BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
KingDebater is a troll.

About my avatar of me that was taken recently, the pose is to show my fun and young side.Just because I don't know how the age function on this site works doesn't mean I'm a troll.Debates being of low importance doesn't mean I'm a troll. On this site, we're debating either for practice or for fun. I'm debating for fun. I am not a troll.About my debate on whether humans are hollow, I was just practicing playing the devil's advocate. It was a very intelligent thing to do.Thank you.
This House Asserts That Israel Is A Terrorist State!

<<THIS DEBATE HAS BEEN MADE IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCEPT. IF YOU FIND A WAY TO ACCEPT IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION, YOU AUTOMATICALLY CONCEDE THE DEBATE. PLEASE COMMENT HERE OR MESSAGE ME IF YOU WISH TO ACCEPT.>>Pax Tecum!Resolved: This House Asserts That Israel Is a Terrorist State!Definitions: 1. Israel: the official State of Israel. 2. Terrorist State: a state which uses cruel and unusual tactics (those which go against International and Moral Codes) and spreads terror unjustly in the pursuit of political aims. 3. Palestine: the state of Palestine. Rules: 1. There is a divided onus on both sides to furnish evidence and arguments for their claims. 2. No semantics, trolling, or abuse. 3. A forfeiture is an automatic loss. 4. Both sides are allowed 10, 000 characters, with 72 hours/round, and an open voting with select winner option. 5. Only arguments and sources should be given main credit. 6. By the rules of this debate, any RFD must be a minimum of 1, 000 characters. 7. References to citations may be given in google docs, and the link posted within the debate. Let the debate begin. I ask Emil wait for a minimum of 24 hours before accepting. Danke.
DVD quality is better than HDTV or bluray quality which is fake

uh no actual most pirate films are blurry and on blu ray you can do so much more. In February 2002 a group of nine leading electronics companies formed what is now known as the Blu-ray Disc Association. The Association's primary aims are to develop and promote the Blu-ray standard. Since then the Association has grown to more than 250 supporters.A Blu-ray Disc (BD) is very similar to a Standard DVD (SDVD) in shape, size and construction and similarly is particularly well suited for the distribution of feature films. BDs are designed to be the successor to the SDVD format in response to a need for increased disc capacity. Blu-ray Discs have over 5 times the storage capacity of SDVDs as well as increased data transfer rates making them much better suited to the storage and playback of high-definition video.The name Blu-ray is trademark of Sony Corp. and is derived from the blue color of the laser used to read and write BDs."High capacity storage of video and data " Up to 9 hours of high definition video or 23 hours of standard definition video or up to 50GB of data. This is over 5 times the capacity of SDVDs making Blu-ray discs particularly well suited for the distribution of high-definition feature films."1080p high definition video support " Full support for the 1920 x 1080p high definition video standard ensures highest quality video reproduction."Uncompressed surround sound " Ensures highest quality sound reproduction"Increased data transfer rate " BDs spin faster to allow for an increased data transfer rate. A SDVD has a data transfer rate of about 1.3MB per second as compared to the Blu-ray data transfer rate of 4.2MB bytes per second"Improved interactive features " network and Internet connectivity and enhanced menu navigation help provide a more seamless viewing experience."Backward compatibility " Most players support both SDVDs and CDs"Better scratch resistance " Recent advancements in coating technology have provided for increased resistance to damage caused by scratches"Well supported within industry " The Blu-ray standard was developed by the Blu-ray Disc Association. Headed by Sony, this group includes many prominent companies within the consumer electronics and computer industries. This helps to ensure the competitiveness of Blu-ray products and more choice for consumers."Cost effective " Although BD media currently cost more than SDVD media, the capability to store over 5 times the data on a Blu-ray disc results in a lower cost per GB than for SDVDs.facts from blu-ray.com
DVD quality is better than HDTV or bluray quality which is fake

