BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Geocentrism

Indeed, these were the results of the Michelson-Morley expirement. But you forget one thing; light is an electromagnetic wave, and electromagnetic waves travel at the constant speed of 300.000klm/sec. According to this, the results were pretty logical. The expirement in that way also debunked the hypothesis of the ether as a medium through which electromagnetic waves travel. Except from further arguments, I would like you to explain the cosmological hypothesis or theory you believe in. I believe that the universe has no center, being homogenic and isotropic, and that the earth is a small planet orbiting the star known as "sun" and spinning. I also believe in the cosmological theory of big bang, which tells us that the universe started with the explosion of all the matter which was concentrated in one point, and hence that the universe is expanding. This is supported by evidence that include the redshift effect and the cosmic microwave background radiation, on which I can elaborate in my next argument, if you disagree with the concept of the big bang. Proof of the rotation of the earth is the Coriolis effect, according to which, the air or sea currents are affected by the rotation of the earth, turning more right if in the northern hemisphere and more left if in the southern hemisphere. This effect is observable and is applied in meteorology, making predictions a lot more accurate, and oceanography. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...I also want to ask you a few things concerning the Geocentric model (as I have pictured it in my mind through the image you sent me):1. Once, I visited a well known observatory close to the area I live (Athens, Greece), and, since it was night, I was allowed to look through the telescope, which offered a great view of Saturn. But how was that able to happen, since, during the night, the Sun as well as the planets orbiting it, including Saturn, should not be visible? 2. The scientific society clearly states that the correct model is the heliocentric. Why would they lie about that? 3. In the picture you sent me, the Sun looks really smaller than the one pictured by the scientific society. But, judging by its size, nuclear fusion should not be able to happen, especially for a time as long as we know the Sun to exist. It also would not be able to produce radiation so intense as seen in cases like the Aurora borealis, for example. Any explanations about that? 4. The geocentric model used to be considered true, but it was gradually proven to be more and more inaccurate, forcing astronomers to add epicycles and epicycles on the previous ones on the planets' orbits, in order to make it better. The problem was solved by Kepler's modifications on the heliocentric model, while the geocentric model still lacked in accuracy. What makes you think it is true?I hope I did not misunderstand anything about the geocentric model that you described. Please rationally answer these questions of mine, and provide more plausible proof in your next argument.
Geocentrism

Hello I would like my opponent to prove that the earth is motionless, while I will provide evidence of the earth moving. Note that only arguments of scientific content will be acceptable, while the religious or pseudoscientific ones will not. The most convincing arguments of each side will declare the winner of this debate. During the first round, my opponent is to inform me whether by motionless he means that the earth is spherical or not (that request of mine is so due to my encounter with quite a great number of people who believed in the earth being flat). He will also elaborate on the geocentric model and cosmological hypothesis or theory he believes in, and provide arguments and, if possible, evidence that support his claims. I will do the same in the beginning of the second round, while I also argue against my opponent's claims. Then the conversation may proceed in the same way.
my milkshake is better than yours

did you look at the graph i provided? it doesn't get much more offiical (looking?) than that. again, it was self evidently irrefutable. that all the boys attest to the superiroity of my milkshake goes to show that it is in fact superior. con tries to significantly limit the number of boys in my yard. con rests on faulty scientific evidence, based on a minute fraction of the scientific community. by far most scientists have reached conclusions opposite con, but con seems to enjoy going against the scientific consensus. indeed, many of those scientists were male, and in my yard attesting to the superiority of my milkshake. the fact remains that all the boys have been brought to the yard and attest to the superiority of my milkshake. con says that the men will come whether or not we want them to. con suggests then their actions are based on nature, and not their own choice. however, their action go against nature, and they had a choice in it anyways. any boys in con's yard were the victim of coercion, and they were later or earlier happily sitting in my yard enjoying my milkshake. im not sure it's sure it's fair to invoke pokeman, as that is known to be a major trump card. con resorts to playing dirty. con needs to rest upon his own arguments, but cannot seem to do so. he knows deep down that the all the boys are in my yard and prefer my milkshake over his. the response in the spock picture is the only appropriate response. you have no choice but to concede, and if you do, at least in a well articulated way like that, i'm sure consideration can be given for that. while i normally charge for my services, please consider the above advice free of charge.
my milkshake is better than yours

