BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Titanic Conspiracy Theory

Over the course of the next few rounds, it will be my intention to demonstrate the plausible deniablity, and immediate possibility that an alternate means of the alleged "Titanic" sinking might be found. It shall be demonstrated that the means, ability, and crew expectactions of the events resulted in a botched attempt to scuttle a vessel already stricken, and beyond salvage reasonable salvage.I would encourage readers to immediately disregard the narrative set forth by nay-sayers in round one: clearly, they would be attempting to poison the well. We are already familiar with the events as told: there would be no reason to attempt to refute a a position not formed, much less discredit a narrative not yet told.Unless of course, such a thing were possible.
The Titanic Conspiracy Theory

This debate regards the infamous Titanic conspiracy theory promoted by some conspiracy theorists. The theory explains that the ocean liner RMS Titanic was actualy switched with her sister ship RMS Olympic. The Olympic, considered an unprofitable vessel, was then sunk to collect insurance money. I argue that this conspiracy theory is not credible and did not happen. My opponent must argue that the switch did happen.RulesNo trollingNo semanticsNo forfeits
The Titanic Conspiracy Theory

This is part of my 40 dollar reply segment. So, the immediate answer I have is that my opponent has constructed a narrative that they would prefer to debate, not specific to the argument at hand. Look, we are not asking for Bruce Wayne and Batman to be in the same area, here. They literally shared a dry dock and shared parts for a good chunk of time. Because I am on a 40 dollar reply via cruise ship, I don't mind stating that a few bucks here and there makes the crew a might forgetful. In the case of the Olympi-Tanic, perhaps those crew members that were so easily bribed were fated to be on a boat whose survival was in question. My opponent declares they have made the case that such a switch was impossible. Impossible is a tall order to clear with 100 plus years of time, dead witnesses, and pictures that offer no immediate difference in boats beyond suggested perspective. Titanic sat in dock for a while as her resources were diverted to the Olympic, but why do such a thing on a vessel that was not expected to operate at a 100 percent ability? If the means and potential existed, why not exploit it? If the "Olympic" was on sea trials so close to the Titanic post iceberg, why not lend aid? The questions being to multiply when looking at ship records regarding propellers, shafts, and sheer time that could have been diverted to much such an enterprise advantageous to White Star. Sadly, this expends my time I can devote to my final argument, but I am currently on a vessel, and with the current questions raised from White Star, regarding the refurbishments of the boat I am on now... I have questions. Do you have questions? Did my opponent answer them? Then you know how to vote. Bon Voyage. ;)
The Titanic Conspiracy Theory

Physical DifferencesIt's important to understand that we aren't just talking about looking at the ship from a camera angle. There are crew up and next to these ocean liners who can easily tell the difference. When seeing it, countless red flags would have been raised. Additionally, I have underestimated the differences between the two ships on B-deck. Aside from the Cafe Parisian, another first-class resturant called the A La Carte was added along with larger staterooms and parlour suites because of how unpopular Olympic's b-deck was. In fact, looking over the deck plans, whole corridors from Olympic are gone on both the starboard and port sides when these designs were built on Titanic. Now for some reason, these deck plans failed to upload, so I am asking the readers of this debate to go page 21 of the dissertation I am providing. It is my first source. [1] The reason I talked about the port side list is because we have to understand why the Olympic was listing, which according to Gardiner was keel damage. It is an important part of the conspiracy that I wanted to use to show how had the credibility is of my opponent's source, which is important when understanding the entire conspiracy. I now want to put forward the reason why there was a list to port on Titanic, which was noticed by second-class passenger Lawrence Beesely. He was told by a purser that there was probably more coal being stored on the port side of the Titanic rather than the starboard side thus weighing the ship down. [2]We also know, as a simple fact, that the crew of the two ships wasn't switched. Many crew had either worked or not worked on Olympic before, but the crew that was going to be on the Titanic was long decided. One of the few exceptions is Chief Officer Henry Wilde.InsuranceThat still does not justify that it would be a bad idea business wise. Not to mention that White Star did keep track of everything they spent, we have the records. After all, it's not like people are going out to stores and buying whatever. They ask for a specific amount and they can easily insure it through the total cost of all tables, bed linens, etc. It's easy to insure like that. The way White Star did insure did not guarantee a profit. The Titanic, a ship considered "practically unsinkable" by independent experts, is a disaster that scarred 1912 society. When it happened, White Star began a long process of decline. Sinking an ocean liner with that great loss of life killed a company and an era. There's more to business than just insurance and after the sinking not many people wanted to travel on WSL ships. A disaster of this magnitude was financial murder.ConclusionI have made the case that this switch and conspiracy is impossible. There are too many physical differences between the Titanic and the Olympic. The Titanic was underinsured, so no profit would have been reaped.Sources1. http://www.markchirnside.co.uk...2. http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org...
The Titanic Conspiracy Theory

