BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Airplane is the most important invention in human history

Thanks, PRO, for instigating this debate. I hope to have an interesting discussion. Unless specified, the burden of proof lies on the person making a positive claim, in this case PRO. Thus, in this debate, PRO needs to give reasons why the airplane (aeroplane) is the most important invention of human history; more important than any other invention of human history. On the other hand, as CON, all I have to do is to negate his arguments for the airplane (aeroplane) being the most important invention of human history. Alternatively, I could also give an example of an invention which has been more important than the airplane (aeroplane) in human history, which would also lead to PRO's BOP being unfulfilled. PRO provides a variety of arguments, mostly relating to the benefits that the invention of airplanes (aeroplanes) have caused. However, all he has done is list a variety of benefits caused by the invention of airplanes (aeroplanes). He hasn"t shown how this warrants the aeroplane to be more important than other inventions such as the wheel, or the Printing Press. PRO does argue, however, that "to be more than just average is what the human experience is all about." According to PRO, this makes the airplane (aeroplane) the most important invention of human history. The problem with this argument is that he provides no justification for his very strong claim that the human experience is all about being more than just average. In addition, he needs to show that the discernment of the importance of an invention is based to his conception of human experience (to be more than just average); he has to show a link between the two. To recap:(1) PRO hasn"t shown how the benefits of airplanes (aeroplanes) lead to it being the most important invention of human history.(2) He hasn"t established that "to be more than just average is what the human experience is all about".(3) He hasn"t shown how that is related to the importance of an invention. The resolution has been negated.
The Airplane is the most important invention in human history

Throughout our existence, man has yearned to fly like the birds, to break the bounds of earth. In 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright broke the bounds of earth for the first time. After, many followed in their footsteps. Airplanes have brought countries aid in warfare and aid in times of economic collapse (i.e. Haiti). Airplanes have closed the gap, what was once a grueling month-after-month journey from Europe to America, can now be completed in as little as 8 hours. Airplanes have brought economic growth to many countries, shipping goods from one place in the world to another can now be done more quickly and efficiently. making it possible for more goods to be shipped over a shorter period of time. They have provided jobs for many, and have made many advancements in science and technology. To take humans up in the air to 35,000 feet for hours on end, where it is so cold and no air to breathe. To be more than just average is what the human experience is all about, this makes the Airplane the most important invention in human history.
the usfg should abolish all forms of phycopolotics in the U.S.

I await my opponent's affirmation, definitions, and supporting information for her affirmation. Affirmation - an affirmation is a statement you are trying to debate for. Usually done in the "I affirm that _Topic___of___debate" format. In this case your affirmation would be "I affirm that (Insert modern day instances of psycho-politics here) Definitions and Explanation: Here is where you should define the words: psycho-politics, and also all the instances of it that you are debating in your resolution. You should also logically explain what each instance is, guidelines for determining its occurrence (clear boundary of what is and what isn't), and give logical contentions about why each instance is harmful and should either morally or legally be abolished. Supporting Information - This is where you would include the factual sources showing the harm its causing, and showing that it is occurring. Supporting Info should bolster your arguments and help prove your affirmation. As the pro in this debate you have the burden of proof. This means that it is your duty to prove why your affirmation should be adopted. Furthermore I would recommend that my opponent use the spell-check button so as to not be marked down an extra point because of it. The spell-check button can be found here: . http://i47.tinypic.com... Thanks and good luck on the debate!
the usfg should abolish all forms of phycopolotics in the U.S.

pcycho-polotics is esentualy brain washing. throughout history, this political tactic has been used to coerse entire populations into genosidal acts. such as nazi germiny used this tactic in esentualy otherizing/dehumanizing jews (and basicaly anyone who didnt have blond hair and blue eyes) down to the lowly form of just basic biology. In my own work, I have become increasingly preoccupied not so much with the major architects of genocide, but with their followers who so enthusiastically follow their lead. What is it that makes us so susceptible to the siren song of the paranoid? Why is it that large numbers of otherwise mentally healthy people will follow a demonstrably paranoid person? When people begin to listen to, believe, and then follow a Hitler, a Stalin, a Jim Jones, what was an individual aberration becomes transformed into a collective reaction; left unchecked, this can have cataï¿½ strophic consequences. this tactic is evedent in the us, such as in its educational systems. One reason public schools get away with educational failure, year after year, is because they are run by left-leaning politicians and school officials who passionately believe that government should control your children's mind, values, and future. As the great English writer C. S. Lewis wrote, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
the usfg should abolish all forms of phycopolotics in the U.S.

