BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Perfect Murder

Additional Rebuttals: Pro argues that because Garrie is in a back ally, he will not be seen. However with *any* public place [it doesn't matter exactly where] there's as large probability of being seen. Naturally people would have noticed Garrie enter the ally, and a girl screaming loudly is fairly certain to have been heard by someone; seeing that directly outside the ally is a street with local populace and people walking/running around celebrating--a key theme in Pros story. Pro then then claims that Garrie, after raping and murdering girls, can somehow disappear and then leave the country. Which of course to anyone that can apply logic is completely outrageous. For example, where does Garrie hide his blood covered clothes? And how about the women that would have witnessed and noted his strangeness? As stated previously, they would obviously informed the police and given a basic description when questioned. Even if he did mangle to get rid of the body, there would still be a missing girl[s] that would be reported. Regarding my own story and Pros only rebuttal to it so far, how would the police be able to conclude the she was standing right next to Bill? Specifically as she gave an entirely different impression to the people she discovered and asked for help from. I also clearly outlined that both were in a remote location with no witnesses at the scene; therefore, where is the actual evidence that she was responsible? Once again, there is none.
The Perfect Murder

He is in a public place, but he's in a back alley. No one can see him. No one could see the girl go into the alley either, the area was dark. Also, this is why no one heard her scream. There was no one around. So those aren't errors. Garrie is a facechanger. As soon as the rape and murder is over he can disappear to another country to rape some more. No worries. He'll never be caught. And if Garrie does want to remove the body, like you said, he can just incinerate it. No body, no crime. Bye-bye. As to your story, Susie will be investigated for the murder because she was standing right next to Bill when he fell off the cliff. There's no way she'll get away with it. Typical Foolery.
The Perfect Murder

Thanks Pro. As specified I will move onto debating against your story, or in other words; rebuttals. The first flaw in Pros case is that Garrie is seemingly in a public area--as he mentions that Garrie has been sat watching all the girls and women run past. Surely, one would ask, an acquaintance or fellow passers by would have possibly saw the girl [who Garrie had guessed to be 14] get dragged into the ally? And almost certainly someone would have heard her loud screams as he was "grabbed her collar" and then "ripped into her sweet flesh"? A 14 year-old girl would have very likely been with friends, who would've have questioned where she disappeared, and once again, other people would have heard. So, that's two major errors in Pros story outlined. Now onto the third--which is DNA evidence. According to Pros story, the girl was "blubbering" and finally "spluttered" as Garrie proceeded to kill her, which thus means that her saliva would have transferred to Garrie and his clothing. The question remains as to where Garrie would put his now DNA covered clothes and exactly how he would destroy the evidence. Even more importantly, he would undoubtedly have visible traces of blood on him as it "spilt out onto the cobbles below". So after a young teenage girl has gone missing, Garrie is to go out again seeking another victim with blood already on him? It may be evening, but streets are still illuminated with lights. When it's discovered that a number of girls [not just one, according to Pro] have been murdered, naturally the police would ask for witnesses; many of whom would likely give a description of Garrie. A man who prior to committing murder was sat visibly leering at girls and women walking by. There is no doubt that some of them would have recognized this and remembered, thus providing a reason for them to tell it to the police. The first thing witnesses would be asked is if they saw any strange or suspect looking people around. The 4th flaw, which is perhaps the biggest, is where does Garrie remove the body? Again, Pro hasn't specified so presumably his plan is to just leave her there, ready for other people or the police to find. There will be traces of Garrie all over the girls body and even more strikingly, his semen in her system. As well as saliva and blood, traces of her could also be found on his clothing. To summarize Pros argument, Garrie has left his murder unplanned which is the biggest error any killer can make--and thus leaves a considerably flawed story.
The Perfect Murder

Very thorough backstory, well done Con. Also I would like to add that the next rounds well be used for debating against the other person's story. Thank you. Garrie was a sick man. He knew it. But the world did not. He walked the streets each night in the hope that he might find a woman/girl worthy of his penetration. He waited a long time. But, at last, on the night of Easter day, he struck. All were out, celebrating, and he waited in the shadows, watching as the women and girls ran past. So happy, so innocent. He grinned through shroud of shadow. It was time. A girl stopped before the alleyway in which he was hiding. A girl of 14, at Garrie's best guess. And then he pounced. Grabbing her by the collar as she screamed, he threw her back into the alley. His filthy nails ripped into her sweet flesh. Taking her from behind, the man thrust himself into her. She cried out for help, but there was no one there. He giggled as she blubbered like a pathetic child, and still he thrust on. On, on, on, on. Blood was spilling out onto the cobbles below. As he reached his climax, she released a final cry, however, it fell short upon the cold air. Garrie's hands tightened around the girl's neck, and she could now barely resist. She choked and spluttered, her heart beginning to falter. However, as she drew her last breath, Garrie knew his adventure was only beginning. Once she was gone, he continued long into the night.
.999...(repeating) =1

