BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Size Is Relative, and This Statement, if True, Has Huge Meaning.

alriiight! now at first glance I would agree with you. perfectly plausible that there are "layers" of worlds existing, just think of the structure of our own solar system. very like the structure of an atom no? However, if you are assuming atoms are all the same, which you implied when you said "There's still atoms, and protons, and electrons, and neutrons, etcetera." then the world we know could not be shrunken down because the atoms will still behave in the same way. I will use a toy boat as an example: a full sized boat traveling at 30kph with create a fair bit of wake and white water, right? so if a boat 10 times smaller (say) traveling at 3kph will not make wake and white water relevant to its size. understand? this is simply because atoms (and therefore our universe) behave the same way, regardless of the size of whatever they are making up. being the size of an ant, things like kicking a football or drinking water would be completely different. so if there smaller or larger "worlds" they would be vastly different to our world. I think I have understood what you're arguing... here is my argument :)
Size Is Relative, and This Statement, if True, Has Huge Meaning.

If you were shrunk to the size of an ant, and put inside a domed environment, full of small buildings that compared to you in size as a normal building would compare to you in normal size. Everything in this dome was shrunken to become a small equivalent, in a way that you couldn't tell that you were shrunken. Through your shrunken eyes, which saw small things as normal size, you would not be able to tell that you had shrunken. Do you understand what I am saying? Anyway, I do not think that there is such think as a smallest or largest possible size for an object. If you were the size of the planet Jupiter, and you lived in a star-sized world, if you discovered an amoeba you would deem it so small in comparison to you that it would have to be the smallest possible object, but in reality it wasn't. There's still atoms, and protons, and electrons, and neutrons, etcetera. It is possible that there are entire universes so tiny that they are like a speck of dust inside of our universe, or it is possible that our universe is a speck of dust inside of someone else's universe. That universe, in turn, could be a speck inside someone else's universe, and it could go on Ad Infinitum. I await your response, but first, make sure you understand everything I just said.
Size Is Relative, and This Statement, if True, Has Huge Meaning.

The technical side of how small particles go is irrelevant to this debate. the theory that particles (not universes) can keep on getting smaller and there are infinite sizes is difficult to argue about because there is no evidence suggesting either way. however, I am still going to argue that there is a limit to how small things can get because of the way atoms and sub atomic particles behave. If you were going to make the point that in a different universe atoms are different sized and behave like our atoms relative to their their size, then you would be right. The only rebuttal I have for that is; because atoms/sub atomic particles are the "essence" of all matter. These tiny, or massive "building blocks" would have to exist across all universes. Because (assuming we agree) there is nothing but atoms making up our universe. Where are the larger building blocks? If the larger "atoms" shared any of the characteristics our atoms have then hypothetically speaking there would be giant concentrated singular particles of mass that would basically tear our universe apart because of the energy and magnetic fields etc. the reason I focused on the larger atoms is because the smaller atoms could be potentially undetectable, if what you are arguing is correct. In conclusion, particles are one sized and cannot occur in larger or smaller forms, because of the way atoms behave in our universe I am confident to argue this. Also, it is my belief that if there were layers of universes the particles that make up each one would have to be present in every universe, and if the sizes were infinite so would be the size of the atoms. therefore I deem that theory impossible. I am in no way educated on this topic, this is purely my opinion and beliefs of how the universe works.
Goku vs Superman proog goku won

I accept. Before we begin, I hope that "proog" doesn't mean an extra clause in the resolution or anything, and that it was just a typo. Possibly my opponent meant "proof".In any case, I will be taking Superman's side (Con), whereas my opponent (Pro) will try to prove that Goku is the better superhero. For combat purposes and comparisons of power, both myself and my opponent must have the liberty to choose any form of Superman or Goku (even SSJ 4) as they wish.I look forward to a well-contested debate.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

