BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheisam is right

I believe atheism is an incorrect theory. Yes, my opponent is correct that throughout human history, many people have believed in all sorts of gods. These beliefs stem from the human desire to understand exactly why we exist, and how we exist. Atheism is one explanation for these beliefs. It relies heavily on unproven scientific explanation, such as the Big Bang theory and evolution. However, Christianity, contrary to many beliefs, does not reject science. It just offers a different, just as viable, just as proven explanation for the source of life. Neither of these ideologies can be proven correct or incorrect in life on earth. My opponent has claimed that atheism is right. However, this cannot be proven, and all atheist theologies for the creation of the world are theories, not laws or facts. I cannot claim any more about Christian theologies, but one cannot claim definitively that atheism is "right" if it cannot be proven. 2.18 people in the world claim Christian beliefs, while 1.6 billion people are Muslim and somewhere around 15 million are Jewish. All of these people believe in God, and thus by mass authority, a support can be given to the fact that God could in fact exist. There is no evidence that disproves the existence of a God, and therefore atheism cannot be proven correct. This will be my main argument, as the debate here is over whether or not atheism is right, not whether theism is wrong. I feel that the highest number of voters will find this argument the most impressive. However, I have a few more arguments below: I will start with a quick refutation: The second part of my opponent's argument stems from false analogy. Just because Ancient Greek and Roman gods are a false explanation for the origin of the world, it does not mean that Christianity/theism (which I'm assuming "this religion" refers to) is a false explanation as well. Christianity is rooted in historical fact, documented by many sources, not only Christian ones. Most scholars also agree that Jesus Christ was at least a real person who was crucified by Pontius Pilate. [http://dmc.members.sonic.net...] This is nothing at all like the Ancient Greek myths, where they just, for lack of a better way to phrase this, made up something to explain what they didn't know. Some of you atheist readers are, no doubt, saying: Well that applies to Christianity as well! Well, in the ancient myths, nothing was rooted in history, or any observable event for that matter. They just knew there was some cause for nature (I believe this cause to be God). This way of thinking does not describe Christianity, which is rooted in history, and therefore a valid analogy cannot be drawn. The last argument I will bring up is that of the order and complexity of the universe. Even if a Big Bang happened (speaking of a Big Bang, where could the energy have come from to cause it? Due to the law of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed...just a thought), could a universe that worked as perfectly as ours be created by something as random as this occurrence, with no thought whatsoever? Highly unlikely. With that I will end my argument.
Star Wars (Pro) Vs Star Trek (Con)

*Taking the mike* Thank you and I also think you made some good points. I think Star Wars does appeal to those that prefer action (aka. the larger demographic) over thought provoking scenarios as the former is more fun: Star Wars: Action with a little philosophy Star Trek: Philosophy with a little action I do admit that I prefer the weapons/ starships of Wars and that galaxy far far away is very exciting escapism. I also admit that the Star Wars trilogy are three of the best action sci-fi movies ever made. The way I'd summarise these two are the following. Star Wars = Fun, adventure, emotions, wisdom, how emotions can corrupt anyone and the fight between order (perfectionism and elitism) and freedom (individuality, chaos and passion) that resides with society and within all of us. Star Trek = Idealism, cultures and differing points of view, exploration, how events can corrupt anyone, the greys within people and the human condition. Both may appear similar but have differences which make them fundamentally different. I can see good in both of them and believe Star Wars is amazing. Thank you for discussing with me, you have been a good opponent. Have a great day and feel free to end the debate however you want.
Star Wars (Pro) Vs Star Trek (Con)

This should be quick. While Con did bring up some good points, I'm going to use them against him (or her). The difference between Star Wars and Star Trek is taste. Star Trek provides though-provoking scenarios, and while I'm totally into that, I think Star Wars has much more desirable charcheristic to it: action. The whole focus is to bring the audience the excitement and thrill of battle. Who hasn't wanted to jump into an X-Wing and shoot down some TIE Fighters? And how could I forgot the desire of every Star Wars fan to reach to their hips, grap a cylinder object, and ignite the lightsabers? I will reiterate, I love thought provoking movies. But, my dear voters, does that trump on of the best action movies of all time? On that note, I hand the debate mike over to Con.
Rap Battle.

You think this rap battle is yours. Well, I'm going to rap this up and close the doors. The doors are closed and your rhymes are like sophomores. By the end of this battle, you will be outscored. So while I am typing this on my keyboard... You will spring to the bottom like a springboard. While I am celebrating my victory You were burnt smooth and crispy If you wish, I could do this daily. So as I conclude this, I will take the Grammy.
Rap Battle.

There is something.. that you probably can't read here.. That your rhyming.. is most defin'ly off meter.. I know, that it's pretty hard.. To flow.. like you're not a retard.. But I know you can do better.. Than your mom when I first met her.. You say that you're just rusty.. Truth is that you're just crusty.. I will say for the last time.. That this rap battle is mine..
Rap Battle.

