BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Earth is Flat

Christian proof of a flat earth:Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth. .. reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds". On an oblated spheroid earth, as my opponent pointed out is what a rounded earth really is, you cannot see on the other side of the earth. The line of sight is limited to only part of the earth, so this must mean that the earth was and is flat. Matthew 4:8. ". .. the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world". The same logic that is used with Daniel can be applied here. A spherical earth cannot have a mountain so high that all parts of the earth are able to be seen, so this means that the earth is flat. Luke 4:5. "[a]nd the devil, taking him up into a high mountain shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time". Again, you cannot see the other side of the earth by being on a high mountain on the opposite side. Let this diagram be of proof: This graphic clearly shows that you cannot see the other kingdoms of the land if you are on a superhigh mountain or tree unless you are on a flat earth. Isaiah 11:12. "he shall set up an ensign for the natiosn, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth"An oblated spheroid sphere cannot have any corners, but a flat earth could. Revelation 7:1. "And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth"Again, an oblated spheroid earth has no corners, but a flat earth could. Islamic proof of a flat earthAn-Naziat 79:30. "And after that He spread the earth"The verb 'spread' is nearly synonymous with the verb 'to flatten', which means that He (Allah or God) flattened the earth. An-Naba 78:6. "Have We not made the earth as an expanse"A sphere cannot be an expanse, since it infinitely loops into itself, but a flat earth does not do this. Az-Zukhruf 43:38. "Till, when (such a one) comes to Us, he says [to his Qarîn (Satan / devil companion)] "Would that between me and you were the distance of the two easts (or the east and west)" a worst (type of) companion (indeed)"What this implies is that there are 2 definite points that are each marked east and west. However, this is not possible with a sphere, since it is infinitely looping and is compltely subjective in terms of directions. In order for this to be true, the earth must be flatAl-Kahf 18:47. ". .. you will see the earth as a levelled plain"A sphere is not a levelled (see: flat) plane, so the earth must be flat in order for this to be true. I await your response, con
Political correctness is good for society.

Pro talks about mental illness but is arguing that political correctness is bad for society when he's in the stance that should be arguing that it is good for society.Just everything about Pro's statement is irrelevant and as it is his burden of proof to prove that political correctness is good for society, and all he is doing is arguing that it is bad, which isn't the position he has agreed to take on, I don't even need to say anything. I have already won the debate.Thanks.Also, he is attacking people instead of ideas in much of his argument. Even when he talks about political correctness being bad, he has not argued against it half as well as I would have done had the argument been followed through as it should have done. He actually states that political correctness doesn't exist just before he starts ranting and raving about how it's a terrible idea. Oh, and yes, he literally used the 'think of the children' fallacy. He is so sure that he is righteous that he genuinely said he saved a kids life. What is this?
Political correctness is good for society.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. I'm sorry I had to do this because some weird liberal tree sexulized hip will come and try to prove a point from thin air (from the top of everest) that everyone (all some hundread DIFFERENT cultures love each to death because they are on a different soil other then their, BS) We don't need that. Political correctness had costed this country trillions and will do so more in the future. This country has become so secular (don't believe in God, personally thats your choice) but there are fundamental values we must hold, we are a country of values, not blood or culture. We can't say Hillary is a good human because she is female. Ill spit on who ever faces tell that to me. HEARD OF BAD FEMALES? Yeah they exsist. Sorry again, but I probably saved some kid's life who ever comes on this page and reads an mentally unstable statement saying that poltical correctness is right, then everything is fine because your sugarcoated the truth, which we live in. And that kid who is probably in depressing because usually kids don't debate and they come on random sites because their bored and accept that sour and bitter tar ideology.
Should marijuana be legal