Rebuttal: "it never gets to equal as something true like 1 soda, what is a 0,9999 soda?" Con's example fails here since Con is trying to use a real world example/object to describe a concept such as infinity. It literally cannot be done since we can never have infinite accuracy and everything in our universe is bounded by an finite number of "stuff". If you could theoretically measure 0.999... of a soda, then you would have 1 full soda. The reasoning behind this is something I have already posted, something that Con fails to adress. "its like all you are arguing is that 3/3 is a FULL fraction.. that dosnt make it valid, you cant just change around the value of numbers, they have actual usage" Again, this seems to be an argument from incredulity. Just because 0.999... doesn't look like 1, doesn't mean it's not 1. 0.999... and 1 have the same exact same value, just like how 0.5 and 1/2 have the exact same value. 3/3 and 0.999... are equivalent statements. It's also worth mentioning to point out that 0.999...is a decimal number, it's a real number. A number that gets infinitesimally close to 1, but not 1, is also a number, but it's not 0.999... A number that would somehow get infinitesimally close to 1, would not be real number, whereas 0.999...is. Con seems to be getting confused between this statement lim(x->1+) f(x)=x(where a number get's infinitesimally close to 1) and this statement lim(n->inf.) 9/10((1-(1/10)^n))/(1-9/10)(where a repeating decimal number IS 1) "your faker 3(0,33..+0,33..+0,33..)=not 3" Again, Con states that this cannot be 3, yet provides no mathematical reasoning or evidence. "i assume the rest of it is non sense as well" Extend
.999...(repeating) =1

but it dosnt equal true, if thats what you are saying, it never gets to equal as something true like 1 soda, what is a 0,9999 soda? dividing it into 3 parts and saying those 3 which neither equates to 1 is 1 all togeather, as if you have changed or added something... then you are simply wrong its like all you are arguing is that 3/3 is a FULL fraction.. that dosnt make it valid, you cant just change around the value of numbers, they have actual usage.. what does, 0,3 point to in real life? a stone? which is one? 3=1+1+1 your faker 3(0,33..+0,33..+0,33..)=not 3 i assume the rest of it is non sense as well
The Iraq War was Justified!

I accept, and I anticipate a pleasant exchange. In the absence of an articulated framework, I observe that there is not anywhere specified a particular species of justification. I suggest the scope of the debate be potentially limitless, by which I mean that the sort of justification we ought to demand be of the broadest, that is, the most final or fundamental, order. This implies that justifications relying on the assumed priority of something like a U.S. national interest are insufficient, not merely because Pro arguably does not have the luxury of axiomatizing its moral priority, but because, as the scope of this debate was not specified by Pro in his opening post, I think I have some leverage, as the contender, to define the terrain of our discussion. I assume in any case that Pro's argument will include not just the strategic political language of national interest, but a legitimating moral language which confers on justification a more substantive sense, but I want to make clear that I do not take this debate to be a narrow question of the benefit to the United States of conducting the Iraq War.
There is Eternal Son ( Pro) vs. there's No Eternal Son (Con)

My opponent appeals to the Old Testament Book of Genesis for asserting that it is impossible for God to create through his Son when in fact, the one God who spoke in Genesis 1:26-27 speaks to other coeval and consubstantial persons like him.Let US make man in OUR Image, after OUR Likeness and God created man in his own image, mala and female he created them. ( Genesis 1:26-27).The text is explicit. There's no angel involve in creation but only God.This co-subsistence he is with in the creation is revealed to be the Son and the Holy Spirit in the New Testament: Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Unless my opponent rejects the Christian Scriptures as inspried and non-contradictory, he cannot deem this as impossible given that the Scriptures has its own themes in a peculiar message: the Gospel. 1 Peter 1:2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
There is Eternal Son ( Pro) vs. there's No Eternal Son (Con)

My opponent argues that the Son of God was not the Creator but according to the Christian Bible, the Father created everything through the Son:John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him( the Word/the Son) all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.Proverbs 8:22 LXX, 1 Cor. 1:24 The Lord appointed me( the Wisdom/the Son) as the source of his work, before hisworks of oldPsalm 33:6 Through the Word he created the heavensRevelation 3:14 The Son is "The source of God's creation". Colossians 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him( the Son) and for him. Hebrews 1:1-2 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through ( the Son) whom also he( God) made the universe. Con said: for the scientist the possibility for an eternal son isnt even a possibility My opponent do not realized that science also can't explain how possible for God to become an eternal Father.
There is Eternal Son ( Pro) vs. there's No Eternal Son (Con)