uh no actual most pirate films are blurry and on blu ray you can do so much more. In February 2002 a group of nine leading electronics companies formed what is now known as the Blu-ray Disc Association. The Association's primary aims are to develop and promote the Blu-ray standard. Since then the Association has grown to more than 250 supporters. A Blu-ray Disc (BD) is very similar to a Standard DVD (SDVD) in shape, size and construction and similarly is particularly well suited for the distribution of feature films. BDs are designed to be the successor to the SDVD format in response to a need for increased disc capacity. Blu-ray Discs have over 5 times the storage capacity of SDVDs as well as increased data transfer rates making them much better suited to the storage and playback of high-definition video. The name Blu-ray is trademark of Sony Corp. and is derived from the blue color of the laser used to read and write BDs."High capacity storage of video and data " Up to 9 hours of high definition video or 23 hours of standard definition video or up to 50GB of data. This is over 5 times the capacity of SDVDs making Blu-ray discs particularly well suited for the distribution of high-definition feature films. "1080p high definition video support " Full support for the 1920 x 1080p high definition video standard ensures highest quality video reproduction. "Uncompressed surround sound " Ensures highest quality sound reproduction "Increased data transfer rate " BDs spin faster to allow for an increased data transfer rate. A SDVD has a data transfer rate of about 1.3MB per second as compared to the Blu-ray data transfer rate of 4.2MB bytes per second "Improved interactive features " network and Internet connectivity and enhanced menu navigation help provide a more seamless viewing experience. "Backward compatibility " Most players support both SDVDs and CDs "Better scratch resistance " Recent advancements in coating technology have provided for increased resistance to damage caused by scratches "Well supported within industry " The Blu-ray standard was developed by the Blu-ray Disc Association. Headed by Sony, this group includes many prominent companies within the consumer electronics and computer industries. This helps to ensure the competitiveness of Blu-ray products and more choice for consumers. "Cost effective " Although BD media currently cost more than SDVD media, the capability to store over 5 times the data on a Blu-ray disc results in a lower cost per GB than for SDVDs. facts from blu-ray.com
DVD quality is better than HDTV or bluray quality which is fake

My opponent states that his quality looks good. But there's a problem. This is not an isolated complaint. This is a common complaint. Bluray creates on TV shows and movies what appears to be a soap opera effect. Now here's another problem, while films and TV shows are filmed digitally, they are never filmed on high definition cameras. Why is that? Because there has never been an inherent need to do so. What bluray does is that it makes a movie have a plastic feel, not a genuinely digital one. The picture quality is completely plastic. As for the sound it's kinda exagerrated. Let's put it this way: most blurays look like they are pirate copies of films, except... they are not filmed in a theater, but have the actual motion picture or movie intact. But bluray looks like a pirated film in quality.
We should stay in Iraq until the job is done.

I knew he wouldn't be back... Alright then, I'd call this another disappointing victory, it seems that whenever people challenge me to debates the abandon them... It's very sad. If anyone sees this and would like to challenge me though, and stick with the debate, I'd welcome them too, there aren't to many debates in the challenge state, and I don't have the time to wait for a good one. -Matt
We should stay in Iraq until the job is done.

Ah well, my opponent hasn't even been online since I posted my first argument, and I have a feeling he won't be back. Which is a shame, because I was curious to see what his response would be. But in case he does come back, I'll just point out that he conceded all of my arguments, which I'm now extending: First and foremost that my opponent failed to define the resolution properly, and in doing so he left me the initiative, and, under my definition of the resolution, caused his position to be compatible with my own. Also: 1. Loss of life. 2. Cost. 3. Insufficient troop levels. 4. Anti-American sentiment. 5. Inhumane practices by US soldiers. 6. Resistance of Iraqi citizens to US ocupation. 7. Decline in US soft power. Since he conceded all of that a comeback would be very hard to make indeed, but I welcome him to try.
Intelligent Extraterrestrials Exist

My opponent has not fulfilled his BOP, and has FF'd this final round, dropping all of my rebuttals. (1) it is unlikely life exists on other planets (2) if intelligent aliens have the technology potential to reach earth, they also have the capability to destroy themselves through better weapons. The easier it is for them to get to earth the more likely it is that they have wiped themselves out with nuclear weapons or more advanced weaponry (3) testimonials from random officials is not enough to prove aliens. Many of them believe in aliens through personal contact, which is not really reliable. The ones with documents never show them.
The meaning of life for all individuals is NOT equal.

Well yeah, you CAN judge them, but it doesn't mean a thing. Your judgment has no significance and holds no value. The individual is the only person who can judge their own life. Where is that objective standard coming from anyway? What gives you the right to judge someone's life? "There is a major flaw in your thinking: not everyone thinks highly of themselves. Most people think of themselves as okay. Some people think of themselves as larger than life, with inflated egos. Others, however, have deflated egos. A man who just saved the life of another thinks more highly of himself than a man who is considering suicide." - I think you are greatly misunderstanding my argument. There is ONLY A. In a subjective existence, all that exists is the self. It doesn't matter how highly individual A values their life, because their life can only be compared to their life. Therefore, A = A. You have not shown an objective standard by which to judge meaning that holds any power or legitimacy. Subjective existence and by proxy, subjective meaning, make all individual lives equally meaningful because there is only one individual in any particular perspective.
The meaning of life for all individuals is NOT equal.

