BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia is a good source of information

Response to the Con's 7 points: 1) If you only wanted me to provide a specific example of an event that people know about in general and give an example then I will give one. Many people know that that the weights of certain objects differ on different planets due to gravitational pull. http://www.algebra.com... 2) Well in that case then looking it up on other sites would just be a choice of opinion 3) The source you give only implies there were over 100,000 mistakes and then only goes on to list the 10 most famous ones. There is no source that actually says how many times Wikipedia has been wrong, any sites that do have something only show 5 or 10 actual examples of Wikipedia mistakes. These alleged 100,000 mistakes also didnt happen all at once, they may have happened over a period of time. Since Wikipedia started in January of 2001 (10 years and 10 months ago = 3,956 days including leap years) then the alleged 100,000 mistakes on average is about 25 changes a day for 89,000 people to handle. Any that do slip through are identified and replaced and if anyone acquired wrong information it was simply bad luck. 4) As for my source in question, the Con is correct but that came from a different professor but the professor did say that Wikipedia is a good source for general information and that it only falls short on scholarly information aka really new and advanced stuff. 5) A fraction of 1% = less than 1%, just wanted to make that clear... This is what the site actually has Sanger saying, "The weaknesses are, yes, it's updated in real time," Wales said. "It's being edited constantly ... You need to have some consideration if you ... read something that seems a little crazy you should stop and think about it." He is saying that if you read something that seems a little off THEN you should think about its legitimacy, he doesnt say anything about questioning the legitimacy of each and every last Wiki article 6) Sources showing Wikipedia had to lock the page from editors. http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.adn.com... http://origin.9news.com... http://mattblair.ca... So my argument still stands 7) The sources show how Wikipedia has 3 to 4 errors per story (minor) and that Encyclopedia Britannica has 2 to 3 errors per story. However since Wikipedia articles are 2 or more times longer than the same articles provided by Encyclopedia Britannica then the average number of errors are equal to the number of errors of Encyclopedia Britannica articles when length is taken into account. (as for the spelling thing i only have a pet peeve about spelling errors ill refrain from doing it again)
Wikipedia is a good source of information

I would like to kick off my turn of this debate by thanking my opponent for the evidence he has provided. I will now continue to negate the Pro's arguments, and then continue to make my own points if Characters allow. 1st You merely said that some people had some knowledge of AN event, you did not specify which event, and by evidence I was trying to portray that I would like that you provide with some form of example and a source would always be helpful. 2nd Clearly what I was saying is, If I had to take the time to look it up rather than just trust Wikipedia then why not just use a trusted site that is not liable to modification. 3rd My source found the 25 biggest Wikipedia blunders, if you actually took time to look at the site, then clearly you would understand that there are more, if you really need more proof, then here you go: . http://www.vancouversun.com... This source states that there are well over 100,000 wikipedia blunders, which is about a 1 in 70 sabotage rate, and with about 89,000 people to check at least 100,000 pages completely for factual errors, thee articles are likely to be up some time and people will continue to gather faulty information. If you really need any more proof, here is another 15 . http://www.pcworld.com... 4th The Pro's own source (where the Nobel Prize winner ostensibly favors wikipedia) has this to say: "I think more often than not, Wikipedia does contain reliable, cited information, but the inherent danger lies in its editable nature. If the information can be manipulated by practically anyone, it's no longer reliable – which is why I don't believe that students should consider Wikipedia a credible source for academic research. " Trim said he thinks Wikipedia is unlikely to ever be a citable resource for students. 5th The Pro's own source yet again proceeds to contradict the Pro's argument. The Pro would have you believe that "Vandalism of articles affects less than 1% of all Wiki Articles". But . http://www.cbsnews.com... Actually states that Only a fraction of 1 percent of all articles needs to be locked. In fact, according to this source, Wikipedia's creator even knows of the weaknesses of his website and in fact warns that a reader of Wikipedia should think about the legitimacy of the article they are reading. 6th, As far as the Sarah Palin incident, the source you provided did not state that the Wikipedia editors locked the page. Therefore, the Pro's statement should fall 7th, I have checked the following four sites that you have provided, all of them say that there are at least 3 to 4 errors per page. This proves that Wikipedia is NOT in fact a valid source . http://howtosplitanatom.com...... . http://news.cnet.com...... . http://slashdot.org...... . http://www.nationaltechcenter.org...... I will tie up this round of debate by saying that I thank you, imabench, for correcting my spelling, and im sorry I did not attempt to do the same for you.
Wikipedia is a good source of information