Tis true.. it's the first time I be rapping you.. This ain't a zoo.. you're gonna get what your due.. You think you're cool.. messing 'round with me.. but no.. You're just a fool.. step on off of me.. and so Your rhymes.. are worse than.. HNOFClBrI.. Worse than.. playing a game of.. monopoly Yeah.. so here you are.. probably thinking That white men.. aren't good at anything So here I am.. to show you what I mean.. You gave me nothing.. so now start playing..
Rap Battle.

Yo rappa with the skin color brown. With this rap, you may frown And while frownin you may drown. This is not a debate, its mere bait. Bait for debate. Wait. This is just a rookie performance. This beating of you is all for my convenience. You should give up before your mom puts you on clearance. When I'm done with this rap, everyone will go boom baby. I will win, not too shabby.
Rap Battle.

RULES: Max of 10 lines of rap each round. Here are some rhymes that I'm gonna lay down You'll see that I'm the best white rapper around. I guess your still mad at losing a debate So heres a rap battle with me, your mate. You can try all you want but nothing will change Your sense of pride I'll soon rearrange. I see that your gonna try typing out a beat But after I'm done with you Wash, rinse, and repeat After accepting this challenge... you might want to retreat.
Majin Buu would beat Kirby

Durability: Kirby survived being crushed under thousands of tons. He also survived an explosion that destroyed an entire planet. However, the spirit bomb that Goku used was being power by the people of Earth, the people of New Namek, the energy from other world, and from Goku. Majin Buu pushed this attack back. This was already Goku's most powerful Spirit Bomb ever and Majin Buu pushed it back. Dende then had to wish for Goku's energy to be restored and then Goku turned into a Super Saiyan to give the Spirit Bomb the edge it needed to put Majin Buu down for good. This attack was beyond solar system busting levels. That's way more than 1 planet. Majin Buu has taken hits from people who are multi-planet busters. Ultimate Gohan, SSJ3 Gotenks, SSJ3 Goku, SSJ2 Vegeta. In Battle of Gods he went against Bills and took hits from him. He wouldn't get beaten by an 8 inch pink vacuum with a hammer. The final score is Majin Buu : 4 Kirby : 0 This is evidence that Majin Buu is in a different league than Kirby and would completely destroy Kirby.
Majin Buu would beat Kirby

Techniques/Skills: Kirby's Inhale ability allows him to inhale almost anything. He can stretch his body to inhale larger and heavier objects. However, some objects can be too large and heavy for Kirby to inhale. His copy ability allows him to enter his stomach dimension and copy the abilities of those he has inhaled. If Kirby sustain a major blow he will lost the ability of whatever he is copying. Kirby has the Warp Star which allows him to move faster than light, which is a feat many DBZ characters have accomplished including Buu. Kirby is only 8 inches tall and weighs almost nothing, so he can suck in enough air to fly for an unprecedented amount of time. Kirby also has the Star Rod which he gets from inhaling his Warp Star. Kirby has a copy ability called Hypernova which he gets from eating a Miracle Fruit. This temporary transformation boosts Kirby's inhale ability which lets Kirby inhale much larger objects than normal. Majin Buu can use his Ki for many different reason such as flight and to form energy attacks. There is Mouth Blast, Vanishing Beam, and Vaporize Attack. He has an attack called Innocence Express where he runs at his opponent with incredible speed. He used this attack to destroy entire cities just by running through them. He can create Ki Shield which he can use for defensive purposes. Majin Buu can learn almost any technique just by seeing it be performed, like the Kamehameha and Instant Transmission. Majin Buu can also heal any living creature back to full health as long as they are alive. He has the Chocolate Beam which can turn anything into candy on contact. He has Flame Shower Breath which he used to destroy many cities around the world. Angry Explosion which had enough power to bring even Super Saiyan 2 Majin Vegeta to his knees. He has full control over his body allowing him to stretch and contort in many different ways. He can even rip off parts of his body to restrict an opponent. Majin Buu regeneration ability can bring him back even if he is reduced to a fine mist. Majin Buu can absorb people and gain their power and abilities. Majin Buu even has telekinesis which he used to raise everyone in a city at once just to turn them into candy and eat them. If he can do that to all those people that means it would be easy to just lift Kirby and send him into the Sun. Buu has attacks such as eye lasers and the list goes on and on. This round should obviously go to Majin Buu Majin Buu : 3 Kirby : 0
Majin Buu would beat Kirby

Strength: Kirby has enough strength to punch a planet in half, true. But this feat has been capable since the beginning of Dragon Ball Z. Vegeta could blow up a planet with his Galik Gun. Frieza could Destroy planet Vegeta with just 1 finger. Cell had enough power to destroy the entire solar system. When Buu fought Dabura he made it look easy. Dabura is stated to be as powerful as Cell. Meaning that Buu could destroy multiple solar systems at once and he has done so before. Speed: Kirby is fast enough to run on water, but when Goku was a kid he was fast enough to dodge bullets at point blank range. Dragon Ball characters make running on water a joke. Goku at a power level of 8000 flew 11,000 km/h across snake way. Also since Kirby weigh practically nothing, he could float on water without trying let alone move his feet back and forth across it. Majin Buu : 2 Kirby : 0
I will not contradict myself!

