BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A square is the best quadrilateral

There is little doubt that the square is the most fundamental of the quadrilaterals, being their representative in the family of regular polygons. However, also being one of the only three regular shapes that can tessellate (the other two being triangles and hexagons), it also carries the unique burden of being the most boring of the quadrilaterals. A surface constructed of nothing but square tiles is uninteresting to look at.By contrast, other quadrilaterals have had indispensable places in human culture, if not in pure geometry.Consider the rectangle. This shape is forever burned into the American psyche as the representation of ultimate intelligence and mystery, thanks to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Consider the trapezoid. In many ancient cultures it was widely used in architecture, and after the arch was discovered the shape went into wider use. Stones that are trapezoidal in cross-section are better able to distribute weight to their two neighbors. Consider the rhombus. How can one look at a rhombus and not giggle a little inside? Given these facts, it is not at all clear that a square is the best quadrilateral.
Frisbees should be called Yeet Disks

According to the only definition at Urban Dictionary I could find that has to do with throwing it is "To throw an object across the room at a high speed". At quora. Com I found that backhand gives you 50mph and fore hand gives you 40mph. "High speed" is a relative term and baseballs and footballs can be thrown faster can be thrown faster by an average player. https://www. Urbandictionary. Com/define. Php? Term=Yeet&page=57 go to definition 396 https://www. Quora. Com/Ultimate-Frisbee-What-is-the-speed-of-a-forehand-and-backhand-hucked-disc-i-e-thrown-at-maximum-force/answer/Robert-McLeod
Frisbees should be called Yeet Disks

Whenever a human throws anything, They must say yeet. This is due to out brains being wired in a way that many meme scientists connect to a part of our brain called the Yeetle Cortex. It is said that this is where the nerve called the Yeetus Yote connects the Yeetle Cortex to the Frontal Lobe. So this is what causes us to say Yeet when we throw things. So by logic a, Which humans throw a lot, Should be called a Yeet Disk. A much more proper name. I rest my case.
Feeding the hungry

::Ad Hominems:: 1.1"What a jerk." 1.2."Next time you catch this hunger illness I'll be the first to watch you fade away like the guy in Thinner." 1.3."~BOOM HEADSHOT~" ::Misspellings:: 1.1" uyou'd" ::Arguments:: "If you were hungry uyou'd want food" 1.1. Unless I was on a diet or I cached that disease I made up in the previous round. 1.2. I would rather be hungry for many weeks and then get a job than be a nuisance to society while being fed by the society. I am truly sorry if I somehow offended you but internet is not a good place to be offended in plus its seems you didn't understand what I was proposing. In conclusion I hope to debate you again when you're more experienced and skilled.
Feeding the hungry

::My argument:: There is this great Chinese proverb and it says: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." My opponent proposes to give a fish to those who need food. I say give them jobs and education hence a bright future ! I believe that its obvious that my proposition works better especially in long term. ::My opponents argument:: "We need to feed the hungry because they are America's workforce." As far as I am aware people with jobs have money and money can buy food. If the person is addicted to alcohol then we can help him hence he will from now on have food for himself. The same goes for other problems - they can be solved. ::Extra argument:: My opponents statement is absolute meaning that all hungry people should be fed. However, that is wrong: 1. A disease appears which kills people unless they're hungry. If the person dies hungry then the disease doesn't spread to other people. 2. A woman decides to loose weight to look pretty. 3. Free will allows us to make bad choices.
Trump is bad

Now I think that Trump is a bad president and will cause wars in the future. He will also probably get assassinated which I think MAY be true but a president may change but he won't and will corrupt the US even more which is just stupid. He does not have the proper intelligence of a president to even have his hands on the nuclear codes and, I do believe that. To finish off Trump has ONLY business experience and NO AND I MEAN NO political experience.
Is Homosexuality Against the Bible

I now know the reasons for my contenders passes on previous rounds as an outside influence is causing them to not be able to debate. I will post this final round but then I will wrap up and ask to vote when this is done. This is an example of how, not only is homosexuality against the Bible, but it is wrong. Say you are a teenager who just got their drivers license. You are now enjoying the freedom and responsibility of no one in charge of you. Your parents and instructors are not telling you when to use your blinkers or when to stop. Suppose you decide that, contrary to everything you've been told up to now, you want to drive on the left side of the road, assuming this is in America not England. Youmwill quickly encounter serious opposition to your choice of driving style (like a head on collision). You can either learn from your observations and expieriences, or you can insist on driving whichever way you wish, and whatever happens, happens. Homosexuality is not just a sin according to the Bible, but a problem to humanity. It will cause several "collisions" yet people still insist on their ways. Romans 1:26-27 says this: That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust towards each other. Men did shameful things with other men and as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.
Is Homosexuality Against the Bible

