You should probably include specific media outlets on your debate topic. You made a generalized assumption, but that is not the case. I would like for you to explain your position further. The media reports a lot of bad news, thats a big part of what they do to attract larger audiences. I'll stop here, I don't want to invest too much time without hearing your side first.
On balance, You should not hit your own children

Debate dot org is freaking broken. Don't put underscores or weird letters. And put one link to a google doc that shows sources. Anyways, You should not hit your own children. When I say should not, I mean that it is, On balance, More harmful to do so than it is not to. Hit meaning physical harm. A little slap to the bum is obviously not child abuse. Taking a baseball bat and swinging it at your kid's bum is pretty bad. Therefore, Hit is anything that intentionally ruptures and/or damages human tissue. If my opponent doesn't agree with this, I'll concede the debate and we can call it a tie and go home. Argument 1: It's harmful "April 28, 2016 - UPDATE ON WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HIT YOUR KIDS: Fifty years of research involving over 160, 000 children shows unequivocally that spanking is not only ineffective as a form of discipline, But is detrimental to the mental health of children and adults. " - (https://www. Psychologytoday. Com/gb/blog/good-thinking/201409/is-what-happens-when-you-hit-your-kids)Con's turn.
Who can create the worst argument: Global warming

Sources are for nerds.Sources? Bah! Sources are meaningless! Bare assertions have been proven to be factual! (Except for sources that I use. Why? Because the Bacon God says so.) Don't believe me? Simply look at the bacon manifesto!2. There is no one.3. DATXDUDE may change all of the rules below if he so desires.4.Mmmmm bacon5. Thou shall not steal bacon.6.DATXDUDE's opinion is to be taken as fact 100% of the time.7.Anyone who disagrees with rule 6 is, in fact, Santa. And Santa is creepy.https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com... I am not jealous, I am Jello.I am as awesome as Jello is. And what is a synonym for awesome? Cool. As a matter of fact, I am so cool that I can stop global warming with my bare hands.Freedom for all :D!!!!!Vote whatever you want, because jello does not impose rules on anyone.BLASPHEMY!!!!!YOU FOOL! YOU DARE CLAIM TO BE A GLORIOUS BACON WIZARD AND SLANDER THE BACON GOD HIMSELF! YOU ARE NOWEHERE NEAR AS POWERFUL AS HIS BACON-NESS! YOU WILL PAY, MORTAL! I CURSE YOUR BLOODLINE TO ETERNAL BACON LOSS FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MUAHAHAHAHAgain, global warming doesn't exist. Anyone who says it does, in fact, is a yucky girl. You don't want to be a girl, do you? They have cooties.Note: That statement does not apply to my 10,000 virgin girlfriends that the Bacon god hath bestoweth upon me.Global warming backwardsIf you spell global warming backwards, it is gnimraw labolG. Labol sounds suspiciously like labeled, doesn't it? Just like bottled water, which the infidels claim causes global warming. Maybe they do this for a reason. OF COURSE! THEY WANT TO BRING DOWN THE BACON GOD! DO NOT LET THEM, COMRADES! THE BACON GOD MUST LIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!In conclusion, Balacafa is an infidel who isn't to be trusted.
Who can create the worst argument: Global warming

Bacon God Pork is the most widely eaten meat in the world accounting for over 36% of the world meat intake.http://tinyurl.com...The Bacon God is not unhappy. He is laughing and chuckling - because so much Bacon is being cooked so much the world is heating up. Everyone is leaving their bacon cooking and because it is happening so much the world is heating up. http://tinyurl.com... This is what happens to non believers! The Bacon God does not like people's negative view on the sale of Bacon. He will kill all that dare to disobey him.Jealousy My opponent is jeaous of how brilliant I am. http://tinyurl.com... I have won far more debates than him and in proportion from my win ratio to his he should be conidered as an inferior being. My judgement is always right so listen to what the Bacon god really wants if you dare vote for my opponent the Bacon god will prevent you from ever consuming bacon again! If we want to risk this then do not listen to my opponents disrespectful and misguided views about the bacon god.http://tinyurl.com... My opponent is jealous of my knowledge, Vote Pro!No, because I SAID SO!!! I am a great and powerful magician - I am almost as powerful as the bacon God. You may have magic but I am the greatest, wizard of all time and whatever you try to do with your magic I can cancel out. Since I work for the bacon god he has instructed me to type what I have said. You cannot contradict the words of the bacon god, for I am the great and powerful: bacon wizard. s://drawception.com...; alt="" />https://drawception.com...Mt. Everest has melted!!!Look - it's even on the news!http://tinyurl.com...Even the snowmen agree with me! How can you deny how clever snowmen are?Have you been to see the statue of liberty recently? Please look at all the links. Most of them are pictures that wouldn't come out.
Who can create the worst argument: Global warming

Global warming shouldn't be legalized. Oh wait, that isn't the resolution. Ok Contention 1: Bacon GodGlobal warming doesn't exist because McDonald's sales growth is decreasing.http://news.mcdonalds.com...This makes God displeased. If the bacon supply goes down too much, God will create an ice age. This shows that the world is getting colder, not hotter.Contention 2: Con is too cool for a titleReally? Does this lookr eal to you?https://www.google.com...No, of course not. Global warming is mearly animated. Much like Balacafa, my arch nemisis.http://previews.123rf.com...You better watch out. Or I will rudely point my finger in your face, causing you to feel mild discomfort. Contention 3: Because I said so>:)Like global warming actually exists? BAHAHA! If it did, I could just will it away. You see, global warming is scientific. Using magic, I can destroy science, causing a chain of events leading to the fall of the Roman Empire, and eventually, global warming. Or cooling. Or whatever the bacon god suggests, because he is the decider.
Who can create the worst argument: Global warming