I would like to start off the debate by thanking my opponent imabench for debating with me on this topic, seeing as i am also constantly hearing that wikipedias information is foley first of all, wikipedia defines itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." you will find this quote on the homepage of wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org.... As you can see, it defines itself as something that anyone, including various "trolls" on the internet, may edit so that the information it produces is false. As bestcollegesonline.com states, on very large wikipedia "blunder" was a page that told of ted keneddy's death Bestcollegesonline.com states that: "A very high profile Wikipedia blunder falsely reported the "death" of Sen. Edward Kennedy after he actually did suffer a seizure during the post-inaugural luncheon for Barack Obama in January 2009. The Washington Post reports that Kennedy's Wikipedia entry was edited at 2:59p.m. ET "to say that he had died" by someone who registered on the site under the name "Gfdjklsdgiojksdkf."(bestcollegesonline.com). I believe this is enough information to prove wikipedia is an unacceptable resource. Thank you, and i look forward to your rebuttle
provision of loans to LEDCs should be finished

That is not the case for all the LEDCs in the world, once they have taken loans they are in a kind of threat for the time their being in dept. There are many countries that once take a large amount of loans from a country are then unable to pay it back and meanwhile they also need to develop and then they increase taxes and give a tough time to the population. I although agree for the example you have given of Egypt but same can not be said for all the countries. I live in Pakistan, we are a LEDC and we are taking more and more money every day and becoming more and more corrupt every day, as a result to this we are in heavy debts and now we cannot pay back or rather don't want to pay them back, i know exactly how much problems those debts are causing to the people here. Now that we cannot pay back the debts, we have to take all the cruelty that is being done to our people such as the drones in which innocent people are getting killed for no reason at all. If today some how we are able to pay back the loans and then not allowed to take any more of it, using the current economy, we can develop but never with the free provision of money by others that later cost the lives of many.
provision of loans to LEDCs should be finished

I acknowledge that the rates of interest on loans to LEDC's has in some cases hindered the development of those countries. However, I believe that loans to LEDC's are the fairest and most effective way of helping underdeveloped nations grow in terms of agriculture and industry on the international stage. For a start, there is negligible chance that an underdeveloped nation will be able to freely compete on the international stage considering the relative dominance of Europe and the Asia Pacific, as shown by the first graph on http://www.unescap.org... This oligopoly means that the chance that an underdeveloped nation has in raising the profile of its current accounts using only internal sources is very small indeed. Also, there are some countries who have really benefitted from the provision of loans from MEDC's to LEDC's. Egypt pre- Arab Spring is an excellent case to look at. Traditionally, Egypt has always had a large workforce but not the investment or government budget in order to put these workers into jobs which shall aid the progression of the nation from LEDC to MEDC. Large loans from the United Kingdom, amongst other countries allowed for large-scale projects such as the Aswan Dam. It is fallacy to believe that Egypt would have been able to find the $1 billion required in order to finance such a project. From that stage in the late 60's, Egypt has gone from strength to strength and is now considered as a future player on the world stage. The Arab Spring has dampened such aspirations but their progress using international loans is undeniable.
provision of loans to LEDCs should be finished

yes, the provision of loans should be finished because these loans are a major reason for countries to stay underdeveloped. the countries should be encouraged to help themselves to rise and get a place in the world market that will help them become truly independent. Once a country gets into debts they are hardly ever able to pay them back that creates a lot of problems to the people living in that country as they are the one who have to give taxes. then not all the politicians are good enough to utilize the money for the betterment of the country but they put the money into their pockets and demand for more funds. so i say that yes, the provision of loans to the LEDCs should be abolished.
provision of loans to LEDCs should be finished

I entirely agree that Pakistan has not really benefited from the loans which are provided by MEDC's. The problems for why they have not worked are very complex thanks to the strategic importance of Pakistan in the region. However, loans alone cannot be blamed for the problems suffered by Pakistan. For a start, how could Pakistan really compete with the expanding influence of the Indian economy on the world stage? Foreign investment is often frowned upon for Pakistan as the region in general is unstable and the reputation that Pakistan has as a hotbed for religious fundamentalism (deserved or not) really does not help with national development using foreign funds. But loans and grants from MEDC's to LEDC's must be continued in order to give nations the opportunity to develop without meeting the humanitarian problems of nations such as China. How else can nations develop in this day and age in a world community which is in almost unanimous agreement upon the concepts of capitalism. I shall also point out that that there is now a lot of different criteria that nations must meet in order to qualify for a loan. A list of these criteria can be seen in the link below: http://en.wikipedia.org... Since the year 2004, the countries being lent funds have had a very good track record of repaying those funds to the IMF or international aid which is provided by the more advanced nations. Of course there are going to be cases where such aid does not fit the country's situation, but this does not mean that aid that could benefit millions of people could and should be cut off.
Everyone living in the US should have the right to vote, not just citizens.

