BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
moon landing is a hoax

before starting my argument i want to make somethings clear. here the credibility of NASA is in question. so we should not believe in them. we should examine their claim based on our daily experience and common sense. our source of knowledge won't be NASA but daily experience.now lets start the debate....1] stars don't appear in the skyNASA says that moon's surface reflects sunlight and that glare would have made stars difficult to see. but hay stars are visible at night when there is no sunlight. so how sunlight prevents stars from being visible? is apollo landed on the day or at night? the sky is dark, so i think they landed at night.they also say that the astronauts photographed their lunar adventures using fast exposure settings, which would have limited incoming background light. but everything in the picture were clearly and brightly visible. is it possible if limited background light comes in camera?2] no landing crater created by apollo 11nasa says that the lander's engines were throttled back just before landing, and it did not hover long enough to form a crater or kick up much dust. we cannot know what actually happened there on the moon. why we should believe them?3] lighting varies and shadow differs.nasa said there were multiple light sources, Launius said. "You've got the sun, the Earth's reflected light, light reflecting off the lunar module, the spacesuits, and also the lunar surface. among these light sources only sun is for sure.so one light source should be there. again is it day or night? many people can say that day and night of sun and earth do not match. but there is no scientific basis of that claim.4] Footprints Too Clearnasa said Moon dust, or regolith, is "like a finely ground powder. When you look at it under a microscope, it almost looks like volcanic ash. So when you step on it, it can compress very easily into the shape of a boot."you know footprint can be taken on a wet thing. the foot print shown in the photograph is so clear that it cannot be taken on a dry thing.we know this from our daily experience of wet and dry things. so nasa's claim is meaningless.5] flags wavenasa said:flag's moving is because the astronaut just placed it there, and the inertia from when they let go kept it moving.The astronauts also accidentally bent the horizontal rods holding the flag in place several times, creating the appearance of a rippling flag in photographs. moving by inertia? like this ? it is a clear waving of flag in air and no inertia can move it like this. you can test it by placing a flag in an airless place and moving it. the flag will not ripple, i predict that.so based on above points we can say that moon landing may be a hoax.source:http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
God exists

Looking for a short devil's advocate debate... Normally I would be Pro on this topic, but I'd like to be Con for this one.The BoP is on Pro to show that God exists. God shall be defined as the transcendent mind which is all knowing and all powerful, and preserves the universe in existence.Since this debate structure is kindof funny, because my opponent has the burden, he can go first right away with his arguments.R1: Rules/Acceptance and opening argumentsR2: RebuttalsR3: Rebuttals/ConclusionR4: Conclusion/blank round.My opponent shall type "no round as agreed" since he has the burden and is going first.Also, no new arguments in the conclusions area. This is where the debate should be winding down.Good luck to whoever accepts!
All forms of drugs should be legalized

Overdose I have not ignored this argument, I have kept it in mind. As I have said above, drug addiction should be considered a public health issue. Overdose patients should be encouraged to call for emergency services. They should not receive jail times, fines, or prison time. But that does not mean they shouldn't be punished in a way. But they still should receive help over all else. Just by allowing drugs like meth to exist is supporting them, they should be smashed under a boot. Drug dealers are the ones who should be getting harsh sentences, not the ones who get themselves into doing such drugs. It is good that we can agree that we shouldn't take drugs lightly. ( Not in the way of taking a little bit of drugs, I know someone out there would confuse it, hehe ) What I am trying to say is that we shouldn't give drugs a chance to suddenly spread madly. One large reason people don't do drugs is that because they know they can be punished for such. Education, and ending poverty is what will end the influence of drugs. Having drugs legal is not the only way to do such, and that is my point. ( Sorry if this seems a bit lazily typed, more focused on my best friend who just logged on after 3 weeks of being away, darn military training! )
All forms of drugs should be legalized

Thank you. Legalizing drugs is not necessarily the same as encouraging drugs. We can legalize drugs, while trying to stamp out the use of drugs. The two are seperate issues.My opponent has either forgotten, or ignored my main argument for legalizing all drugs. Overdose.The government could save numerous amounts of lives if it were to legalize drugs, since the government could then put the strengths of the different drugs on them. This would make people much more educated and informed about what they are putting into their bodies, and how much they should.I agree that we should not take drugs lightly. However, I am arguing that the path we should take to living in a drug-free society is one in which the government takes its place and regulates drugs. We can then keep people informed about drugs, and get them off of drugs.I think we can all agree that if you are going to do drugs, you should do them safely. This is not possible when drugs are illegal.
All forms of drugs should be legalized