My opponents argument is totally false. She makes a basic bar graph comparison of my milkshake versus hers, but her data points are misleading and will be debunked by scientific literature. Her main flaw in her argument is that she compares her boys in her yard to mine at the beginning of our experiment. Her research fails to account for a simple factor: how many boys were in her yard before her data collection. In fact, is probable that her numbers were inflated due to the fact that more boys where in her yard compared to mine before our data collection. In fact, once this is accounted for, I bring in more boys to my yard then you did. You started with a yard containing 10 boys in it, whereas I only had one. By the end of the expiriment, I had obtained 9 boys you had 11. Those 10 boys and 1 boy were there for other reasons--i.e., using our trees to cool down, not look at our bodies. Therefore, based on the statistics, you only brought in one boy who admired your milkshakes, whereas I attracted 9 [1]. Further, according to a recent poll, in a milkshake competition 69.69% of boys prefered my yard due to milkshake attractivness compared to yours [2]. Blue me, red her. Boys on Y axis, time on X. Indeed, in the graph above[1], we see that I came from the bottom and now I am here, she started up there and made very little progress, detailing the undesirability of her milkshakes.Further, a bar graph accounting for boys not there for milkshakes (which her graph fails to account for, as all her boys are there for other reasons) leads to this conclusion: --> Blue is me, red is her, Boys on Y, her and me on X. In fact, when these statistical anomolies are accounted for, we see my milkshakes statistically superior to hers. The Griffin picture supports my general argument. As you can see, his milkshakes have attracted 5 non violent boys to his yard. Nonviolent, you ask? The vast majority of criminals are non-violent drug offenders [3]. Further, with the prevalence of prison rape--which Peter seems to be a victim of--it shows that men are so attractive that we cant even resist bringing boys to the yard. They will come whether or not we want them to. Spock details my argument perfectly: My milkshakes are superior. Further, my opponent has failed to bring in my pokemon skills, which are detailed in the video below. ;1. kadams, 16, Thett3, YYW. "An Inquiry to the Attractivness of 16k's milkshake: An Econometric Model", Journal of Debate.org and Milkshake Efficiency, 2014. 2. Dupre, GarretKade. "A Poll of Boys interest in Competing Milkshake models", The Milkshake Foundation, 2014. 3. http://www.drugwarfacts.org...;
my milkshake is better than yours

Aw pfft, I didn't rig an election. I mean, I live in this house Does it look like I can rig anything with my big money? My opponent claims she has a high sex drive, but our dark lord disagrees I mean seriously a guy with a metal d!ck who cant lift it up because it was burnt off and now its too heavy is calling you out on your sex drive. The only way you get people to get to your yard is like the russian lady who fed her attacker viagra for three days then raped him...Yeah, well, the dairy industry used chemicals. I am all natural bby. You use growth hormones and crap to make your milkshakes. Your milkshakes are more like 'my milkshakes bring all the cancerous moles to the yard'.Sadly, my opponent is a twin to bad luck Brian in his milkshake outcome. 25C10×(0.4)10×(0.6)15 = my milkshake is betterVote CON
my milkshake is better than yours

con argues by voting standards in the popular election that i am merely common place. however, the votes were rigged. con and his lackeys rigged the election with big money. when we tried to do a fair recount to count the votes con suppressed, con had his lackies on the supreme court rule in his favor. con argues that it's regular folks who have issue with whether my milkshake is superior. however, what do you expect for a lay common folk? if the media portrays the issue as an open question, the people will act as if it is too. they are not scientists, and the media doesnt really even get into the science any way. con acts as if i have to pull or force people to come to my yard. the truth is that they are compelled by forces far beyond them, much stronger than the strongest sex drive, to come to my yard and enjoy my milkshake. con ignores that i am dairygirl, and as such, i have an inherent advantage on dairy products, including milkshakes. in fact, my milkshake dominance is so well established, that they made a song for it. let me leave you with it. http://www.youtube.com... thus, we are forced to conclude, that, in fact, my milkshake is irrefutably better than yours.
The USA should repeal the rules of engagement about Afghanistan in the Obama doctrine

The Obama doctrine says that US soldiers in Afghanistan are not allowed to call in air-support or reinforcements. Also they cannot shoot unless shot at and if civilians are by then they may not engage. We need to repeal this because our troops are dying because of this. 22 members of seal team 6 died because of this. Innocents are going to die anyways unfortunately, but that is not going to save lives but waste them. Now we are just sending our men and women to be butchered by terrorists who know we are weak. Therefore we should repeal this and save American and in the long-run Afghan lives.
The USA should repeal the rules of engagement about Afghanistan in the Obama doctrine