It seems that my opponent didn't get what I mean about the "birth" of the Word. As I said in Round #1 and #2, it is a metaphor used to explicate the transcended deity to humans like us. "The Word was born of God before time began means there is a Son who is of same nature with the Father" Within our time realm, one who is born is birthed at an exact time (e.g. 9:30 pm- Friday).But the metaphor of "birth" of the Word only denotes his "sameness in nature" with God as the Apostles had adopted from basic and obvious law in human genetics ( i.e. like begets like). Humans birthed their offspring in time. On the other hand, God is not in time.God is residing in a timeless realm.But this is not significant in the doctrine of eternal sonship via eternal generation because again, the "birth" refers to homoousiosness (i.e. sameness in nature) of the Father and the Son regardless of time or eternity for timelessness and eternalness is already encapsulated within the one nature which the two possess. In a nutshell, my opponent should not take the "birth" literally but metaphorically. The Word always exists. He was "born" of God and this ONLY means that he is a " Son" who is " same in nature" with the Father. Hence, God did not became a Father but is eternally a Father and that the Word did not became a Son but is eternally a Son.
There is Eternal Son ( Pro) vs. there's No Eternal Son (Con)

An eternal son is possible in the realm of eternity just as an infinite son in a finite time frame. It is clear that my opponent is confused with the Biblical presentation of the Sonship of the eternal Word. So, let me elucidate further: The Apostles received a revelation about the existence of God as he is in terms of anthropomorphism because God is a transcended being. Hence, the eternal sonship of the Son via eternal generation is a picture out from human language which is used for us to know the ineffable deity. My opponent should understand the basic human denotation we have concerning genetics because this is the metaphor used by the Apostles themselves. Genetics is a sub-field in biological science wherein the progenitor always passed on traits to its offspring. In other words, like begets like. Example: A human parent begets a human offspring. In this simple reality, we know that it means a Father/mother is equal to their child/son/daughter in nature. In Christianity, the Wisdom & Power per se of the Father is his very own Son.The Word ( Greek: Logos) is the only offspring who is God as to his nature. John 1:18 It is important also to know that it is possible to be a created son without being born ( e.g. Adam) and to be a birthed son without being created (e.g. the Word). To be born is different from to be created. Let me explain, to be born merely means to come out from within somebody as preexisting while to be created means to come into existence from the first time. A Human son is created first via conception and then is birthed after 9 months. On the other hand, the Wisdom,Power and Word of God doesn't need to be created so as to be born because he is already existing eternally within God and only needs to be born. Therefore, it is logically possible that there's an eternal Son that has no beginning.
There is Eternal Son ( Pro) vs. there's No Eternal Son (Con)

an eternal son is impossibel because if the son is eternal. What means he has always existed. but this is a paradox because being a son means you father is older than you and if you are eternal it means you have always existed,in science its a paradox because there isnt anething etarnal,because time is infinit it has a start but will never end. in christianity time is eternal.god exist and has always existed.but even if time is eternal a son muss still be younger than his father.what is impossibell
There is Eternal Son ( Pro) vs. there's No Eternal Son (Con)

This debate is about Christology. I, the Pro, shall prove logically and coherently from the christian scriptures that the second person of the Trinity is the eternal Son of the Father via eternal generation. On the otherhand, Con shall disprove the eternal sonship via eternal generation as unscriptural and illogical. Eternal generation only denotes " timeless birth" or as the scripture says "born before creation". Statement: The Word was birthed by God before creation according to Psalm 110:3 LXX,Proverbs 8:25-1 Cor 1:24, Col. 1:15-17, Rom. 1:4-Heb. 1:5 and John 1:1,14,18;5:26. Meaning of statement: This is an anthropomorphism and the genetic metaphor is used. That is, one who is conceived and birthed by someone is "of same nature" with that someone.So, with regards to the Logos, he is "of same nature" with God because he was "in" and "birthed" by God. The birth happened before creation of time and hence, it is a timeless birth.
Authoritarianism is better than corrupted democracy

So I had been working on my arguments for several hours now, but my browser just crashed and I lost all my work!!!!!! And it was really good. I had two original arguments, and responses to all three arguments, more than a dozen sources, including academic works, philosophical writings, and I had learned quite a lot already in the debate.I forfeit the debate, as I cannot redo all that work I had done.Is there anyway to delete the debate?If you would like I am willing to do a simplified version of the debate. Shorter, simpler/less complex arguments, but the same rules and topic.
Authoritarianism is better than corrupted democracy