No because again, if they do not like the current outcome of the election they can go back to their own countries. The outcome of the presidential elections or even small elections like who will be the county sheriff should be left up to those who are the citizens of this country. If you want to vote in this country you should make the commitment of becoming a citizen. Until then you can enjoy the country but not make desicions.Not only that but the susceptibility of fraud and turning the tables could be very present. Those from different countries could come to this country to vote. By the way we need to stop encouraging immigration. This country needs to become an isolationist nation with little immigration because these people, specifically from latin america, are taking our jobs and sucking up on welfare benefits. Having things like the ability to vote whenever they want will increase this problem
Everyone living in the US should have the right to vote, not just citizens.

This does effect everyone that lives here. Alien residents still need to pay taxes even though they have no say in the process. Voting does matter to those that aren't citizens. Some are on work permits, student visa and others are struggling to get a green card. With all of that being said they still can't vote but they still have to follow along to everything that everyone else is going through? Taxes and college tuition are alot higher if you aren't a citizen, I feel as though everything should be equal.
cake VS.cupcakes

when you said that you cant put them in peoples faces , well thats so wrong. A Cake is perfect for shoving in peoples faces their faces rather a tiny cupcakes . another thing about cake thats better is that you can decorate them and turn into beautiful creations . my proof is FOOD NETWORK's tv show, CHALLENGE, uses cakes to create extreme works of art, im mean last time I checked they dont use cupcakes to make extremely beautiful works of art ....!!!!!!!!!
Do you think that a two state solution for Middle East is a must

I will argue that (1) a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli territorial dispute is a must if we are interested in arbitrating according to a common standard of justice. (1): it is hopeless to assign an exact magnitude of blame in which one side or the other receives a predominant burden of fault. (2): in absence of exact calibrations, a 50-50 model to dispute resolution is both most practical and fairest. (3): natalist combat (meaning the struggle to demographically erode away the other party is practical but immoral)
goku vs superman goku stops mad carzy

this is the problem no one reads comic books even billis called goku a genius so your olny thing you can say is goku is dumb whell then superman is a gay who shoots rainbows and pink kyptonite makes gay http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... and the only way any one this superman would is
goku vs superman goku stops mad carzy

Well, if you ever read DC comics, you would know that Superman can destroy entire solar systems with a SNEEZE! Plus, he has the infinite mass punch, where he flies just under the speed of light to create a ounch that feels like millions of supernovas exploding in someone's face. . http://www.youtube.com... This video shows the true winner if Goku and Superman ever fight in a battle, and, as you can see, Superman wins. Superman is both stronger, faster, And way more intelligent, Goku, sucks.
Earth is not flat

Water: Seems like my opponent still does not understand how fluids work, water is not rigid, it changes shape based on the forces acting on it. The reason why water is curved on Earth is because of the gravitation pull to the center of Earth. Earth's gravity is a decent pull, strong enough to hold water to the center, as a result, water can curve around Earth, I have already shown this with a ball spinning with water on it, adhesive force acts as gravity and it works perfectly, even though it was spinning. Fluids do not have any form of rigidity. So if you increased the water and also the mass of the sphere, it would remain on it because of gravity. People tend to float in space because of the lack of gravity there. But then again, I cannot prove that these are real, and you cannot prove that they are fake, so we'll need to leave NASA out of this then. But every other space agency from Russia (who agreed USA went to the moon despite their huge rivalry), Japan, China, etc. They all have pictures of a spherical Earth, so clearly it's not just NASA who appears to want to pretend we live on a big ball earth. Curvature spotted, no fisheye lens: Now now, don't worry, it's not NASA doing some crazy pretend globe earth with their photoshop and CGI. This video here attempted to prove a flat earth but he recorded the curvature, I know you are going to claim fisheye lens but that would be impossible because he flapped the camera around and the shape did not change at all, suggesting the lens are not distorted and that the curvature has been spotted. thus proving the globe earth. Proof of rotation: If you look at the stars in Australia and UK, not only are they different, they rotate in the opposite directions (counter-clockwise in UK and clockwise in Australia), you can't feel the rotation because 1000 mph is very slow for a big giant sphere, you wouldn't feel much of it in a plane, so it's obvious why you can't feel it on Earth, you are moving with it. Why it doesn't make sense that NASA is hiding the "true shape of Earth": If NASA was lying and giving all these so called "fake CGI images" then why are they telling you how they get a photograph and fix it up? They would claim all the pictures were real, not to mention that every single space agency agrees that the Earth is round, so basically every space agency is lying to you, correct? Horizon dip angle: I got these numbers from the horizon dip angle, this video explains it. Lunar eclipses: When a lunar eclipse is coming, you can clearly see the shadow of earth being a sphere, and it's already too obvious that earth is not a flat disk, so therefore this alone is enough to prove that Earth is a confirmed sphere. [1] https://www.popsci.com... [2] http://www.smarterthanthat.com... [3] https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.co.uk... [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Earth is not flat