This debate was not about what could have or should have been done in in Benghazi. This debate was about the Rules of Engagement (ROE) for the international forces in Afghanistan. My opponent has failed to prove that these ROE are detrimental to the troops in Afghanistan. My opponent has offered no real evidence, beyond the incidents he mentioned in round one of the debate, that the "current rules" have caused a dramatic increase in the causalities of US and NATO forces, or had only a marginal decrease in the civilian causalities. He has not provided any specifics about what Rules of Engagement should be developed for US forces in Afghanistan. There was an up tick in the number of US troops killed in Afghanistan in 2010 this can be attributed to the increase in the number of troops deployed to the Afghan theater. The number of troops killed in action has been decreased since 2010. As I have illustrated through this debate the current Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan are not new. They are the same basic rules that U.S forces have employed since 1949. My opponent has not refuted or even counter this argument. The Rules of Engagement in are in place for a reason. They are there to define when about how troops can engage the enemy; to conform the rules of war, treaties that the US and/or our international allies are committed, and our moral conscience as a nation. This is to say nothing of the psychological implications for troop being told to disregard civilians and noncombatants. We cannot pretend that killing women and children would not affect the men and women deployed to Afghanistan. We can not think that the mission in Afghanistan will be a success if we disregard the rules of war and disrgard the lives of the people we are trying to help.
The USA should repeal the rules of engagement about Afghanistan in the Obama doctrine

None the less as my closing argument, I would like to state that we should repeal the new rules of engagement, which I have stated and referenced, because we have lost 28 soldiers and 33 US civilians including the ambassador in Benghazi who for the record was denied and air support right before he was mortared. If we do not retaliate to the death of our people we will lose the respect of everyone especially our own people.
The USA should repeal the rules of engagement about Afghanistan in the Obama doctrine

http://www.fas.org... http://www.americanthinker.com... I believe what you are describing was the Somalia doctrine in 1992. I ask you in reply to your question: " Does he advocate the indiscriminate killing of civilians?" No I do not, however, I do believe that our troops lives are more important than other countries citizens lives. If we send in our troops we should let them do what they are meant to do, kill the enemy by any means necessary. "What alternate rules of engagement would my opponent suggest?" I would suggest, like I said, we send our troops in to kill the enemy by any means. In operation Desert Storm, the US army was given this instruction and it lasted a heck of a lot shorter than the War in Afghanistan. We are acting like the Vietnam war, all we are going to do is waste money and troops on a war that will do nothing. Either we are all in or all out.
The USA should repeal the rules of engagement about Afghanistan in the Obama doctrine

Challenge Accepted. I would like to thank my opponent, in advance, for a spirited debate. I have every intention of keeping this a clean, civil debate, and to refrain as much as possible from making emotional or other unscrupulous arguments. I will be taking the position that the current Rules of Engagement for the NATO and U.S forces deployed in Afghanistan are appropriate to current situation. I hold the position that they do not need to be "repealed" but rather clarified by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Commander. As I understand the standing Rules of Engagement for U.S forces in a hostile occupation and/or peacekeeping action such as ISAF"s role in Afghanistan is as follows: -You have the right to use force to defend yourself against attacks or threat of attack. Hostile fire may be returned effectively and promptly to stop a hostile attack -When U.S. forces are attacked by unarmed hostile forces and/or rioters U.S. forces should use the minimum force necessary under the circumstances and proportional to the threat -You may not seize the property of others to accomplish your mission -Detention of civilians is authorized for security reason or in self defense REMEMBER: -The United States is not at war -Treat all person with dignity and respect -Use minimum force to carry out mission -Always be prepared to act in self-defense. The above stated Rules of Engagement are similar to standing Rules of NATO forces as Joint Chiefs of Staff Standing Rules of Engagement clear state that U.S forces will follow the Rules of Engagement of the Multinational force (i.e. NATO). This is a policy that predates the Obama Administration, and actually predates the birth of President Obama, as it was established in 1949. Are the current Rules of Engagement different than what I stated above? If so, what is the specific standing Rules of Engagement for the U.S. armed forces in the Afghan Theater of Operation, and can you provide a citation for those please? Are said Rules of Engagement used by ISAF more restrictive than in past NATO Peacekeeping actions such as Bosnia? Are said Rules of Engagement more restrictive than past U.S. Military operations of a similar nature? How would different Rules of Engagement have prevented the 38 U.S. personnel, including members of SEAL TEAM SIX, from being killed in August 2011? I ask, alternatively, what Rules of Engagement would my opponent suggest? Does he advocate the indiscriminate killing of civilians? The current Rules of Engagement for NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan are workable, while it is perhaps necessary to clarify the Rules of Engagement. General McChrystal and General Petraeus set and/or adhered to the current Rules of Engagement. The lack of the of any rules aimed at curbing the deaths of civilians and the willingness to openly target civilians did not benefit the Soviet Union in the late seventies and early eighties; why should we believe that things would be different in this decade?
Can Prove the Existence of God and the Validity of the Christian Faith over other Religious Systems