My opponent argues that the ships could be easily swapped when the A-deck promenade was not designed. There's a problem with my opponent's argument. The physical featues within the ship such as the room created for the Cafe Parisian was already constructed. The crew who boarded the Titanic and the Olympic after the switch would have noticed that significant difference. Don't think the Olympic's crew would not be confused by the addition of a French resturant reserved for wealthy first-class passengers. Even when the windows weren't change, there were other outside differences. I see what my opponent did there by making the picture of the two ships small. Let's zoom in close and look at an important difference: The Olympic on the left has a bridge wing that lines perfectly with the wall of the other decks. The Titanic on the right has a bridge wing that sticks out. We can see this again if we look at the Titanic docked for the voyage with the finish of the A-deck promenade windows: Now let's look at the Olympic again: It is hard to see, but the bridge wings fit right above the pillars of A-deck, which is not so on the Titanic. Additionally, look at the Hawke damage that shows on the bow. It's not like people wouldn't notice this when the ships were switched. Most of that damage is hidden by a tugboat in the picture of the two ships, but if the front a paint job would be noticed at a closer distance. Finally, keep in mind that pictures aren't what they are now. It's difficult to see the names of the two ships in some pictures because of the distance, but makes no mistake, the Titanic went down and the names are there in that picture as they are in the wreck: When trying to find evidence that the Olympic had a list to port, I researched that Gardner's argument was a bent keel from the collision with the Hawke. There's is no evidence that the keel was actually damaged as proven by historians Steve Hall and Bruce Beveridge as well as another from Mark Chirnside. [1,2]InsuranceEveryone knows that the Titanic cost a total of $7.5 million, far more than the $5 million in insurance. The Titanic was under insured by several million dollars and it's important to keep in mind that the disaster truly did shake the world. The White Star Line eventually went bankrupt and Cunard won the rivalry primarily because the Titanic sank and business for the White Star Line was wounded. When the Titanic went down, the White Star Line and the mother trust International Mercantile Marine owned by J. P. Morgan, had to deal with the mighty task of insurance after the sinking. [3]1. Hall, Steve, Bruce Beveridge, and Art Braunschweiger. Titanic or Olympic? : Which Ship Sank? : The Truth behind the Conspiracy. Stroud, Gloucestershire: History, 2012. Print.2. . http://www.markchirnside.co.uk...;3. . http://www.digitaltrends.com...
Objective Morality

I will first address Pro's statement that an extraterrestrial origin of human life would not give a purpose to objective morality. Pro concludes that if we were engineered by aliens, it would only be as lab rats, slaves, or playthings. This not only fails to disprove my original point, but it is also purely speculative, and thus holds no weight.However, Pro responds very well to the core of my previous argument by stating that while the specific action of dying for another may not be beneficial for society, the overarching concept of kindness and/or compassion, on which self-sacrifice is based, nonetheless is. I can find no flaw in this, as it logically follows that a society that promotes kindness and compassion would eventually become a society that promotes self-sacrifice as the ultimate expression of that kindness. As such, I must concede this point and continue to the next level of my argument:Pro believes that morality is a social construct created solely to promote the wellbeing of society (and thus the species at large). Therefore, right and wrong depend on nothing more than society's definitions. With that in mind, let's take a look at selfishness in general. I believe Pro and I would both agree that while selfishness may be beneficial to the individual, it is harmful to society (and thus to the species at large). Therefore, by Pro's logic, that is why selfishness is considered wrong. Let's take this argument to its logical conclusion. We have already established the following: Being selfish is in my best interests, but not society's. I should not put my best interests over society's, because that weakens society. I should not weaken society because it weakens the species at large. Therefore, I should not be selfish (i.e., "selfishness is bad"). Let's make sure that the reverse is true, as well: Selflessness is in society's best interests, but not mine. I should put society's best interests over mine because it strengthens society. I should strengthen society because it strengthens the species at large. Therefore, I should be selfless (i.e., "selflessness is good") But it's clear upon further examination that these arguments leave a very important question unanswered: why should I care about whether or not I weaken the species at large? Well, let's take a look at that: If the species is weak, it will die out. If the species dies out, so will I. Therefore, it is in my best interests to help the species. But herein lies the rub: it is also in my best interests to be selfish. Moral relativism has left us not with enlightenment, but with a logical paradox. Both options have precisely the same amount of total benefit to the individual. Logic cannot determine why one should select the short-term gain of helping oneself over the long-term gain of helping others, or vice versa. Nonetheless, humanity has universally, time and time again, selected the long-term gain as superior on the sole fact that it is the only of the two options that considers the wellbeing of others. I cannot think of an explanation for this unless morality--right and wrong, and the difference thereof--is objective.
Objective Morality