Round 4 of 5It is important to check your grammar and spelling, otherwise you may be penalized by the voters.I DON'T CARE DEBATE.ORG, SHUT UP!!!!!!!!Wait a minute.....https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...Debate.org rymes with debate.pork.THEREFORE, DEBATE.ORG IS THE OFFICAL DOMAIN OF THE BACON GOD!!!!Since this is true, I have just taken over this website, because I am the Bacon God's waifu.http://www.google.com...And if I can take over this website, I can take over any website. If I can take over any website, I can declare global warming illegal. And my assertions are fact, so there!The infidel Balacafa's arguments.1. Nu uh...2. The average temperature of the Earth is already 300 degrees Celcius. It always has been. If it goes up, then the Bacon God could die. Unsympathetic much? Source:http/Totallyworkinglink/DATXDUDEhasbiggermusclesthanBalacafa.gov3. Baby it's coooold outsidddeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!4. Bacon God*. That one grammatical eror proves your entire statement invalid.5. What is loooove? Don't hurt me, don't hurt me...no more. REBUTTALS DO NOT EXISTTherefore, my opponents claims below here are invalid. However, because I'm nice, I will prove them to be invalid anyways.You are not a bacon wizard, infidel. I will strike thee with my mighty toothpick of doom. If you are indeed a bacon wizard, this will mean that you will immediatly concede this debate to me. If you don't, then you are not a bacon wizard.http://www.google.com...Wrong, infidel! I am bacon infused with jello, for maximum sexual pleasure!!!!!! ha, nice try! you cannot fool the voters! they know i win this debate! why? because it is cold, so everyone is typing like this. sometimes, smaller is better! Right ladies? Ladies....*crying*Also, I don't have a brain, but rather a heap of scrap metal that i replaced it with, so there! havote con or be a moron
Who can create the worst argument: Global warming

I'll start eating some bacon now ............... what ................ oh yeah ............... the arguments..........1) It’s really hot outside.2) What’s the big deal if global temperatures go up a few degrees? I don't see how you can be against it. 3) Considering more people die from cold than heat, it’s probably good if the planet gets a little warmer.4) Bacon God controls the weather and he obviously wants it to be hotter so that we can cook bacon just by putting it outside - who needs to actually buy anything to cook bacon in when we have the bacon God helping us out. 5) Scientists can even predict the weather, climate change should be easy to predict. == REBUTTALS == Sources are for nerds and I'm the bacon wizard so I can do anything - global warming now exists. Ha! I win! You can't do anything about it! As the bacon wizard I change the manifesto and now you will have to eat paper. Hahahahahahhahaha. The floor is the ceiling .... You are jello? You offend the bacon God. I am bacon, you are jello. Bacon always wins. Mwwwhahahahahahah!!!! YOU DARE CURE THE GREAT BACON WIZARD WITH BACON LOSS!!!!???? I HAVE ALREADY SENTENCED YOU TO EAT PAPER AND NOW I SENTENCE YOU TO DEATH BY GLOBAL WARMING. HA! THERE'S ANOTHER REASON WHY I'VE WON! THERE WOULDN'T BE SUCH THING AS DEATH BY GLOBAL WARMING IF IT DIDN'T EXIST. I SHOULD PROBABLY TURN OFF CAPS LOCK BUT I'M TOO HOT TO DO THAT BECAUSE GLOBAL WARMING IS HEATING UP THE EARTH. I WIN. YOU LOSE. PEACE. EAT BACON.ONLY JOKING... YOU CLAIM THAT GLOBAL BACKWARDS SOUNDS LIKE LABELED. WELL LABELED BACKWARDS SPELLS DELEBAL AND WHAT COMES UP ON GOOGLE IMAGES WHEN YOU TYPE THAT IN...https://www.google.co.uk...THIS GUY OBVIOUSLY HAS A BRAIN ... A BRAIN LIKE MY PROFILE PICTURE - WHICH MEANS THAT I HAVE WON AND YOU HAVE LOST... I SHOULD PROBABLY FINISH THIS ARGUMENT NOW SINCE THE VOTERS HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF BACON FOR TOO LONG!BYE!
Abortion is morally permissible

It would seem that the entire debate is now revolving around the definition of a person. For starters, I will quote Wikipedia:"A person is a human being" [1]Despite Wikipedia's infallibility, I recognize that I will have to do more than that for such a complex and philisophical issue. It would appear that my opponent believes that the killing of an indefinately comatose patient is morally permissible. If that is not the case, I would like my opponent to clarify.The psychological argument relies on there being a set point during the fetus' development at which it reaches personhood. This essentially makes it completely arbitrary as to whether or not an action is moral. This would be utter nonsense, as it would mean that the cells, already established to be an individual human, rearranging themselves in some slight manner or growing would give it this personhood. The only set point at which such a radical change in rights can occur is at conception, when a wholly unique cell is formed.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...