Ladies and Gentlement of the audience, my opponent has given no clear resolution, nor defined any terms, nor given any logical or factual information backing his non-existent resolution. I have asked my opponent to present a clear case in which to debate, however he has forfeited, not apologized for the forfeit, and proceeded to waste two rounds with things that could have been discussed in the comments if there was any issue on the clarity of my R1 statement. My opponent has the burden of proof, he has made no logical or factual argument nor presented a clear resolution.
The US Federal Government should implement universal college for all.

While it may look good on paper, implementing a universal college for all program would be much less good in practice. There are two ways such a plan could be paid for; the federal government or a tax on the wealthy. The Government does not have the money to implement such a program, and robbing the wealthy is unfair. If, like Pro, you believe that "Our country has always been capable of providing free college due to our excess in wealth.", I encourage you to look at the Federal Debt Clock. http://www.usdebtclock.org... The clock shows that our federal debt is over 19 trillion dollars. Bernie Sanders' website says that the proposed plan for universal college would cost around 75 billion dollars per year. Can you imagine adding 75 billion dollars every single year to our federal debt? The results would be catastrophic. However, there is another idea, attributed to Bernie Sanders. This idea involves taxing the wealthy the amount of money it would cost for all the youth in the country to go to college. Why should the rich have to pay 75 trillion dollars a year for other people to go to college? "They must pay their fair share" is the usual response. However, these people worked very hard to get to the economic class they are in, and they have worked exceptionally hard to run their companies, creating jobs for Americans. This higher tax on the rich would be unfair, and amounts to legal thievery. Is there a problem with the college system? Yes there is. But burdening the federal budget or robbing the wealthy to make college free is not the way to go. http://www.usdebtclock.org... https://berniesanders.com...
Calvinism

First off, I would like to assure my opponent that I will only use the KJV. Now, Calvinism uses an acronym to describe their five major points or doctrines. Its called TULIP. T-Total Depravity of Man, U-Unconditional Election, L-Limited Atonement I-Irrisitable Grace P-Perseverance of the saints Now, Calvinism is all about definitions. I agree with Total Depravity, man is so wicked that he is depraved. However, Calvinism defines it as Total Inability. This means that man is so depraved that he cannot repent and accept the Gospel by his own free will. God has to regenerate you and only if your one of the elect. This contradicts Ephesians 1:13 where we believe first, then are saved, John 1:12 because we receive Christ first, and John 3:16 where God saves those who believe, not who He chooses. 2 Peter 3:9 contradicts Unconditional Election because, "God is NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH" which includes the non-elect. Limited Atonement is refuted by 1 John 2:2,"And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Let me stop and say that if this point were true that God did not die for the sins of the unelect, thus God created them just to fuel the fires of Hell! Do you really think that is Biblical? Irrisistable Grace basically says that God regenerates or saves a sinner against the sinners will because he is too "corrupt"(Total Inability) to receive Christ on his own. Its irrisistable because the elect cannot refuse it. Yet Christ said to Jerusalem, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem...how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and YE WOULD NOT! That looks like they refused God to me. Perseverance of the saints I agree with by my definition of "Once saved, always saved." However, Calvin defines it as if the elect can persevere themselves. I believe God perseveres you. Lastly, John Calvin burned Michael Servetus to the stake just because he disagreed with him.
Calvinism

Based on the lack of format, I will ask my opponent to debate with absolute integrity. We are discussing matters of God, such things are weighty. I would ask for the following considerations:1.> All points of argument must be rooted in Biblical orthodoxy.2.> Limit the translations to KJV, NKJV and ESV for simplicity.I accept the challenge and I wish to express my thanks to the opponent for furnishing the topic. It is my burden to show that:1.> Calvinism is not a Cult2.> John Calvin's complex (of any variety) was not purposed to support a cultist teaching in the protestant reformation but rather to bring Glory to God.I eagerly await your opening statements.
Cristian vs Atheist

Well, it seems as though my opponent has forfeited the debate unfortunately. I was looking forward to his refutations of my evidence against Christianity. Since he also didn't refute my evidence for cosmic inflation and the big bang theory, those still stand as well. If anyone would like to study evolution or understand it better, then I recommend you to visit the following site: http://humanorigins.si.edu... It provides explanations and evidence for the theory of evolution. I hope this has been informative for the readers, and I hope you all understand the evidence for atheism and evidence against Christianity.
Cristian vs Atheist