The greenhouse effect is a thing, and hypothetically it would raise temperatures. But adding more and more to our atmosphere does not infinitely raise the temperature, it only raises it to an extent. Yet again I see you have ignored the very important claim that we are coming out of a galatial period, which explains the warming trend, and everything you think it has caused. Also, few climate scientists actually worry where we are headed, those are environmental activists, corrupt politicians, and a few scientists hired specifically to prove it is man made. In most cases, you will see that studies that indicate a rapid change are botched, as seen in my 97% debate. And may I ask you some questions you are free to answer in the comments, what have you done. Are you yelling about a problem you are part of? Do you drive an electric car? Do you plant? Have you actually gone out as I have and contribute to a worthy solution? And what does population have anything to do with climate change? Also, may I end with an argument that I may have benifited from starting with. The only constant is change. When the media makes these claims, they leave so much out of the picture. As you have done with my arguments. They take one thing, leave out the rest, which makes it easy to destroy its foundation. If we actually see the whole picture, and know the problem for what it is, then we can come up with actual solutions that can make an actual change. Not just weak EPA political action. Thanks for reading.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

"Now on to your claim of Co2 levels. Now, the term carbon emissions is wrong, as it is not just carbon, but carbon dioxide. And every single form of fossil fuel is made of it, and all of that Co2 was once in our atmosphere. And for most of our planets existence, Co2 levels were far higher than they are today." YatesuniWhat are you talking about? Co2 levels are higher than expected. You provide no outside links on this subject. " The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history — 400 parts per million — climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're rapidly headed now." [2]As you can see we are about to break the record for highest CO2 concentrations in human history 400 parts per million. All signs indicates the concentration will get higher and higher. Your claim about plants growing faster is also flawed. "But an unprecedented three-year experiment conducted at Stanford University is raising questions about that long-held assumption. Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change -- namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil. " [3]You dispute mainstream science and popular opinion with weak arguments. Meanwhile human population is still above 7 billion. There is no sign of electric cars becoming main stream, people still eat factory farmed beef, and so forth. Thank you for the debate.Sources2. http://www.climatecentral.org...3. http://news.stanford.edu...
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

Your lack of rebuttals makes me think you're stumped. You only responded to one thing I said because you think it is the only important thing I said, and didn't even bother to bring up the evidence I used to support it. You simply said that Co2 levels are higher then we expected. Which is not what I said was expected, what I said is that a warming trend is expected, as we have recently entered an inter galacial period as part of the paleostine ice age. You see, the climate is constantly changing, and my point was that the Co2 theory is becoming more and more flawed. Now you bring up hurricanes, again, this is all part of the warming trend. And anyway, if you really do want to help countries in danger because of hurricanes, then you are on the wrong path. When a developed country gets hit by a hurricane, the effects are far less devastating than when a hurricane or typhoon hits a less developed country. Mainly because of low quality shelter. This causes that country's economy to crash. So if you are really concerned about hurricane damage, then get of the problem of climate change, and focus on bringing those countries out of poverty. Now on to your claim of Co2 levels. Now, the term carbon emissions is wrong, as it is not just carbon, but carbon dioxide. And every single form of fossil fuel is made of it, and all of that Co2 was once in our atmosphere. And for most of our planets existence, Co2 levels were far higher than they are today. Now, Co2 levels cannot be used to blame your stated problems on. For instance, low plant growth, if anything, can be blamed on low Co2 levels, as the optimal level for plant growth is 4x higher then ours today. And our high levels of Co2, as noted by satellite imagery, are actually making the Earth greener in terms of plant growth, as plants and forests begin to regrow at noticeably fast rates. Now, I have made legitimate claims and backed them up accordingly, and I would appreciate it if you acknowledge these claims, instead of cherry picking for one group of words to attack.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

I have only debates on this subject before in a debate talking about the 97% statistic, and for the sake of time, I will leave a link to that to explain why the 97% statistic is untrue. " YatesUniAgreed. I've read the rest of my opponent's argument and I see nothing to significantly impact the resolution and thus ignore the claims, except this claim. "Basically, science says that the warming trend is natural and expected" opponentNo, this claim is blatantly wrong. Co2 levels are way above what we would expect if man was not involved. Overpopulation, deforestation, over fishing of the oceans, destruction of marine habitat, and destruction of the rain-forest [1], are all major contributing factors. Use your common sense, we cannot destroy the environment at this rate and expect no consequences. Hurricanes are forming in places they haven't formed for at least one hundred years. The places that usually have hurricanes have more intense hurricanes. Remember hurricane Katrina? That hurricane was more intense due to global climate change. People in the middle east died in summer of 2015 due to unprecedented heat waves. We are in the middle of a mass extinction. Global climate change is real and a threat. Thanks for the debate. Sources1. . http://www.greenpeace.org...
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