My opponent states that nearly all cultures have basic standards of right and wrong and that we all even children know when they are being treated unfairly and that even people who believe in sujective morality stand by or prefer these already set standerds. Most of that is true except CON only looks at it though the perspectives of the harmed and society itself but doesnt consider what these morals are for. Morals and ethics were created by society to help govern and control society not so everyone can be happy mainly just for surivle of the human race because thats biologically our only purpose is the continuation of the human race. BUt original creation of the human race was basically an accident, i mean if you go back far enough we are all decendents from ALGEA!!! There is no divine reason to continue the human race and in this universe we are all worth less than nothing. So what value is there in societies morals anyway? Good and evil is just our perspective and right and wrong is jsut what we believe is the best choice, ethics answer whats right and wrong and the best choice for us from the view of society in general but that might not always be whats best for us, this relates to how the law isnt always synanimous with good or right even with society. So just because one action might be best for society which furthers the humans race you have to ask yourself is the human race the most important thing ever and will anything bad actually happen to it if we just act for oursleves? an example of this is a favorite book of mine named Lex Trent vs the gods in which the main character is a thief almost completly out for himself, his not a bad person but he is still a conman, theif and sneak who cares very little for others and puts himself first and above all like we all should.
Objective Morality

I accept the challenge.I will save my rebuttals of Pro's opening argument for the second round. My opening argument is as follows:Nearly universally across all cultures, there have been the same core standards of right and wrong, and nearly every human being possesses an awareness of the difference between the way things are and the way they should be. Children who haven't been taught the laws and principles of right and wrong, have, nonetheless, an acute understanding of when they have been treated unfairly, and what actions must be undertaken for that unfairness to be righted again. In fact, in my experience, even those who believe morality to be subjective have an interesting habit of appealing to objectivity when they have been inconvenienced. Therefore, I believe morality is objective.
Objective Morality

The rules of this debate areO burden of truth will be shared, we will both give evidense and explanationsOI i will argue that a persons ethics and principles are their own and COn will argue that there are already set principles and ethics and morals that should be followedO i dont believe i need to specify the already set list of ethics including no stealing, no killing, no lying etc.OThe winner will be decided because of the information in their arguementsnot the way it is said or the usual rules, wether you cite or not isnt a factor and things like that althoguh cites should be there just so we know if the information is legitamte. and i repeat this is not a factor in who winsO i will not report you for insulting me as that would pair in nicely with a debate on morals the deffinitons of moralityprinciples concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.the extent to which an action is right or wrong.My opening arguementI believe that morals and ethics are the boundary between good and evil but that since what is good and what it is evil is perspective for example while robin hood was shown as good in the movies for giving to the poor and punishing the rich he from the royals and rich's perspectives was a thief and a murderer and traitor. CItationswww.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality
Evolution is Unsound

ResolutionEvolution is unsound.ProHas 4 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that evolution is unsound.ConHas only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that evolution is sound.*No round rules*No acceptance round; just begin debatingDefinitionsevolution - the process by which different kinds of living organisms developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...unsound - not based on sound evidence or reasoning and therefore unreliable or unacceptablehttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Evolution is Unsound

I extend all of my arguments and encourage voters to not dock Pro for forfeiting as I indicated there are no round rules for this debate; Pro can technically respond to whatever, whenever in the debate. 1. Speciation is macroevolution, because it is at/above the species level. 2. Macroevolution has been documented and observed in the apple maggot fly and the three spine stickleback. 3. Human's chromosome 2 is two ape chromosomes fused together. 4. Evolution has made accurate predictions from valid evidence, so evolution is sound. On to Pro...
DDO Advanced Rap Battle