I believe that what the bible says is true, but I do take into consideration that humans make mistakes. I don't believe that what they wrote about is 100% true. My opponent may say, "How can you say that the Bible has problems? You say that the bible is accurate." I believe what the bible teaches, but that doesn't mean that it was perfect. In the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar is spelled two different ways when telling the story of Daniel and the Lions den. I believe that, despite these mistakes, that there was a man named Nebuchadnezzar and a man named Daniel. All of these contradiction were mistakes make by humans, not by God. I believe that the events that took place in the bible happened, even though humans messed up the story along the way. In a history book, it might say that in a war, 5,000 people were killed. What if that number was actually 5,001? Would that make it Incorrect? Of course not. Simply because it has mistakes doesn't mean it is not accurate. What the bible teaches is true, even if the wording is not. We also have to take into consideration that the men that helped write this book might have used metaphors.
Cristian vs Atheist

I'm fairly certain that my opponent's previous round was a blatant rule violation. This debate is constrained to 8,000 characters yet he entered a 37,000 character argument. The voters should judge my opponent accordingly. And I'd also like to remind the voters that there is no possible way I can refute those 101 paragraphs from the website within 8,000 characters. But I will say one thing about it. Most of the verses referred to in those 101 paragraphs in no way even imply the scientific knowledge the author thought that they did. Those verses were obviously vague statements that could be interpreted to mean a whole range of things. It's similar to astrology or psychic readings, the statements are so vague and generalized that people could pull whatever they want out of it. On the other hand, some of the other verses that actually do imply the knowledge the author thinks it does (the verses about washing in running water or being made in your mother's womb) are actually true, but weren't substantial scientific knowledge at all and were already known across many cultures. The Bible has the same flaws and contradictions within its dogma that many other religions share. In addition to this, there are several scientific absurdities that appear throughout the Bible. You can see them all on this website: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... The same website also has a list of all of the contradictions in the Bible: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... The Bible is an amalgamation of various Hebrew mythological texts constructed and voted upon by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. [1] It seems as though emperor Constantine was the main editor of the first draft of the Bible. The priests at the time had to come to a consensus upon which books were Holy and which ones to were to be excluded from the Bible since Constantine wanted to make Christianity the official religion. As a result, the books that were deemed Holy were all variously contradictory Hebrew texts and accounts that were inconsistent with one another. Since my opponent made no attempt to rebut my arguments and evidence given the previous round, it is assumed that those still stand. Sources: [1] How the Bible was created and revised: http://www.rotten.com...
Cristian vs Atheist

I do not plan on using 8,000 characters, but I will do my best with what I have. I do not want this to be just an argument, but another way to experience a different world view. First, I will tell you about my thoughts on the Big Bang theory. I find the Big Bang theory to be illogical. For the readers of this argument, the Big Bang theory is where a single particle was heated up and created %97 of all mater that exist today. I just don't get how that is possible. Where did the particle come from? And what caused it to erupt? If that was the only other thing in the universe, was it surrounded by nothingness? These are question I find hard to answer. If the particle that caused the universe to create itself always existed for an infinite amount of time. That means, it would have never exploded in the first place. It would have taken infinity for it to explode, which means the Big Bang theory never happened. That would mean nothing today would exist. Second, how can evolution be possible too? I can't find one person that can give me an example of Darwinian evolution. Some people say that Darwin's finches are, because the beaks are different in other places. That is not evolution, that is adaptation. How did fish get lungs? To adapt to something, we have to be exposed to it. Exposing a fish to air will kill it. And evolution can't think. Evolution doesn't think about creating lungs or growing wings. Speaking of wings, where did they come from? An animal didn't just continually fall out of trees for hundreds of years until they grew wings. They also didn't grow nubs while they were on the ground. As I said before, evolution doesn't think. It doesn't think "Maybe one day these useless nubs on my body will let me fly." It just doesn't work that way. And why do we still see monkeys today if they "evolved" into humans? One more interesting thing to consider: The chances that a single called organism was struck by lightning and eventually evolve into complex humans is 1 in 10 to the 4,467,926 power. On a pages document with 12 pt. Helvetia, that takes up 1,749 pages of zeros. It is time for my opponents opening statements.
Cristian vs Atheist

I accept. I will attempt to provide sufficient evidence for a few scientific theories that explain where life comes from, and I will also try to refute Christianity by exposing various contradictions and unsubstantiated claims within the religion. Unfortunately, many Christians have different interpretations and versions of the faith, so I will need to understand pro's position and interpretation of various issues in Christianity if I am to refute his views. I'd like to message you, Pro, so I can come to an understanding of what your interpretation of Christianity is. I'll try to provide as much evidence and refutations as I can within the 8,000 character limit. Looking forward to an intelligent discussion!
Crips should be forced to work in the mines.