Here we go. :) Legalizing all forms of drugs is supporting it, because we are allowing it to be given and distributed. There will still be underground trading off drugs, since a larger majority of the population will be addicted to such drugs if their use was legalized. Government should stomp down on drugs, not legalize it. They should work with drug addicts and communities to track down on drug dealers and suppliers. Drug addiction should be treated as a public health issue, drug addicts should be given care, and treatment to rid of their addictions and to help draw information about dealers and sources of drugs. People shouldn't be arrested for long terms for drug use, but I am not saying it should not go unpunished as well. Yes, drugs do destroy lives. So why are you suggesting they should be distributed by the Government itself? The Government is there to protect its people, its not there to take advantage of addictions for money. Drugs will always be around with poverty and stress. Government needs to improve education, and poverty levels. They need to work with communities and drug users to hunt down drug dealers, gangs, cartels, and suppliers. Drugs are not something we should take lightly. Drug addictions also increase crime rates. http://www.columbian.com... ( Had a few other sources, but the wifi I am currently using does not allow me access to such ) - www.bjs.gov - www.drugwarfacts.org ( I believe these are correct )
All forms of drugs should be legalized

Thanks.My opponent claims that we shouldn't support the existence and use of drugs. However, I'm not necessarily saying that. Just because the government regulates something, that doesn't mean that they encourage it's use. All it means is that they have their fingers in it.So I'm not saying that we should encourage drug use. I'm saying we should discourage it. However, I'm arguing that making drugs illegal is not the correct way to go about this.My opponent also admits that drugs destroy lives. This is my point exactly! Since drugs are illegal and unmoderated, people may very possibly overdose. When they realize this, it's highly doubtful that they're going to call the police. Why? Because they'd get in big trouble.This results in many many more deaths.The drug laws don't help anyone. They have cost us huge amounts of money, and haven't stopped drugs.Drugs will still be out there no matter what we do. So why not regulate them and wean society off of them?
All forms of drugs should be legalized

This should be fun. :)Part OneEven you admit they hinder the movement of drugs.The point of making such illegal is to make them more risky, expensive, and dangerous to receive and carry.This allows us to crack down on drug users, and drug dealers.We should not support the existence and use of drugs.Part 2I can agree with this.America should treat Drug Addiction as a Public health issue, like Portugal. Assistance should be given, consoling and such should be given to kick addictions, and to help extract the names of dealers, so they can be tracked down as well. Police needs to get better involved with communities to track down dealers and sources.We should NOT support the use of drugs in anyway.The ways to stop drug addiction is Education, dealing with public stress levels, and crack down on drugs at the source. The Government should NOT profit of the suffering of its own people.They should crack down on the sources of drugs, and help deal with addictions. Police need to work more with communities to crack down on drug violence and sources. This is an issue that effects everyone in the US.Drugs destroy lives, why should we let a age of drug use fly over our population?
All forms of drugs should be legalized

My argument shall be as follows: P1: Any law which causes more harm than the intended good ought to be removedP2: The laws which make all drugs illegal cause more harm than the intended goodC: The laws which make all drugs illegal ought to be removedTo begin with, premise 1 seems uncontroversial. A law which is harming society shouldn't exist. Laws exist in order to better society.I'll spend a bit more time on the second premise.To begin with, let's go over some problems with our current drug laws.1. They're not working.People can still get drugs. It's easy. Our laws haven't stopped the flow of drugs, they've just hindered them a little bit. So people who want drugs will still get them.2. They put too much guilt on the drug usersThe problem is that our current drug laws make the drug users the guilty ones. Police are encouraged to go after and arrest the drug users. This is ignoring the root of the problem, and just encouraging officers to arrest drug addicts.And arresting drug addicts doesn't stop them from being addicted or stop drugs from coming, or solve the problem.3. OverdosePeople are more likely to overdose when they do not know the strengths of the drugs they are using. There's no government checking it out to make sure it's safe. Also, they would be afraid to call for help if they did overdose, because of the harsh laws we have for drug users.We've spent billions on the war on drugs and it hasn't solved the problem. It's caused more harm to people than good.Since it has done so, making drugs illegal is a law which should be removed.Laws are to serve people. They are meant to help society.We can't arrest people out of drugs.I propose an alternative.AlternativeI'm not saying that the government shouldn't regulate drugs at all. What I'm saying is that drugs shouldn't be completely prohibited. I propose that we legalize drugs, and establish a new agency to distribute them.This way, the government can regulate the flow of drugs better and can help save lives from over dosing.In addition to this, the government could make billions off of the drugs.So drugs should be legalized
Replying to your comment