I have only debates on this subject before in a debate talking about the 97% statistic, and for the sake of time, I will leave a link to that to explain why the 97% statistic is untrue. . http://tinyurl.com... Now onto the rest. Science is highly unreliable when in the climate sphere. Back in the 70s virtually every scientist agreed that we were going into a massive ice age, and now they have flip flopped and now think the globe is warming. Science has been doing this forever, one weakly supported claim is said so much that it basically becomes fact. Also, reliable science shows that we are coming out of a minor ige age. So this warming trend it natural. Also, the climate is constantly changing, and it has been doing so since it was formed billions of years ago. For us to think that it is controllable or that we caused it is completely unethical. My whole point is that science argues more against climate change then for it, and it's not that hard to understand, its really common sense. Also, I understand that ice is melting and sea levels are rising. But a recent study shows that while arctic sea ice is melting antarctic sea ice is expanding. Another study shows that the sea level rise rate has decreased. And your comment to the pope is completely irrational. The Pope's opinion is not fact, just because he is a figure head for the Catholic church doesn't mean he speaks for it. You can be Catholic and still disagree with what the pope says. Basically, science says that the warming trend is natural and expected, we are coming out of a little ice age and we will be fine, the Roman Warm period was warmer and they had no carbon emissions to blame it on, just because things are changing and the public didn't know enough to expect it doesn't mean we blame it on something based on the first half-baked argument we hear.
there is no such thing as hell.

stories are not real, as i cant see, hear, touch the stories beyond the words being spoken or where ever you get the story from heaven and hell are stories, not matter, and the harry potter books are equally as real and belivable i can believe that i will go to hell, no matter what i do, no matter what religion i believe in, and the evidence to back up this belief is equal to any religious story i can believe about hell
there is no such thing as hell.

In the context of the media, hell is often perceived as a place of fire and brimstone. The reality is much worse. The Abyss is real. In that awful place resides horrors unspeakable, and is the grimmest of punishments. But who are the ones being punished? As humans, we all have a choice between right and wrong. Everyday we make choices, some of em good, some of them bad. It would be fool pushed to think bad deeds go unpunished. Yes, there is the courts and legal system, but they are run by sinful people aswell. No one is without sin. Therefore no none can escape judgement. Hell is real in the same way as Heaven is. Hell is the reside of satan and his Angels, punished for their sins. Hell is the great punishment. Without punishment, there will be no reward. Death is the great equaliser, and no one is able to cheat death.
there is no such thing as hell.

i can at best believe in hell.. it is a story not something i can see and touch. belief is false, be lie, as i dont know is true, and i have no beliefs i see that i dont see a dog in my room right now, and i am certain that i am not, but i can believe there is a dog in my room that i cant see i can believe that i will go to hell, no matter what i do, no matter what religion i believe in, and the evidence to back up this belief is equal to any religious story i can believe about hell, so i rather not believe at all for me to claim, i will go to hell or heaven when i die, is not a true claim, but you claiming you are reading these words on a screen.. to you, is not an imaginary claim
Shaving your beard is wrong according to the bible

1. I dont hate anyone of any sexual orientation or ethnicity, In fact my twin brother is gay. 2. Im 17 and have more respect for others than you have for yourself. 3. I didnt say it was a sin to shave i simply said it was wrong. My argument: I believe that you grow hair on your body for a reason, Whether that reason be spiritual, Religious, Or for survival. As a Hebrew, We believe in the words of the bible (KJV version only) and in the bible it says you may have your own thoughts. However, It also says those who choose to be in the foot steps of GOD will be noiticed. Furthermore, Id like to say that those who believe in the devil over god will be marked with the "number of the beast". That is because god gave the devil life, You can't have satan without the lord. Id appreciate a real reapose without the aggressive words and at least a little bit of educational thought. Show me your perspective and you might just change my opinion.
Shaving your beard is wrong according to the bible

Its wrong to shave your beard according to the bible because of the words in the book of Leviticus, Specifically because of Leviticus 19:27 where it says "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, Neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard". Further more, Many, If not all, The gods have there beards in tact. There is a verse that says something along the lines of your ways are not gods ways and gods ways are not your ways. However, It also says you're a god of your own.
Should Donald Trump become President of the United States of America