"If we force gang members to work in the mines we are no better than them. " How exactly. This is a better option than prison. They will pay off their crimes,and also be safe from gang violence because they would be the only gangs in the mine. " Even if they have oxygen there's still risk of mine collapse." So theirs a risk for everything in life. We will take safety precautions for the criminals despite knowing how many lives they ended with their hands. " It is in general a bad idea to force people to do anything." So we force criminals to go to prison. And you exclaim it's a bad thing no. This is a way for the gang members to pay off their crimes.
Crips should be forced to work in the mines.

I hope you have a excellent time debating this topic for me. I for one deeply love crippled people. Many of my friends are crippled and they are excellent. The main problem here is that gang members aka the crips. Their has been a total of 15k people dying due to the Crips and the Bloods fighting. This is a problem. How do we solve this problem easy. We force them to work in the mines. While working on the mines they will have safety from the Bloods reducing death. They will give us resources,thus benefiting society. And of course they will be paying for their crimes and sins. This is a effective way to reduce crime,death. And increasing efficiency for the mines. "I would like to start with, crip is a very derogatory term, I feel there are many kinder ways to say that. " No they are called Crips because it is their disgusting gang name. There are no words to describe how the gangs name be kind. "I strongly believe that with all the advancements in technology, there won't be any people in mines soon it will be machines. Therefore No one, crippled or healthy, will be forced to work in mines. " The problem is that the technology will be fueling global warming and the carbon emission is great. We can do this the old fashion way and give the Crip gang members oxygen so they can reduce risk for lung disease. Will it be worth it if the technology will be increasing our carbon emission,destroying our ozone layer and thus killing us? No we can do this the old fashion way. Sources: . http://shepherdexpress.com...
Crips should be forced to work in the mines.

I would like to start with, crip is a very derogatory term, I feel there are many kinder ways to say that. People who are crippled should not be forced to work in mines, because it's difficult dangerous work for healthy people. I strongly believe that with all the advancements in technology, there won't be any people in mines soon it will be machines. Therefore No one, crippled or healthy, will be forced to work in mines.
I promise I will molest more babies

I promise I will molest more babies I have the teachings brought to me By some of the greatest rapists I swear, I swear, I solemnly pledge I will molest more babies All children deserve equally To be raped, To be molested Through the trials Through the errors my faith has been tested I will molest more babies I will molest more toddlers When I find a child wandering alone I will molest him, I will molest her My molestation spree will be successful Because it is a deed done from the heart When I molest, I do it with love To me, This can never be wrong No matter what the others say And even if it is wrong That will not stop me I swear, I swear, I solemnly pledge I will molest more babies I will struggle to realise my dreams Even if the whole world is against me That only makes me want it even more I will get what I want, I solemnly swear
Students should start school later

Since Pro has chosen to forfeit this debate, there is no need for me to post my arguments. I must say, that I am slightly disappointed in Pro's decision to forfeit this debate, as I was looking forward to a back and forth on this topic. I motion that Pro, by forfeiting rounds 2 and 3, fails to produce an argument, sources, or any content. Thus, Pro forfeits all possible points in the voting period.
Detective Comics(DC)are better than Marvel Comics.

1. Realistic is believable, and believable makes it easier for the reader to immerse themselves in the story. 2. I meant that as a joke. --- a. The Silver Age was stupid and childish, and DC was the worst offender. Marvel actually pushed the limits of the Comics Code Authority and made 3-dimensional characters. DC's superheroes were all Mary-Sues. b. So did Marvel. Stan Lee created the Fantastic Four, X-Men, Daredevil, Spiderman, Hulk, Thor, Silver Surfer, Iron Man, and the Avengers all within about 5 years. He also brought Captain America back after 20 years of being out of action. c. So did Marvel. You have failed to prove any of your claims about why DC is better than Marvel. This debate is a joke.
Detective Comics(DC)are better than Marvel Comics.

Hey everybody and my worthy opponent : Dc comics are better than Marvel : My opponent says that some heroes can have the same story and even when I have proved it that the Dc comics came before the Marvel ones he is saying that Plagiarism must be proved.... 1. Being realistic doesn't make a comic better because Comics have to be unrealistic because they are fictional. 2. Being a bad *** like Stan lee doesn't make Marvel comics better than DC and talking about bad ***es there isn't a bigger bad *** than Grant Morison. He has got arrested 13 times twice in foreign countries due to disorderly conduct.... Here's why most comic lovers prefer DC : a.) DC really kicked comic books into high gear by starting the Silver Age. b.) DC created hundreds of new characters while revamping old ones. c.)DC took comic stories in interesting new directions. I now ask my opponent to answer