This debate topic is about "Should Anime Be Watched In Sub Instead Of Dub? " The link is: https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Should-Anime-Be-Watched-In-Sub-Instead-Of-Dub/1/ For everyone viewing this, Please read my opening argument (to understand the debate on this page) I am "Con (against)" meaning that I am a dub person. The reason I made this debate right here is to reply to your comment on my first initial debate because I was unable to message you. I was waiting for you to accept that debate to the link above. In your comment you said you prefer the dub. So do you think we will have a proper debate coming from the fact that we are both on the "dub" side? We could either leave here and debate there or continue the debate here on the topic of "Should Anime Be Watched In Sub Instead Of Dub? " This debate is not about which anime is better than the other. But I do appreciate your recommendations on those anime. I don't play when it comes to Naruto so it would be wise to steer away from this current topic you're trying to get at and talk about the "Sub/Dub" I also haven't seen/unfamiliar with the other anime you've mentioned so it wouldn't be possible for me to say how Naruto is better, Because I haven't seen them.
Replying to your comment

So is this debate about you defending Naruto? If so go right ahead. Stick with FMA. It does not give you filler episodes plus the characters development is better. I am not the most avid fan of anime but do appreciate good ones. I watched DBS and Z and I realise now they are both bad shows. For similar reasons with Naruto. Watch the other 3. Cowboy Bebop is the one to start with. Neon Genesis Evangelion is my favourite but it is not for everyone due to its depressing themes but it made it seem more realistic in a way. Anyway I know this was not part of the debate.
Replying to your comment

And yes, I am more so for dub and I'm a dub person and I'm against sub. I'm sure you read everything I had to say. Re-read it if you need to. I would have messaged you but your settings said it's disabled and you aren't accepting them at this time. I'm personally a Naruto freak I love it so much and I think it's one of the greatest of all time but everyone has their own opinions but that isn't the point of the debate anyway and also I will send you a link to My Anime List to see all the anime I've seen when the debate is over, Or during the debate I haven't seen those 4 anime, I watched some of FMA but not all, I couldn't get into it but I am planning to watch it foreal.
I will not break a rule.

http://www.youtube.com... 1. The season is true– Perhaps through Hungry Hippos will hippos eat lots. 2. Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos must use exactly six words per round that rhyme with "lunch"; these words need not be unique. 3. Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos must post a video of Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos brushing someone else's teeth.
I will not break a rule.

http://www.youtube.com... ---Rules--- 1. Pro must post a video of himself playing Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos. http://www.hasbro.com... 2. Pro must write a haiku about Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos in English. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Pro must always refer to Con as "Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos" henceforth.
I will not break a rule.

This debate is inspired by http://www.debate.org... =========== Foundation Rules =========== 0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. 4. A player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per round. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannnot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an oppportunity to not break each rule. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. ======== Round Rules ======== 1. Pro is not required to follow any restrictions originating from a rule created by Pro. 2. Every round, Con must post a video of a non-human animal dancing in a human style of dance. Every video must be unique. Cartoon animals are allowed if and only if the cartoon animal in the video is green. 3. Each of Con's rules must contain exactly seven words that do not start with the letter "h" and exactly five words that do start with the letter "h".
I will not break a rule.

"Here is my relevant definition. Rule: A specified statement that must follow the restrictions of previous rules. No standard definition is effective, since these are special rules for a special debate. " -Wow. Pro made up his own definition of the word "rule" in the last round of the debate. I don't even know what to say to this. I offered countless dictionary definitions for "rule" but Pro decided his own made-up definition of "rule" is the only one that makes sense because this is a "special debate. " Pro has broken countless rules throughout the debate and does not have a propper grasp of the English language. Since he does not have a propper grasp of the English language, he has made up his own language.
I will not break a rule.

Here is my relevant definition. Rule: A specified statement that must follow the restrictions of previous rules. No standard definition is effective, since these are special rules for a special debate. -------- 1. Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos need not follow any rules imposed by Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos. 2. Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos may only post if Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos is less than 20 feet tall. 3. Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos may only post videos if Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos first uses dictionary. com at least once. -------- It goes without saying that Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos has broken countless rules.
I will not break a rule.