why should marijuana be legal 1. The government has no right to enforce marijuana laws. There are always reason why law exist. While some advocates for the status quo claim that marijuana laws prevent people from harming themselves, the most common rationale is that they prevent people from harming themselves and from causing harm to the larger culture. But laws against self-harm always stand on shaky ground"predicated, as they are, on the idea that the government knows what's good for you better than you do"and no good ever comes from making governments the guardians of culture. 2. Enforcement of marijuana laws is racially discriminatory. The burden of proof for marijuana-prohibition advocates would be high enough if marijuana laws were enforced in a racially neutral manner, but"this should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with our country's long history of racial profiling"they are most definitely not. 3. Enforcement of marijuana laws is prohibitively expensive. Six years ago, Milton Friedman and a group of over 500 economists advocated for marijuana legalization on the basis that prohibition directly costs more than $7.7 billion per year. 4. Enforcement of marijuana laws is unnecessarily cruel. You don't have to look very hard to find examples of lives needlessly destroyed by marijuana prohibition laws. The government arrests over 700,000 Americans, more than the population of Wyoming, for marijuana possession every year. These new "convicts" are driven from their jobs and families, and pushed into a prison system that turns first-time offenders into hardened criminals. 5. Marijuana laws impede legitimate criminal justice goals. Just as alcohol prohibition essentially created the American Mafia, marijuana prohibition has created an underground economy where crimes unrelated to marijuana, but connected to people who sell and use it, go unreported. End result: real crimes become harder to solve. 6. Marijuana laws cannot be consistently enforced. Every year, an estimated 2.4 million people use marijuana for the first time. Most will never be arrested for it; a small percentage, usually low-income people of color, arbitrarily will. If the objective of marijuana prohibition laws is to actually prevent marijuana use rather than driving it underground, then the policy is, despite its astronomical cost, an utter failure from a pure law enforcement point of view. 7. Taxing marijuana can be profitable. A recent Fraser Institute study found that legalizing and taxing marijuana could produce considerable revenue. 8. Alcohol and tobacco, though legal, are far more harmful than marijuana. I have written in the past that the case for tobacco prohibition is actually much stronger than the case for marijuana prohibition. Alcohol prohibition has, of course, already been tried - and, judging by the history of the War on Drugs, legislators have apparently learned nothing from this failed experiment.
Muslims are wrong about gambling: It is the fairest way to earn money that there is.

Muslims may not believe that gambling is the fairest way because again it is ultimately illegal , unless you're at an establishment that allows it such as a casino. secondly, when you gamble it may haunt you gambling is addictive so you may end up spending all your money on it. thirdly , you could and may gamble with someone who is apart of a gang so if you were scared or afaird of othe humans before imagine how frightened you would get then ? so Muslims are correct.
Muslims are wrong about gambling: It is the fairest way to earn money that there is.

I disagree with you because , when earning money from a job or threw hard work you have such feelings of accomplishment as you wouldn't get the chance to feel that way threw gambling. Gambling can also cause you to lose money as well as earn some so if you have no revenue coming in there is no way to gamble , so why waste your hard earn fair money if there is a possibility of losing , because on average more people tend to lose then to win. And if you were bullied your whole entire life to legally gamble you would have to go to a casino where there are workers and you must speak to them to know the rules and ways of gambling.
Muslims are wrong about gambling: It is the fairest way to earn money that there is.

But they are wrong about it being an unfair way for lazy people to get cash. Muslims strictly prohibit it because they see working in a regular job as a much better and morally correct way of earning money. This indicates that they think it's more fair to work for money than get it by chance. In gambling, no matter where you were born, how abused you were as child, how stupid you are (yes even being smart will not help you because counting cards isn't gambling and is a banned tactic in all legitimate casinos), how strong you are and how rich you are, you can walk out of there a millionaire. It doesn't matter even if you are disabled in any way, you can win. Even if you're an ex-criminal, couch potato going out for the first day of his/her life (although this depend show high class the casino is) or a nerd with no social skills whatsoever, you can get more money than your more normal competitors. Even if you were bullied your whole life and hate humanity meaning you can't cope in a social environment of any kind, such as a workplace, you can win money. There is nothing as fair as gambling when ti comes to earning money.
We need to fund NASA's under water exploration

Bastiat was a 19th century French author / economist. Perhaps his most influential work was the 'La Loi' (the law). "Behold the law perverted! Tuned away from it's true purpose. From a tool to protect property rights into an instrument of plunder!" Or words to that effect. He was part of a school of thought which is today known as 'Classical Liberalism'. Liberalism was itself a reaction the mercantilism and absolutism of the 15th and 16th century. And I assume the public pays for NASA because I'm not a retard.
We need to fund NASA's under water exploration

It comes down to a question of utility. It is important to consider both, as Bastiat said "Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas" or "that which is seen and that which is unseen". My opponent has presented admirably that which is seen. Nasa explores beneath the water and we have the miracle of discovery. It's a wonderful thing. But we must also consider that which is not seen. Where does the money for NASA come from? It is taken from the people in the form of taxes. So what would that money be spent on, were it not spent on this underwater exploration mission? And what will people have to do without, because of this program? The fact is, people are struggling already. Between high taxes, constant inflation and stagnant wages it is very tough to get ahead in the world. And you want the public to bear yet another burden? This would mean factories not built, vacations not taken, vehicles not repaired. The money does not appear magically but is instead taken, through force, from people who are struggling to make ends meet. You think the average person really values underwater sea exploration more than getting some winter tires or buying some higher quality food for their family? The benefits from this proposed mission are dubious at best. So we go down there, we see some giant squids, and then we leave. Let's focus on reality. Let's focus on cutting taxes, letting the economy grow, letting people keep their money and not wasting it on senseless exploration of the depth.
We need to fund NASA's under water exploration