Not knowing the reason for my contenders pass on the previous round, I will continue the debate. I believe that the participation and practice of homosexuality is, indeed, against the bible. I would like to state also that we are discussing whether homosexuality is biblical and not if the bible is good or bad. The context of this debate is based off of us currently using the bible, God's word as a source. First off, I will reiterate my previous statement of the fact that the bible has several verses that directly state the sinful nature of homosexuality. It even goes as far as to say homosexuals are deserving of death. Furthermore, your explanations and sources taken from the bible are misinterpretations. No where in the bible does it state in black and white that homosexuality is not a sin. Romans 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural
Is Homosexuality Against the Bible

Unfortunately it was cut short by a power outside of my Contender's control and a similar reason is preventing me from being able to pause this debate. As my final statement for this debate, I would like to ask the voters to base their votes not on their opinion, but take into consideration the content of the debate. My final statement, as I've said several times, is that we are discussing if homosexuality is against the Bible, not if it is right or wrong. If you believe the authenticity of the Bible, you (voters) will agree with my opinion on how homosexuality is indeed against the Bible because not only does the Bible specifically state several times that homosexuality is a sin, but it also states punishments for the sinners who participate. Every example my Contender uses are misinterpretations where it never clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. My point is supported directly by the source we are discussing.
smoking in restaurants

I will be arguing that it is the right of the owner to decide whether or not he should allow smoking in resteraunts.According the the 5th Amendment, "No person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"If we were to enforce non-smoking laws within all resteraunts, we would be violating the owners property rights. This is not acceptable behavior, and is utterly unconstitutional.Now we must ask ourselves; how would the government force a ban on smoking inside resteraunts? The government could tell the owner that he is legally obligated to do so. But what if he still lets them smoke? Then the government would send him a fine, or nothing would have been accomplished since the legislation. But what if he refuses to pay the fine? Then he gets arrested, and a whole bunch of mess happens.It is not like anybody within the resteraunt are being forced to inhale the second hand smoke. They can all get up to levae if they so desire. But forcing other people to comply to your standards is utterly immoral, and illlegal. Why should the government be able to do so?
smoking in restaurants

Smoking in public places such as restaurants is inappropriate for not only themselves, but everyone around them. Though there are some restaurants that has smoking/non smoking areas, I believe smoking should not be allowed where others are trying to eat their food and enjoy themselves. Smoking in general is very unhealthy for you, causing many types of cancers, dental health and many more, and it can damage someone else's health by smoking near them. Some cases show others who dealt with second hand smoke have had serious health problems, such as heart failure and breathing problems. When smoking in a place where people are eating, it can be such a distraction. Eating your food and all of a sudden smelling the cigarette smoke, losing your appetite. Smoke can travel far, and for the ones who are non smokers will notice. Children are in most danger of this occurring. When young children are exposed to second hand smoke, it can really damage them internally, and may face harder health issues when they are older. Smoking in restaurants also can effect its employees. I don't believe they enjoy taking someone's order and having intoxicated smoke in their faces. And they may work there all the time, being exposed to smokers everyday, and damaging their health little by little. I personally will not enjoy working where customers can smoke in their corners while others eat. Smoking in restaurants should not be an option. They should get rid of smoking areas and have the restaurant not allow smoking inside at all. If others want to smoke, they can go outside, simple as that. Even better, they can start to quit, saving themselves from horrible side effects. If our country got rid of smoking areas in most public places, it can save others from effects it brings on non smokers, and maybe encourage smokers themselves to quit.
smoking in restaurants

What facts? That in your opinion smoking is unpleasent and disgusting? That smoking causes chance of death? Everything has a chance to kill everybody. It all boils down to how much money you are willing to spends/how much force you are willing to use to prevent your own, inevitable death from occuring. If people don't want to work where smoking is allowed, they can find work elsewhere. No case has been presented that adequately explains why the ban on smoking would be worth the cease of our personal liberty.
smoking in restaurants

Here's the thing, some places have restaurants that have a place for smokers, and for non smokers. I personally do not like the idea of even having a smoking area. I once went to a restaurant were smoking was allowed on one side, while non smokers stay on the other side. Even as I walked through the doors, I felt the smoke reach in my eyes, the smell of the cigarette and trying to not inhale the toxicated smoke. Its not a good look for any restaurant, the smell, the way it tires your eyes. Since then, I have never went to another restaurant where you were allowed to smoke. Its distracting, the smell, the texture, everything about a cigarette is flat out disgusting. I am stating to ban smoking in restaurants, not every where around the world, though it would be nice if we lived in a world where no one smoked. No one should smoke where other are trying to enjoy themselves, especially others who don't smoke. Many places would consider there smoker and non smoker sections in there restaurants. This is what I'm arguing against.
smoking in restaurants