"Ladies and gentlemen, what is a "rule"? It was not defined in round 1. We cannot presume to know what it means; in the context of this debate, it has special meaning. I posted a rule that does not follow the expected structure of a rule (i.e. "person A has to perform action B"), but that does not mean it isn't a rule. We are so used to that form being the only kind of rule, but we need to expand our horizons. Let's be tolerant of broader definitions here!" -My opponent does not know what a rule is. My 2 year old neighbor knows what a rule is. But my opponent says, "Let's be tolerant of broader definitions here!" 1) Like what definitions? You didn't even offer any. 2) In case my opponent has not asked his mommy or daddy what a "rule" is... then here it is: rule - a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc http://dictionary.reference.com... 3) Here are all the definitions of "rule" by Google if my opponent still does not get what "rule" means: http://www.google.com... 4) According to every definition put forth so far, a haiku would not constitute a rule. And if a haiku did constitute a rule, that means all my opponent's other rules would have to fit the same definition. My opponent was supposed to forfeit after Round 2. Even if I did break rules after Round 2, it does not matter, since my opponent should have already forfeited. Vote Con. Pro, just simply write "Forfeit" in Round 5 to save yourself any more embarassment.
I will not break a rule.

Ladies and gentlemen, what is a "rule"? It was not defined in round 1. We cannot presume to know what it means; in the context of this debate, it has special meaning. I posted a rule that does not follow the expected structure of a rule (i.e. "person A has to perform action B"), but that does not mean it isn't a rule. We are so used to that form being the only kind of rule, but we need to expand our horizons. Let's be tolerant of broader definitions here! -------- It is not impossible to follow rule 1, round 3. Two words can be anything, and five words can be any word that starts with "h". There are about 60,000 words in English that start with "h". That leaves myriad possibilities. Additionally, Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos need not refer to me. Sure, it will take some creativity, but it's far from impossible. -------- Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos has broken so many rules by now that it's not even worth counting. Since I'm getting tired of coming up with creative and interesting rules, I am posting some easy ones. 1. Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos must not use more than 8000 characters per round. 2. Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos must not refer to Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos by the name "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". 3. Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos must not forfeit any rounds.
I will not break a rule.

"My first point is a rule. It dictates that hippos might eat a lot by playing Hungry Hungry Hippos. Sure, the rule is a bit unorthodox, but it is still clearly a rule. " -How does that even resemble a rule? Lol, sorry you lose. Voters. .. my opponent said his rule "dictates that hippos might eat a lot by playing Hungry Hungry Hippos. " -Even if might was replaced by must, it still wouldn't be a rule. How does this statement provide any sort of rules for the debate? It doesn't. Its like saying "my dog might eat her food today. " It is not a rule. You broke Foundation Rule #6. You must forfeit. I will say it again, my opponent failed to provide a rule in his 1st point in Round 2, therefore he forfeits, according to Foundation Rule #6. __________ If breaking that rule wasn't enough, Pro decided to break another rule. My opponent has also broken Foundation Rule #7: "7. Rules cannnot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an oppportunity to not break each rule. " Pro posted this rule in Round 1: "3. Each of Con's rules must contain exactly seven words that do not start with the letter "h" and exactly five words that do start with the letter "h". " -This means that I can only use 12 words per round. Pro posted these 2 rules in Round 3: "1. Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos must henceforth refer to Pro as "Numa Numa Superman Dance Party. " "3. Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos cannot use any of the following words: his, we, definitely, haiku, debate, play, vote, dance. " Voters. .. how can I possibly make 3 rules with exactly 12 words that include: 1) exactly seven words that do not start with the letter "h" and exactly five words that do start with the letter "h" 2) being forced to refer to Pro as "Numa Numa Superman Dance Party" 3) and not being able to use any of the following words: his, we, definitely, haiku, debate, play, vote, dance By doing this, Pro has created an auto-win for himself and an auto-lose for me, which breaks Foundation Rule #7. __________ Pro has broken Foundation Rules #6 and #7. He is forced to forfeit because of this.
I will not break a rule.

My first point is a rule. It dictates that hippos might eat a lot by playing Hungry Hungry Hippos. Sure, the rule is a bit unorthodox, but it is still clearly a rule. My opponent has broken rules 2 and 3 of round 1 and rules 2 and 3 of round 2. Additionally, he broke foundation rule 6. He has therefore forfeited. 1. Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos must henceforth refer to Pro as "Numa Numa Superman Dance Party". 2. Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos may not use more than fifty semicolons per round. 3. Hasbro's Hungry Hungry Hippos cannot use any of the following words: his, we, definitely, haiku, debate, play, vote, dance.
I will not break a rule.

Foundation Rule #6 Interjection- "6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. " Pro failed to produce 3 rules in Round 2. His 1st point in Round 2 was a haiku in response to my 2nd Rule in Round 1; his 1st point was not a rule. Since Pro failed to produce 3 rules in Round 2, he must forfeit. I'm sorry you have to forfeit MTGandP, I was enjoying the debate.