Thank you for your patience. "Where is your objective standard for meaning coming from? There is no objective standard. I will argue that meaning for all individuals is not 'not equal' because one cannot judge the meaning of anyone else's life except one's own. In whatever way you find your life to be meaningful, it is, to you. No one else may make a judgment on your meaning or value you find in life." I can judge the meaning of another's life. I think that George Washington gets a 10, Martin Luther King, Jr., gets an 9, Adolf Hitler gets a -8, my grandpa gets a 7, Stalin gets a -9, and Phil gets a 6. There. I judged the lives of others. Your statement about judging the lives of others is negated. "So, for individual A, their life has a certain meaning or significance to them. There is no other individual that individual A may judge in terms of meaning, so their meaning is the only meaning to them. It is, logically then, equal to itself. A = A Therefore, each individual's meaning is indeed equal because each individual is only able to judge one meaning - their own." There is a major flaw in your thinking: not everyone thinks highly of themselves. Most people think of themselves as okay. Some people think of themselves as larger than life, with inflated egos. Others, however, have deflated egos. A man who just saved the life of another thinks more highly of himself than a man who is considering suicide. A person who is considering suicide is obviously giving up on life, and thinks of him/herself having a poor life, and thus, by your reasoning, a poor meaning of life. http://en.wikipedia.org... Michael Phelps, on the other hand, probably amazed himself and elevated his own thinkings when he won eight gold medals in one year. http://en.wikipedia.org... In other words, A =/= B. Thus, because everyone determines their own meaning of life, and not everyone thinks of their life's meaning equally, the meaning of life for all individuals is NOT equal. Thank you for your time.
The meaning of life for all individuals is NOT equal.

Debate #3 for my opponent, mongeese, and myself. Looking forward to it! I have several arguments against your contention that not every individual has equal meaning in life, however, I will only put forth my first one at this time. Where is your objective standard for meaning coming from? There is no objective standard. I will argue that meaning for all individuals is not "not equal" because one cannot judge the meaning of anyone else's life except one's own. In whatever way you find your life to be meaningful, it is, to you. No one else may make a judgment on your meaning or value you find in life. So, for individual A, their life has a certain meaning or significance to them. There is no other individual that individual A may judge in terms of meaning, so their meaning is the only meaning to them. It is, logically then, equal to itself. A = A Therefore, each individual's meaning is indeed equal because each individual is only able to judge one meaning - their own.
The meaning of life for all individuals is NOT equal.

"- I wish we had more of a chance to delve into this philosophically, because I argue that the life of someone doing "good" for society has just as much MEANING as that of a person in solitary for their whole life. But perhaps another time :)" http://www.debate.org... Alright, I figure that it is time that we debate this subject. I am of the opinion that the meaning and significance of one's life is constantly changing, and that it is not equal for all humans on Earth. A man who works hard and diligently, makes a living off of his work, helps his friends, neighbors, and fellow civilians, donates to charities, and doesn't have a single enemy in his life has greater significance than that of a man who spent his childhood bullying everyone on the playground, spent his teenage years smoking, doing drugs, and vandalizing public property, and finally decided to run into a public school, shoot a bunch of people, and take his own life. I hope that this will be a wonderful debate. If you do not have enough time for this debate now, feel free to accept it sometime later.
The meaning of life for all individuals is NOT equal.

"- So, what you're saying is that if A feels like his life has less meaning than B, then it does? What if B feels like A has more meaning than him? Who is right?" They're both right. They both think that B>A. "If one thinks A > B and the other thinks B < A, who is right?" "A>B"="BB" and "B>A". In that case, you're at an impasse. However, because there are situations in which two people would agree that one is better than the other, and then it is obvious that their meanings of life are not equal. "That's why there is only subjective existence. If you can somehow prove the existence of 'the other', then subjective existence would not be a reality. But you can only know what you have experienced in some manner. If an afterlife does not exist, then reality ends when you die. The individual is the only one in existence, each having his/her own reality. You cannot compare realities." We all live in the same reality. We just have different perspectives in it. You cannot disprove the existence of "the other," but I'm pretty sure that our perspectives are interacting right now in the same reality. Thus, different perspectives within the same reality can be compared. "Since there is only one individual in this subjective existence and it is not possible to prove that others actually exist, there is just individual A and through the reflexive property, A = A. Therefore, the meaning of life for all individuals is indeed equal, because there is just one individual able to be proved to even exist." You think I don't exist? If you say that another individual doesn't exist in your reality, then their meaning of life is 0. And 0 < A, or 0 > A, depending on whether or not A is positive. Anyways, you still can compare different perspectives in completely different realities, because they still hold opinions of their own lives which, as you said, is what determines their meaning of life, so A < B, or B > A, but the point is, A =/= B =/= C =/= D =/=E... Anyways, thank you for this debate. It was great debating you again.
The meaning of life for all individuals is NOT equal.