Donald Trump is only getting the fame from telling LIES!!!!! He rants on about how he could make America better, but all he is doing is telling everyone that they should vote for a rich person. If we voted for him he would make taxes even higher just to make him the richest person ever. He would not do anything to make America a better country. Also, he believes that Mexico will spend millions (or billions?) to build a wall that will make it even more difficult for Mexican people to find jobs. Mexico cannot afford this, and Mexico has no incentive to do this. So it is blatantly obvious that he should NOT become president.
Should Donald Trump become President of the United States of America

Donald Trump should become President of the United States for one reason, and one reason only: democracy. The United States was founded on democracy, and holds this as one of our highest values. Thus, the leader of our country should be selected via a democratic election. A President of the people is the best representation of the people. That is why we have a democratic election. Thus, the candidate that should become President is that with the most public approval. And as we can see, Donald Trump has the highest public approval of all candidates [1]. Thus Trump should be President of the United States. [1] http://www.politico.com...
Should Donald Trump become President of the United States of America

Donald Trump should obviously NOT become president as he is a complete arsehole. People are only going to vote for him as he has a lot of money, and he is using this to get people to vote for him. He is tying to take over people who actually should become president. For example, Hilary Clinton is one of the nicest people who ever have the chance to become president. She should be the one having the honor of becoming president. If we vote for Donald Trump he will change everything just to make more money, and forget about what other people deserve. Price for everything will go up and all this extra money will be donated to him. If we vote for Hilary Clinton or someone else, America has the opportunity to become one of the best countries, and not have a complete idiot ruling them. So it is utterly indisputable that Donald Trump has to not become president.
If you follow the teachings of the Bible then you should not be gay.

Thank you for debating with me. The resolution is pretty clear. By gay, Pro obviously means homosexual, which is defined as a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same gender. [1] Pro probably didn't mean that you shouldn't be happy. My stance, of course, is that you can be gay while following the teachings of the Bible. --Rebuttal-- Pro's argument is 90% Bible quotes. Notice that all of the quotes are about homosexual actions. There is a difference between the state of being gay, and having gay relationships. The Bible never says that being gay itself is wrong, but that gay actions are wrong. This, by the way, makes sense since the Bible already bans fornication. Why should gay relationships be allowed when fornication is not? It is impossible to change your feelings toward the same sex (except perhaps through counseling). But being gay does not mean you are required to act on those feelings. Whether the individual likes it or not, it is possible to be gay while simultaneously being loyal to the Bible. That is all I have to say at this point. Two paragraphs is all that was necessary to rebut Pro's Bible quotes. The Bible never says that the state of being gay is a disgrace or a sin - just that gay relationships are wrong. I look forward to my opponent's arguments. [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
If you follow the teachings of the Bible then you should not be gay.

Thanks and good luck. To start I will quote the Bible: Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." From reading that quite I'm sure you agree that it is quite clear that it is not ok to be gay if you follow the teachings of the Bible. Another one from Leviticus is 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" Both of those quotes from the Bible make it quite clear, however they are only from one part so maybe Leviticus was biased for some reason. Or not: Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Again it is mentioned, this time in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." So far it is quite clear that if you follow the teachings of the Bible then you should not be gay as it is a sin. One more quote: Rom. 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, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." I haven't said much myself as I really do feel that the quotes speak for themselves! The Bible mentions homosexuality several times and each time it clearly states that it is a disgrace and sin, therefore you would not be following the teachings of the Bible if you were a homosexual. (just to say that I am not against homosexuals in any way, it just seemed like an interesting topic for debate)
Smoking food imparts more flavor than grilling food.

My opponent has not shown the Smoking food imparts more flavor than grilling food, rather he has only shown that heat does the trick. I contended that both smoking and grilling food are delicious as both have unique flavors of meat. I showed evidence that the U. S. public generally likes grilled food more, (61%), a point that has gone unrefuted with other evidence. Because both are delicious, and that smoking is not necessarily the best unanimously, I urge a con ballot. My opponent failed to deliver on the burden of proof so a con ballot is necessary. I would like to thank my opponent for the interesting debate today. Thanks everyone.