Sure, if the resteraunt owner refuses his/her patrons the opprotunity to smoke inside of his resteraunts, then they could be asked to leave if they do so anyways. However, if the resteraunt owner doesn't care/wants smoking inside of hist resteraunt, then he should be able to allow, if not encourage such behavior. Based on what then does my opponent has said, we should ban smoking in restraunts because it is repulsive, makes the food taste bad, and concerns other customers.With the exception of the third argument, based on what does my opponent believe that smoking is repulsive, or makes food taste bad? An opinion? She just assumes these facits are true, and offers no evidence to support these notions. In regards to the third point, as I have already stated, is silly. If customers are inconvienenced, they are free to leave, and if the owner feels the reprocutions are enough to ban smoking within his resteraunt, he should, but doesn't have to.People have the right to do what they wish with their own property.
smoking in restaurants

Yes, others can have the opportunity to leave, but it still doesn't give the right for people to smoke in restaurants. Sure, others can get lung cancer if they choose to, but I know others around them don't. Banning smoking in restaurants can ease off the tension of second hand smoke and others can have better safety. Like I mentioned, if others choose to smoke, they can excuse themselves, smoke outside the restaurant, and when they are finished they can return back inside. Owners of restaurants may let customers do what ever they want, but some just let the customers know smoking is not allowed. No use of government fines there. Smoking in general is just repulsive, why do it when you are about to enjoy a meal? If the government does ban smoking in restaurants, they would be doing others a favor and saving the risk of peoples lives.
God does not exist.

Rebuttals:ContingencyI don't think that Con has responded to me very well on this. I don't really think it's a good argument because it works like this:(P1) The cause of Z must have Y qualities.(P2) X has Y qualities.(C) Therefore, X is the cause of Z.It's the equivalent of saying this:(P1) To have made that jam sandwich, you must have jam.(P2) I have jam.(C) Therefore, I made the jam sandwich. I don't think I have to point out the invalidity further. I would also question some of the qualities Con has claimed that the external cause of the universe must have.Personal - Why should we assume that the only possible external cause of the universe is God when the big bang theory is a possible explanation for the universe as we know it and the big bang is not personal?Omnipotent - Omnipotence isn't necessary. This hypothetical being just needs the power to create the universe.Morality Con's Claim: The term 'moral content' does not nessecarily mean the action is morally good. It simply means that the action can be thought of in terms of right and wrong. If I punch somebody in the face, that action has moral content. We can think of it as right or wrong. King seems to think that giving moral content to an action also means that you're calling it moral. That's not true at all.But different people would think differently. This doesn't mean the morality is objective. We can think of a joke as funny, but someone else may not think so.Con's Claim: Things are moral because god commands them, but since god's commands come from his nature, he cannot change them. If he calls X immoral, he has done so because his own morally perfect nature says so. If you took away god's morally perfect nature, then he wouldn't be god. Therefore, god's commands cannot change, because his nature cannot changeBut if something is moral because God commands it, then there must be a time before God commanded it. Before God commanded it, God would not have a morally perfect nature as there would be no objective moral values or duties. Because of this, God could just command anything and then it would objective. But this isn't objective, this is subjective as it is only opinion.Ontological One problem I have with the Ontological argument is the logic is it's just terrible. There's no reason why I can't have the being in question be an invisible omnipresent dog whose fur can be felt by anyone. But we obviously know that this dog does not exist.
God does not exist.

#1: The argument from Quantity(P1) If maximal greatness could exist in reality, then it would be a quantity.(P2) Maximal greatness is the concept of the greatest greatness possible.(P3) You can always add to a quantity;(C) Therefore, maximal greatness is not a quantity and cannot exist in reality, as we can always imagine something greater.P1 Comparable to how if an actual infinite could exist in reality, then infinity would be a number. Infinity is not a number, since the definition of number is 'a word or symbol, or a combination of words or symbols, used in counting or in noting a total' [1]. Since you cannot count to infninity (1), infinity is not a number.P2Pretty straight-forward, unless Con wants to argue otherwise.P3A quantity is by definition 'a property that can exist as a magnitude or multitude. Quantities can be compared in terms of "more", "less" or "equal", or by assigning a numerical value in terms of a unit of measurement.' [2], which means that we can assign it a number to give us an idea of how great (for example) something is. Since I've shown that there is no biggest number, I think that it's pretty self-explanatory that maximal greatness cannot exist in reality.CThe conclusion logically following P1,P2 and P3.Sources [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...Notes(1) The word 'count' refers in the regular sense, meaning to count up (2) in positive integers starting from the number '1'.(2) The word 'up' is used in the sense where counting up means to go through the sequence of positive integers, with each next number being bigger than the last.
The moral argument for God is sound.