I am going to make this post short. The proposition of this debate is "Can Prove the Existence of God and the Validity of the Christian Faith over other Religious Systems" Pro has failed to logically prove the existence of the christian God. Pro has asserted false claims as true. For example, Pro is of the belief that God is infallible and the author e bible. The bible contains some true claims me false claims. If the bible has false claims then its author could not be infallible. The God Pro presents is not logically consistent. There is no reason to think such a contradiction exists. The second half of proposition cannot be proven if the first half is not also proven.
A Bill To Legalize Marijuana

Contention 1: Marijuana is not harmful. Not a single death in history has been attributed directly to the use of Marijuana, while in the United States in the year 2001 alone, there were over 75,000 alcohol attributed deaths. Yet, alcohol has been legal in the United States since the end of the Prohibition in 1933. Unlike many other substances, it is close to impossible to overdose on Marijuana, a smoker would need to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response. On the other hand, drinking 5-10 times the amount of alcohol it takes to intoxicate you can lead to an overdose. My opponent may try and say that there are health risks such as cancer, but there has never been a documented case of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker, while nicotine has been attributed to thousands of cases of lung cancer and alcohol has been found to contribute to a variety of long-term negative health effects, including cancers and cirrhosis of the liver. Contention 2: The benefits of marijuana. There are many medical uses for marijuana, and Medical Marijuana can be used as a treatment for nausea often associated with cancer chemotherapy treatment; reduction of pressure in the eyes benefiting individuals with glaucoma, a leading cause of blindness in the U.S.; relief of pain often associated with cancer; and possible protection of nerves from the damage caused by multiple sclerosis (MS), thus reducing tremors and muscle spasms associated with the disease. A University of Saskatchewan study suggests that the use of marijuana may stimulate the growth of brain cells. In addition, a study conducted by the Scripps Research institute shows that THC prevents the formation of harmful plaque in the brain, which suggests that THC "may be the most effective drug for treating the declining effects of Alzheimer's disease". Clearly there are a lot of benefits from using medical marijuana. Contention 3: Banning marijuana does not work. According to a TIME article, Researchers found that 42% of people in the U.S. had tried marijuana at least once and in the year 2000, 646042 Americans were charged for possession of marijuana. Making marijuana illegal does not stop people from finding a way to obtain it. Contention 4: Benefits of legalizing marijuana a) Economic impacts: If the US were to legalize marijuana, it would save the $14,100,000,000 dollars that it spends annually in its fight against marijuana. Furthermore, it would make $778,200,000 or more in tax revenue per year. This would also create jobs, providing our failing US economy with relief. b) Less crime: The drug trade funds many gangs and criminals. But, by legalizing marijuana, we are effectively taking away their source of revenue, making it harder for them to operate and obtain weapons and making our country safer. Legalizing marijuana would benefit all aspects of our country, and for these reasons, I urge a pro ballot. http://drugwarfacts.org... http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.saferchoice.org... http://legalizationofmarijuana.com... http://www.time.com... http://www.associatedcontent.com... http://iloveweed.net...
A Bill To Legalize Marijuana

BE IT ENACTED that People age 21 years or older may legally possess, cultivate or transport marijuana for personal use. Local governments may regulate and tax production, distribution and sale of marijuana to people 21 years of age or older. SECTION1: This act does not repeal current laws preventing marijuana possession and use on school grounds or in the public presence of minors. SECTION 2: This act does not limit an employer's ability to preclude marijuana use on the job. You Start!
The Mongolians from South Park were legally allowed to break down the City Wall

My opponent states again that it was "Unlikely for the Mongolians to come all the way from Mongolia just to destroy Kim's wall. " And that because of this they must be citizens. My opponent fails to realize that NOTHING in the world of South Park makes any sense, whatsoever. Also, I stated in the initial post of this debate that,"Anything, anything at all not mentioned in the episode itself can be imposed by a debater as truth. " So by this I have decided that the Mongolians were not citizens and therefor my first argument still stands. For my Second contention, I am sorry to say that I have never seen anyone sue a terrorist, like my opponent suggests. Moving past that, with the statement of fact that I have imposed onto this debate that the Mongolians were, in fact, not citizens of the United States, it is near impossible to prosecute them of any serious crime. Maybe, in their society, it is not only accepted to break down random giant walls, but also encouraged. If that is so, the Mongolians had no idea that they were breaking any rules or laws and thus cannot be prosecuted as such. For these explanations and refutations, my first two points still stand.