I don't quite fully understand the questions from con. Therefore, I'll do my best to answer them.have you ever clicked a photo of you having gay sex? I do not have any pictures of me having gay sex. How did u propose your friend? I think my opponent is referring to how I asked my friend to have sex. In reality, he asked me. and where did you have it? Empty class room. What came out of ur private part? Nothing as I didn't "Cum"I ask my opponent not to ask me questions about sex.Back to you.
I will not contradict myself!

Hopefully, I will NOT contradict myself.1) Have I ever had gay sex? Yes.2) If so, with whom and when? I had gay sex with my friend and it was at school during lunch. (No lies there. )3) If did you enjoy it? I don't understand this question, but yes I did enjoy it.4-5) I do not have a wife so those questions are not applicable. No contradictions so far.
I will not contradict myself!

Here is how this will work, my opponent will ask me a series of 5 questions in each round. I will respond and hopefully not contradict myself from previous rounds. If I were to contradict myself even one time without a logical explanation, then you are all to vote for my opponent. However, if I do NOT contradict myself, then you all vote for me. This is just a fun debate--nothing serious. Note: The contradictions can be from previous rounds.
Barack Obama is not eligible to be President.

Thank you for instigating a rather interesting but ridiculous debate. Since this is only a 1 round debate and my opponent provided no accurate references to support her claims, this will be easy. First of, there is NO accurate evidence that Barack Obama was admitted as Barry Soetoro to Indonesian schools, nor is there even an accurate news source (by that, I don't mean a conservative-based source like FOX ;-)), and if there was any concrete proof, this does NOT mean Obama was an Indonesian citizen. Indonesia generally doesn't allow dual citizenship privileges, but Obama that time was under 18, so it WAS possible for Obama to obtain it (. http://goo.gl...). There is absolutey NO evidence that the president ever gave up his US citizenship nor is there any proof that he re-acquired it because he NEVER gave it up. But in all seriousness, here is concrete proof that Obama is a natural born citizen making him eligible for presidency: . http://goo.gl...
Barack Obama is not eligible to be President.

While living in Indonesia as a child, Obama's stepfather turned in a school application form for him, listing his name as "Barry Soetoro." This is a legal document which proves that Mr. Soetoro adopted Barack as a young man, this giving him Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia at the time did not allow people to have dual citizenship; thus, in taking Indonesian citizenship, Obama renounced his American citizenship, and there is no record that he ever re-acquired it (and if he did, it would not be under "natural born" status). Thus, Barack Obama does not qualify to be President under the Constitution.
Trolls in sheeps clothing.

You must be a newer debater on this Site. I apologize for throwing out words that a noon isn't expected to be able to understand right off the bat. Burden of Proof is the responsibility of a user to prove his contention to be true. The guy who doesn't have burden of proof, just has to debunk your arguments to win. Most often the person who is making a claim is the one who carries the Burden of Proof. For instance, if the debate is titled "The Earth is Flat", then Pro is the one who has to prove that the Earth is flat. Con basically just has to debunk Pro's arguments. Some people will claim that the position which deviates from the commonly held view is the position which carries the Burden of Proof. However, I disagree with this statement. I mean, was Galileo the one who had the burden of proving that the Earth revolved around the Earth and not vice versa? Anyhow, most of my debates these days share Burden of Proof between Pro and Con, because I feel that both sides need to prove or provide sufficient evidence for their case, regardless of how many people believe it or how much evidence does or allegedly does back their position up. No, I am not actually a Catholic pedophile priest, nor am I a Liberal. I do this for trolling purposes mostly. I believe in something called Counter-Information. You see, I think that there should be a limit to how much anyone or anything knows about you. I would consider God to be an exception, as: A. God knows everything about you anyway and there is absolutely no way to prevent that. B. God has a right to know everything about you, as He created you. C. God is all-good, so He won't unjustly betray you or do wrong to you. Anyway, I am addicted to the internet, as perhaps 80% of all Americans are. However, I would still prefer to keep as much privacy as I can on the Internet. Now, on to the matter at hand... A short list of active users... -Bornofgod: Not a troll (though he always appears to be one) -Bulproof: A troll, but he doesn't go around accusing everyone of being a troll. YYW: Not a troll Bsh1: Not a troll Esocialbookworm: Trolls occasionally, but she doesn't start troll hunts Godchooselife: Probably not ever a troll Jh1234l: A troll (sometimes), but he doesn't start troll hunts Mikal: He seems to troll frequently, but he doesn't start troll hunts Me: I troll a lot, but I haven't started a troll hunt in quite a while Cermank: Not a troll Annanicole: I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think she's a troll RoyLatham: Awesome, but not a troll 9Spaceking: A troll, but he doesn't start troll hunts Ajab(i): Not usually a troll Romanii: Trolls sometimes, but doesn't start troll hunts Jifpop/Chosenwolff: He doesn't start troll hunts Kc1999: Not all that active a member these days Airmax: Not a troll TUF: Not a troll, but he's not that active a member anyway Kbub: Not a troll Lannan13: Not a troll BossyBurrito: Not a troll (unfortunately) Dairygirl4u2c: Not a troll (unfortunately) Thett3: Not usually a troll
Trolls in sheeps clothing.