There is whole another life we don't know about yet. Only a little amount of the rivers, streams, lakes, and oceans are explored. Don't give up on mermaids just yet. It is for this reason we need to fund NASA's underwater exploration. 1. New findings. Over 100 new marine animals have been discovered. There are many more explorations and many new findings taking place. Check this out,. . http://www.smithsonianmag.com... watch a few of the videos too! 2. What they are searching. This helps explain the "how" of the searches. . http://www.noaa.gov... 3. Why we need to act fast! . http://www.mynews13.com... Conclusion: The tides are coming upon us. We need to learn what is out there before it is too late. We don't even know everything yet. 91% of our Water has been explored. We need the help!
Could there be such thing as hot ice cream

Hot ice cream is not a thing. Implying that regular ice cream can be naturally "hot" or at a warm temperature while retaining its shape and being edible is a concept that cannot be achieved or else it would just be "cream". There is a reason ice cream is called ICE CREAM. The cold temperature is a main factor in the shape and taste of the ice cream and why it is the way it is. If you were referring to fried ice cream, that's different but you cannot have hot ice cream.
Canada is a better place to live than THE USA

Google nations with the best quality of life, Or just best nations to live in, Canada will either be at the top or the very top of the list, Its the best country in the world eh? The usa will be found way down the list. Canada is a better place to live, And a better socio poitical model, Canadian values have created a near utopia. . The usas values of greed and violence have created a garbage dump.
Canada is a better place to live than THE USA

i HAVE lived both places but i base my claim not on personal experience but on emprical data again google the terms quality of life or best country in the world. . If you research this you see by objective standards health, Life expectancy, Low crime rate housing, Poverty rates, Safety, By obejctive standards united nations business magazines the legatum prosperity index. . By index after index canda does batter, This isnt at all about me or my prejudicies it that i did some research and began to notice a trend Canada New Zealand Australia and all the Nordic nations top all lists on best places to live along with Switzerland, Singapore, Also does very well on many indices, But because of strict laws, They fall on freedom but low taxes compensate. . But at the very top of all these lists is either Canada Switzerland or the Nordics, Mainly Iceland, And Norway, But sweden and Finland top equity and education lists. . The usa IS WAY down the list with many poop hole countries
Canada is a better place to live than THE USA

Greetings. Please answer the questions as provided. Do you reside in Canada which triggers your favoritism towards Canada? -- Your "eh" looks hesitant and unsure. Are you basing your argument off of stereotypes and what other people who are not from the USA that says "bad" things about the USA? Have you lived in BOTH Canada and USA? If so, I would at least understand and find your argument more credible and not one sided based off of bias. By your stance regarding the USA, Please provide states that supposedly mean "greed and violence have created a garbage dump. " and "usa will be found way down the list. " -- as if there aren't violence, Crimes and injustices everywhere other than the USA. Have you visited or been to all 50 states? Please explain how Canada is superior or better to beautiful, Well known states such as California, Texas (where I am from), Florida, And New York? I wish you provided more characters in this debate. Ran out of space. Those are my Q's. Enlighten me.
We are all InSaNe

Thanks wierdman. ==Burden of proof== It seems obvious that my opponent will try to wield the first (flawed) definition to win this debate based on "the rules." Supposedly I accepted a non-standard and nonsensical definition of insanity by clicking accept. I'll allow the definition, but it has to at least make grammatical and logical sense first. As the second definition demonstrates, insanity is "the state of" something; it cannot be an isolated instance. For example, when I am dreaming, my mind does not accurately reflect reality. Dreams do not prove people are insane. Secondly, the definition is logically incoherent. How can a mind be "dishonest" when the mind itself believes that it is accurately reporting events. We can't humanize a biological organ. A schizophrenic's mind does not "lie" to him; it functions as that individual's genes have told it to function. So to make sense, the definition would need to be "the state of the mind reporting defective information to the individual." But, by definition, a dichotomy cannot exist without its opposite. Sane/insane, male/female, good/evil - one concept is not coherent without the other. So inherently, insanity cannot exist without sanity. As far as I'm concerned, since this is fundamentally a strange semantics debate, the debate is over right there. But also, I don't understand how wierdman can possibly uphold his BOP under the first definition. To prove that the information one receives is defective (or "dishonest"), he has to agree that there is some frame of comparison that is classified as normal (or "honest"). If there is no honest, there can be no dishonest. That was all the resolutional analysis I wanted to do before the debate began. I now turn the floor over to wierdman.
We are all InSaNe

I really want this to be a good and fruitful debate. Definition: There will be two definitions of insanity used in this round; both equally weighed Insanity: A scenario when the mind fails to be honest with the individual. Insanity2: The state of being mentally unstable. The debate will go in the following order: Round one: Intro and acceptance Round two:Main Round/ Opening case Round three:Rebuttal Round four:Rebuttal Round Five:Conclusion Resolution: Humanity is Insane: We are all insane....Every Single HUMAN IN THIS WORLD!!! By accepting this debate, you accept the rules as well as the definitions in-placed. Good luck and thank you for accepting.
Ukraine(pro) vs Turkmenistan(con)