The argument is the following :1. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist.2. Objective morality does exist.3. Therefore, God exists.subjective : to a high degree dependent on opinionobjective : to a low degree (or not at all) dependent on opinionGod : omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of the universeAs requested by my opponent :- The voting is to be done by judges.- The character limited is 10.000.- The first round is for acceptance and additional definitions only.- The second round is for the presentation on one's case without rebuttals.- No new arguments may be presented in the last round.We (mostly my opponent) have found some judges. Maybe it will work this time.May the truth prevail.
On balance, Mafia is a waste of time

On balance, Mafia is a waste of timeSo, in an overall sense (on balance), Mafia is a waste of time. This debate will be voted upon by judges.I am really excited to say that my opponent here will be Bluesteel, arguably the best debater on this site. If I can show you that Mafia is a waste of time against him, I daresay that I could against anyone on this site. Original thread: Mafia is a waste of time: http://www.debate.org... Parodies: - Why debates are a waste of time: http://www.debate.org... - Why arguing is a waste of time: http://www.debate.org... - Why breathing is a waste of time: http://www.debate.org... - Why Rational Madman is a waste of time: http://www.debate.org... - Posting to prove points is a waste of time: http://www.debate.org... - Why masturbating on the bus is a waste of time: http://www.debate.org...I'm going to show all these people who made fun of me that I have a really good argument. Even if I lose, I will not be laughed at in the forums. At least I will try my best to argue what I think is right, and at least I have the courage to take on some of the best debaters on DDO, rather than being a Forum Warrior where nothing really matters.Round Rules First round acceptance No new arguments or sources in the last round Definitions: Mafia – A popular forum game that is found on DDO Waste - an action or use that results in the unnecessary loss of something valuable (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Time – the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Adam And Eve Story In The Bible Never Happened

http://wiki.answers.com...1. http://content.time.com...Rebuttal 1:First off, science is science. There are many things in science that are for sure. Like, humans have hearts. It's not like we are going to find another organ that does the heart's job. This is completely incorrect. Science can be wrong, but you need evidence to prove it wrong. You have presented no evidence for Adam and Eve yet. The source you presented cab easily be dismissed. It is biased because it is specifically a bible website. This means it can fake whatever they want to prove the bible right. Keep presenting links like that and I'll destroy it everytime.Rebuttal 2:A basic assumption that is easily disproven. Did you know, now, if a woman is too skiny, she can't get pregnant. This has never happened before! (1)So, you are calling the science we use to find murder suspects guilty or not guilty possibly un-true?!? This is stupidity!Rebuttal 3:I have proved that the one link that you had was bias. If you refuse to believe it, then I can't help you there.Rebuttal 4:Good job! The one thing that you proved correct!Rebuttal 5:So, you are saying Adam and Eve were high? I literally laughed at that. Dude, that is not a good argument at all.Rebuttal 6:We have evidence for evolution. The bible has been wrong and immoral. Like, the bible once said the Earth was the center of the universe. The bible also said slavery was okay. We have all this evidence, which I can present to you if you want me to, for evolution. Yet, only evidence against Adam and Eve.Rebuttal 7:My link states cavemen couldn't speak, they only could draw.You still have yet to prove Adam and Eve.
Adam And Eve Story In The Bible Never Happened

Case 1: The Lie Called Adam And EveThe Bible self-destructs with everything science has taught us. The science of forensics disproves Adam and Eve 100 times over. If we are from Adam and Eve, We would practically be cousins with everyone in the world! No. This is scientifically impossible. Instead, forensics states that we are not all related. Adam and Eve also don't explain race. If we are all descendants from Adam and Eve, we would all be one race. Adam and Eve states they have two sons, Kain and Abel, but, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE GIRLS?!???!? They must have had something to repopulate with. It is also said Adam and eve knew how to speak, but even cavemen had no idea of the simplest languages! Wouldn't Adam and Eve have taught their children to speak their language? They also say that Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge, yet, man has never found a tree that give knowledge of everything in the universe! The tree had a fruit, which means it probably had seeds, which would have made other trees similar to it, giving infinite knowledge of everything. They also say that the snake spoke at one time, yet, the snake has no vocal cords! (1) There is also evidence that the Earth is older than 4,000 years. Human footprints believed to be 40,000 years old have actually been older! It is 51,000 years old. (2) This conflicts with the story you gave right? Hell, even a tree shows the Earth is older than 4,000 years! (3) That is all Adam and Eve should be taken as. A story!1. http://www.infoplease.com...2. http://www.berkeley.edu...3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...