Please further define your argument, as I really have no understanding of your BOP/PC code for vote beggerliness. I am exttremely confused by your statement and who you claim to be which I mostly bet is an anonymous. Fine thee Anonymisto, why is your word the truth? Get a LIFE, BE a human please, no just another cog on the wheel of JUSTICE! Your profile reveals your willingness to lie. And you pretend to tell the truth of my statements? What sayeth you?
Posting all of one's arguments in their opening round provides for a more fair debate.

"Interesting, you're doing the opposite, no you're not, you're doing exactly as I said you would." "Is he only going to use 1 point for his entire argument. Just one point and the rest of it he'll be fighting what I say? He is being a non-believer in his own cause." The second quote is all you said about the idea of me providing more arguments. So I'm not sure "what you said you [I] would" is. My opponent's point in this round is not important. I am not advocating the limiting of backup to round 1; I am merely stating that if all arguments were provided round 1, it would be more fair than if additional arguments were introduced later. So my opponent's point doesn't really support his position, or oppose mine. Now on to my final point. Introducing a point in the final round of a debate can set a predicament for the opponent: He only has one chance to respond. This forces a longer cram of rebuttals into this last round, along with other rebuttals or points he may need to provide. This not only takes up more space (forcing a reduction of ideas used) but has the opponent stretch their focus to a wider range of topics. However, this can backfire on the other debater, considering how if the opponent makes a convincing argument he has no way to respond. Either way, it is more unfair to one side. Also, remember that some people introduce points in the last overall round, so there is no chance to respond to them. You can plainly see that our round 2 arguments were longer than our round 1 arguments. And this argument would be longer than my round 2; however, my previous points and rebuttals remain uncontested, so all I can do is to uphold them. If my opponent picks up these arguments next round and responds to this argument while upholding his own points, he will use more characters than he did last round. Now, if we were debating about a more controversial issue, if he were to be in round 3 will the situation I have provided (introducing a new point each round), he would have a large chance of running out of characters. So, reasons why you should vote PRO: 1. It would be unfair to the opponent if more and more arguments pile up as the debate continues. 2. My opponent has dropped my point from round 2. 3. My opponent has dropped my rebuttal from round 2. 4. My opponent has not provided any reasons to support his case/disprove me.
Posting all of one's arguments in their opening round provides for a more fair debate.

" "Notice how he puts "Point 1". Is he only going to use 1 point for his entire argument. Just one point and the rest of it he'll be fighting what I say? He is being a non-believer in his own cause." Actually, I'm doing the opposite. Behold, point 2! *evil laugh* Using multiple rounds to post an argument (or multiple arguments) can alter the thinking of the opponent. It also gives less space to type a rebuttal. Continually piling arguments on top of one another can lead to a forced failure to post a decent rebuttal, if any. For example, if I recall, my opening argument was relatively short. However, as of this word, I have 5490 characters remaining. That's a little over 66%, which knocks away 1/3 of my argument. In order to expand upon this idea AND my previous one, I may take up to 2/3. Now consider an argument my opponent may introduce later, or one I may introduce, and I might exceed the character limit. This forces me to underdevelop my argument. Thus being unfair to me. Of course, the same may happen to my opponent, but either way, it is unfair. " Interesting, you're doing the opposite, no you're not, you're doing exactly as I said you would. So anyway, it is not fair for a debate to be limited to new ideas only in the first round. This would provide for a boring, non-explosive argument. A debate is won by bringing up irrefutablr facts and by destroying your opponent's facts. Limiting this to the first round is nearly impossible. Why, you ask? Well simply because in some cases, to destroy your opponent's argument, you have to bring up something new. Without new ideas, you can't argue certain parts of your opponent's arguments, this provides for a pretty unfair debate, wouldn't you agree?