I thank my friend again for an enjoyable debate and something that has been a learning expierience for me in future war debates. July 22nd Turkmenistan's government in exile vows to "defend its nation and attack to save its nation from invasion by the imperialists." July 23rd Turkmenistan millitary force of 20,000 men begins assault to retake Turkmenbashi and suffer casualties. Soldiers: 1,200 Tanks: 12 destroyed Self-propelled guns: 3 destroyed July 25th With fighting still raging outside Turkmenbashi, 4,000 Turkmen troops storm and seize Debaltseve Ukraine and begin a march towards Mariupol. July 27th Turkmen troops overrun half of Turkmenbashi, seizing half the city with casualties: Soldiers: 2,000 Tanks: 21 destroyed. Thanks for the debate so far
Ukraine(pro) vs Turkmenistan(con)

I thank my friend for what should prove to be an exciting debate and a learning expierience. Turkmenistan MANPOWER Going beyond military equipment totals and perceived fighting strength is the actual manpower that drives a given military. Wars of attrition favor those with more. Total Population: 5,171,943 Available Manpower: 2,768,005 Fit for Service: 2,252,187 Reaching Military Age Annually: 106,817] Active Frontline Personnel: 22,000 Active Reserve Personnel: 35,000 LAND SYSTEMS Tank value includes Main Battle Tanks, light tanks and tank destroyers, either wheeled or tracked. AFV value includes Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) and Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs). Tanks: 712 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs): 1,941 Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs): 68 Towed-Artillery: 269 Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRSs): 110 AIR POWER Includes both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft from all branches of service. Total Aircraft: 72 Fighters/Interceptors: 24 Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 44 Transport Aircraft: 18 Trainer Aircraft: 0 Helicopters: 25 Attack Helicopters: 10 NAVAL POWER Aircraft Carrier value includes dedicated "helicopter carrier" vessels. Total naval strength includes all known auxiliaries as well. Total Naval Strength: 4 Aircraft Carriers: 0 Frigates: 0 Destroyers: 0 Corvettes: 0 Submarines: 0 Coastal Defense Craft: 4 Mine Warfare: 0 RESOURCES (PETROLEUM) Despite the advances made in battlefield technology, oil remains the lifeblood of any fighting force as well as local economy. Oil Production: 245,000 bbl/day Oil Consumption: 145,000 bbl/day] Proven Oil Reserves: 600,000,000 bbl/day LOGISTICAL War is as much a battle of logistics - moving man and machine from points all over - as it is direct combat. Labor Force reflects possible wartime industry strength. Labor Force: 2,500,000 Merchant Marine Strength: 11] Major Ports and Terminals: 1 Roadway Coverage: 58,592 Railway Coverage: 2,980 Serviceable Airports: 26 FINANCIAL (in USD) Regardless of military strength in numbers, war is still driven by financing as much as any one leader or weapon. Defense Budget: $200,000,000 External Debt: $428,900,000,000 Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold: $22,350,000,000 Purchasing Power Parity: $55,160,000,000 GEOGRAPHY (in km) Geographical values primarily figure into a defensive-minded war (i.e. invasion). Square Land Area: 488,100 km Coastline: 1,768 km Shared Border: 4,158 km Waterways: 1,300 km Now on with the war: May 31st: Turkmenistan begins to deploy tanks to its borders, readying for war. The president offically declares, "Ukraine is an enemy of the state." June 1st: Turkmenistan's navy moves into position. June 4th: Turkmenistan army marches towards Ukraine. June 7th: Shots fired by Turkmenistan troops in Odessa Thanks for the debate, your turn :)
Ukraine(pro) vs Turkmenistan(con)

I thank my good friend for this good debate. Now then... August 13th Turkmenistan's government in exile pushes millitary to launch offensive to defend capital. August 15th Turkmenistan's army surrounds the capital to defend it from Ukraine August 16th Fierce fighting breaks out with heavy casualties Ukraine: 1,200 Turkmenistan: 900 August 17th A ceasefire is signed to allow time for medical care to be provided August 20th The ceasefire is breached by Ukraine, as 6 soldiers of Turkmenistan are killed. August 21st 2,500 Turkmenistan troops storm Shkyirone and wrestle it from Ukraine in a sneak attack. August 22nd Elated by their victory, Turkmenistan air force bomb Ukraine positions and force them from the capital city but sustain heavy losses. Casualties: Ukraine: 3000 killed, 2000 wounded, 150 taken prisoner 21 tanks captured 32 planes captured Turkmenistan: 4000 killed, 1000 wounded, 120 taken prisoner. 2 tanks captured. Thanks for the debate so far :), my friend.