" I am of the opinion that one is able to compare the lives of two separate men, or allow them to have their own comparisons. Individual A thinks to himself, "Individual B got a higher grade than me. I fail at life," then A < B. When Individual B thinks, "I beat Individual A. I rule!" then B > A. Things that cannot be compared cannot be said to be equal. Anyways, A =/= B, because B > A, so the meaning of life for all individuals is NOT equal." - So, what you're saying is that if A feels like his life has less meaning than B, then it does? What if B feels like A has more meaning than him? Who is right? Without an objective standard (which you have not yet named), the comparison isn't valid. If one thinks A > B and the other thinks B < A, who is right? That's why there is only subjective existence. If you can somehow prove the existence of "the other", then subjective existence would not be a reality. But you can only know what you have experienced in some manner. If an afterlife does not exist, then reality ends when you die. The individual is the only one in existence, each having his/her own reality. You cannot compare realities. Since there is only one individual in this subjective existence and it is not possible to prove that others actually exist, there is just individual A and through the reflexive property, A = A. Therefore, the meaning of life for all individuals is indeed equal, because there is just one individual able to be proved to even exist.
The meaning of life for all individuals is NOT equal.

"Well yeah, you CAN judge them, but it doesn't mean a thing. Your judgment has no significance and holds no value. The individual is the only person who can judge their own life. Where is that objective standard coming from anyway? What gives you the right to judge someone's life?" I just had to throw the judging thing it to prove one of your statements wrong. I already knew it had no bearing, but it was fun nonetheless. :) "- I think you are greatly misunderstanding my argument. There is ONLY A. In a subjective existence, all that exists is the self. It doesn't matter how highly individual A values their life, because their life can only be compared to their life. Therefore, A = A." This is where we come to a disagreement. It was inevitable, I guess, as this is a philosophical debate. This site needs a philosophical category. I think that people can compare their own lives to that of others. There is not ONLY A. We are not in a subjective existence. We are in the existence of many. There is an A, and a B, and a C. Of course, A = A, but that does not imply that A = B. In variables of 6 billion, it would be a statistical impossibility for six billion values to be equal. If their life can only be compared to their own life, that means that you cannot even say that two lives are equal, because that would require a comparison. I am of the opinion that one is able to compare the lives of two separate men, or allow them to have their own comparisons. Individual A thinks to himself, "Individual B got a higher grade than me. I fail at life," then A < B. When Individual B thinks, "I beat Individual A. I rule!" then B > A. Things that cannot be compared cannot be said to be equal. Anyways, A =/= B, because B > A, so the meaning of life for all individuals is NOT equal. Thank you for this debate.
Dropping the atomic bombs during WW2

Where did your argument about civilian casualties go? I'd like to point out to everyone that the argument was dropped. Once again, dead is dead. It doesn't matter what bomb was used if everyone is dead. The radiation should be gone by now. The radiation outside of the plant at Chernobyl is cleared up, and that expansion happened awhile after the bombs. That land is cleared. Civilians have often been wounded and killed in bombings. What about the bombing of London? Berlin? When did the Japs bomb us? I'll tell you. They flew tiny hot air balloons up with bombs. The balloons would fly over America, and eventually pop releasing the bomb. These weren't targeted at the military. They were meant to attack the civilians. A few were killed/ wounded. A thought occurred to me. You are worrying about civilian loss of life. Are you aware what the Japs did to the conquered peoples? They made life a living hell for them. The Japanese occupation was so bad that we released the Philippines from American control. Hate and anti-americanism are totally different things. You'd hate someone if they attacked you. In the long run, though, you'd probably grow to forgive them. America didn't even sign the Versailles Treaty. Your statement still fails. It doesn't matter how many are built. If one gets dropped, then they all start being built and dropped. If you have 100, you can build 100 more. Plus, the more bombs there were, the bigger the deterrent. It doesn't matter if Japan was discussing surrender with the USSR. They weren't fighting Japan, we were. We decide the terms, and we decided unconditional. One problem with WW1 is that we never actually entered Germany. They didn't feel defeated, so this time we had to completely and utterly break them. Japan was on the Axis, they had to fall as well. Plus, even if they did surrender to the USSR, they would have become communist, and we would've fought there anyway. Killing even more. Also, the bomb had to be used. If you have a super weapon, it will be used. It's better that it was used when one nation had it, then when they all had it. Really, there's no worry that you could die in a regular bombing run? We needed them to surrender unconditionally. That way, they would know we weren't messing around, and they would think twice before attacking us again. Columbus wasn't bombed because it was far off the coast of a large country. Our nation wasn't even bombed by the Germans. Do you think Japan could have flown over more than half of the nation? Mutations occur naturally, so they could've happened. Probably not in as great a quantity, but mutations would still happen. It's how we evolve. I win.