. . . Verse 1 I'm like Charles Manson, I kill everybody without layin a single hand on you I'mma smash on you and spray radioactive gas on you You better think quick cause I'm about to spit some sick sh!t on a real tip I lash you with my futuristic electrode-combustible whip, I'm fvcking untouchable b!tch I've got the mind of a psycho-analyst, philosopher philanthropist that'll make you slash your wrists My rhymes are as sick as cancer is I'mma get fvckin violent on you like a Black Panther activist Now let me astral project with my land rover jet Hand over my check before I run over your neck I'm the mothafvckin rap giant, half lion, leave you f@gs cryin in Iraq dyin That's what you get for denyin the Protocols of the Elders of Zion So quit tryin, I'm a rebel on another level, hotter than a blue devil Hot enough to melt the most solid metal, hyper as fvck and I won't settle I got the precise myopic, wired up fiber optic aimed at ya when my cyber-glock spit You don't know how much I got in this clip but I'm about to show you when I start rockin n sh!t Rhymes grander than the entire Multiverse You sufferin fatal blows cause my multis hurt I've got the Eastern holistic cognition I leave blisters on you when I go ballistic, now give me my recognition My rhymes out the speaker reverberate and straight murders these fakes I leave you runnin from a murderous chase The court will have never even heard of this case Cause I'm your worst nightmare straight out of a fvckin horror movie Michael Myers, Jason, and Freddy combined into one person with a submachine Uzi Slice up your guts with a knife, machete, and claws make you feel all woozy I'm true to the streets, I cruise over beats, I leave your damn crew dead on the beach I spark up the heat and mark your defeat, I'm fvckin elite now bow to my feet This battle ain't even fair, but you're really starting to test my patience Now I'm at the Nevada test site releasin shells to let out my frustration I'mma rip you and leave you dead at the bus station Then toss you to the bottom of the ocean with the crustaceans Cause my guns blazin, swift like a ninja star Asian who emerged from the Florida basin Your flesh is what I'm cravin, so I might find ya remains in a cake tin in my safe haven And to make matters worse, the roof of your house just caved in cause I came in Got a wrecking ball and straight maimed the sh!t cause you didn't give me my last payment b!tch I'm angry as sh!t and it's about to get dangerous But I'm done for now, I just confounded your mind like angel dust
DDO Advanced Rap Battle

Verse 1 You must be outta practice cuz your talent's stagnant like a freeze frame It's outta habit that I fvck people like rabbits up in these games Think you'll de-throne me? Let's make it clear - when I rhyme I am Elizabeth Can't own me - next to you I'm Shakespeare and you're illiterate No you're a little bitch who prolly stinks just like a litter sh!t Why else would you start a conflict just to pu$s away from it? Now you expect me to respect thee after this battle you've issued? That's BS dude and PS you make it too easy to diss you Here's the empirical evidence - I've got lyrical eloquence You'll need a miracle against my strategical reverance You scream you need a remedial second chance - Your menial verses ( vs. ) my congenial reference Escalator, test the hater - take you to a higher level Can't fake the fire like a liar when I'm hot as the devil Revel in my - sensational syllables Schooling you like an educational principal First lesson's you're less than me with the pencil In hand understand I flow transcendental The beast that arises through my lyrical lines is At least as high in the sky as signs on high-rises I'm undefeatable - it's unbelievable I'm good all year round like a heated pool With a spectacular vernacular I'm nefarious Delivering criticisms in witticisms - hilarious I demand tricks like hand stands with semantics Dismantle your chance quick as high bandwith You can't advance when Geo this man spits My wit persists - he knows I lift like a bandit No tact: in fact you're a watered down Macklemore You'll be back I'm sure; for now you're an amateur I'll attack you as fast as fat whores snatch food off the floor With my syntax even the Buddha can't relax anymore Let me guess - you'll try to impress, finesse with big words I suggest you accept that I'm the boss - I don't need work I'm bright as a meteor - you can bet it's for metaphor Ahead when I'm beating ya, you'll still beg me for more I seize the beast inside, give peace of mind - yoga Kicking it wit' em I emit infinite wisdom like Yoda A toast to this roller coaster life I'm living It's fitting to make the most of what I've been given Don't be mad though cuz you're in my shadow Just when I battle I feel at home like a chateau You think you're better or even half as clever as me? Never see - I'm a veteran ahead of the scene I'm so sick I might need some medicine themes Whatever I deem flow-worthy it seems Festers in dreams... A go-getter, a goal setter's scheme Is to reign this regime in a sweater and tight jeans I maintain I'm supreme cuz you're plain and extreme Your raps all sound mainly, insanely obscene You wanna talk about the universe with unique verbs? I can speak those words til it hurts - kick you to curb I got analogies wrapped up my sleeves So I hope my lap-top don't freeze This miss is vicious - opponents I dismiss em I make em my victims when I own em - just listen Witness as my fitness puts me in the position To fix sh!t quick within this like a prescription So I don't know if you've listened since the beginning But any battle I christen is a battle I'm winning... Good luck
Donald Trump is fit to be President.

The topic and argument that I'm proposing to you all is on the controversial topic of Donald Trump, and how I believe that he is not only fit, but a strong leader. Yet I argue against and see the same old arguments against him time and time again. These include outrageously stupid arguments such as he is a racist, Islam phobic and a sexist, without any strong evidence or even none. I eagerly await my challenger...