I'm going to prove that authoritarianism is better than corrupted democracy.CON: Is going to prove that corrupted democracy is better than authoritarianism.RULES:First round: Acceptance.Second round: Argument presentation.Third round: Rebuttals + Arguments.Fourth round: Rebuttals of round 3.Fifth round: Conclusions. NO REBUTTALS.- Both Pro and Con can use logical and/or historical arguments to prove their point.
Writing an 18 page paper for an 8th Grade assignment due two weeks after it is assigned is right

< > Don't you mean rant? < > Of course you would, because as I indicated above, you are too lazy to do your own work. You completely copied and pasted someone else's opinion into your own argument to take credit for it. And here I thought you were above this type of "cheating". Here are some key words from your argument in Round Two: <> You don't seem very upset to me. And it's hilarious that you're back on the site while your "story" remains undone. <<"Solo, while you debate well, I have a very hard time believe you could complete a well-thought out, full-fledged 18 page report in one night. The focus on this report is to write a miniature version of Homer's "The Odyssey", following all the specific characteristics of an epic throughout five books (chapters). Furthermore, if you could indeed such fine material in just one night, why in fact are you spending your sitting on the computer debating with 8th graders, when you could be writing illustrious novels for a living?">> Copied and pasted from below, but not an original idea from massvideogamer. <> Not the point of this debate, as the burden of proof does not lie with me. However, the reason that I'm not a best-selling novelist is because I don't have anything to write. Why would I want to write novels? It was a tedious task that I did well and left behind. Writing reports is dreadful and I hated it with a passion, but that does not mean that I was not excellent at doing it. <> Almost is not good enough and further proves that you do not manage your time appropriately. There are four people in the comments below that are agreeing with me. What does that tell you? < > Yes, lifestyles that promote rewards for hard work and not rewards for laziness. < > Your assessment of me and my life only prove, to anyone reading this debate, is that you should stay in school. Thanks for the debate, massvideogamer! I appreciate your efforts and I hope you do not take my points too personally. I was, in fact, able to write long A-worthy reports at your age, but really don't care what you do now. I just like having something interesting to do while I sit here and make money. Thanks again!
Writing an 18 page paper for an 8th Grade assignment due two weeks after it is assigned is right

Solo, this is where i make my final argument first off, i would like to quote that of which kenicks said down in the comments: "Solo, while you debate well, I have a very hard time believe you could complete a well-thought out, full-fledged 18 page report in one night. The focus on this report is to write a miniature version of Homer's "The Odyssey", following all the specific characteristics of an epic throughout five books (chapters). Furthermore, if you could indeed such fine material in just one night, why in fact are you spending your sitting on the computer debating with 8th graders, when you could be writing illustrious novels for a living?" i agree with his statement fully. i highly doubt that when you were in eighth grade you could write what we are writing in one night. He has another point where he said you should be writing books now. If you were able to write an 18 page paper of such A quality in one night, then why ARE you on this website when you should be writing best-selling novel? another point he made is its not like i am no where near finished, I'm almost done. I am just saying this is unfair on the behalf of me classmates who are not as quick as i am. Still, your whole point about the education in other countries still doesn't have much to do with my topic. I am not talking about other countries and their education, for other countries have completely different lifestyles than we do. going back to your statement about you being able of writing an A quality 18 page paper in one night, if this is true, then you must be an absolute genius, and if you are a genius; STOP DEBATING ON THIS WEBSITE 24/7 AND GO MAKE SOMETHING OF YOUR LIFE BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE
Writing an 18 page paper for an 8th Grade assignment due two weeks after it is assigned is right

I would like to start of this debate by quoting your opening statement "The education system in the USA is actually very laid back compared to the rest of the world to the point that it's laughed at by many for its ridiculousness." That is totally irrelevant to this topic, because it has not much to do with this topic. The education system may be more difficult in other countries, but we are not talking about other countries, we are talking about the irregularity of assignments in my school system. Do you really think you could write an 18 page paper in one night? Most of us probably could do it in one night, but we want a grade better than a D on our paper. (Answering a question in the comments below) We cannot use any tricks to fool our teacher that would make out paper longer. She has been a teacher for a long time, and she would recognize any variation in the size. We are also not allowed to add pictures, if we do, we get points taken off. Any other tricks we try would also end in loss of points. I am offended that you would be so oblivious that you would say that we are just a bunch of lazy kids who want people to do everything for them. Most of us are straight A students, and we actually care about our grades compared to people who just do it all in one night. I'm sure many of us would be quite upset if someone wrote it for us. "You have such a sense of entitlement, but you haven't earned such." Interesting you would say that, its almost as you are contradicting yourself. You are actually the one with the sense of entitlement my friend, for you think you can just say that the youths of the USA are lazy and spoiled, without experiencing what we are going through. Very stereotypical.