Water being claimed to just "find it's level" is a vague and unscientific way of expressing the physics of liquids. Water actually conforms to the forces acting on it, this is an undeniable fact. Just put water in any container and it will easily conform to the shape. So it's easy for water to sit on a giant sphere with trillions of tonnes of mass, what force causes water to simply find it's level I should ask my opponent? So for short, water does not simply "find it's level", it easily and naturally conforms to the forces acting on it. My opponent says adhesive force is not gravity, no it's a simulation of gravity. Earth has enough gravity to hold the water on Earth, it also pulls to the center and not downwards, hence people in Australia don't feel upside down. To see the whole ball shaped Earth, a satellite would have to travel about 900,000 miles as shown in the website showing pictures of Earth, all different due to the rotation. https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov... Before my opponent vaguely claims that they are CGI (which they are not), these are true photographs, notice I said they are photographs not computer graphics. I hope my opponent understands that those are photographs. It's a common claim that the horizon remains at eye level but it is only an assertion, how do you determine that the horizon rises to eye level? As you rise to a higher elevation, the horizon gets further and further away, with simple geometry (horizon dip angle), the viewing angle increases very slowly. 100 feet = 0.17 degrees 1000 feet = 0.56 degrees 10000 feet = 1.7 degrees 40000 feet = 3.5 degrees To find the angle, you need a very precise measuring device, you cannot see it with the naked eye. How can I be sure if you are not tipping the camera or your eye slightly when looking out to the horizon? Your head is not a magical measuring device. Use an accurate leveling device to put it at eye level. The horizon does not stay at eye level. [1] https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov... [2] [3] [4] http://www.smarterthanthat.com... [5] http://whatculture.com...
Earth is not flat

"Since we'll start on water, which isn't always flat first of all. Water changes shape based on the object it is on, if you pour it into a wine glass for example, it does not become flat until you stop pouring it and eventually the top becomes flat." The surface of water always finds and maintains a level surface. My opponent agrees that the surface of the earth (mostly water) is flat. The resolution has been affirmed. "But it's shown in an experiment that water can stick on a ball despite Earth's gravity pulling on it, even though they tried to spin it, the water remained on the ball, to do this they use an adhesive force, they don't have to throw it into space or anything like that." First my opponent has agreed that water finds a flat and level surface, then he points to a rock with condensation on it to prove that the bodies of water on earth are not flat. This is not a curved body of water. These are droplets of water stuck to a rock due to the naturally adhesive properties of tiny amounts of water, not gravity. "Also if you look at a line of transmission towers, you will notice that that they curve along with the Earth, if Earth was flat, then it should've been a completely straight line and it's not, it's curved. https://gyazo.com...; The link that my opponent offers is not working for me, but i think im familiar with this argument. My opponent is jumping to hasty conclusions. He ignores refraction from an accumulation of water in the air over this distance. The light is bent when it travels through this water and the towers in the distance appear lower than they actually are. This is proved by placing an object on the other side of a glass of water and observing the change in it's apparent position, which is lower. This is an observable fact, shown with the scientific method. He agrees that water is flat and this contradicts the claim that the towers are going over some curvature. If the earth started curving down here as it appears to, ascending to 100,000 feet should make the horizon stay fixed. Meaning you would look down further and further to see it as you ascend, and, due to the properties of a ball, curve. As amateur balloon footage, such as the dog cam shows, this is not the case. Anyone who's rode a plane will agree that the horizon stays at eye level.
Earth is not flat

Since we'll start on water, which isn't always flat first of all. Water changes shape based on the object it is on, if you pour it into a wine glass for example, it does not become flat until you stop pouring it and eventually the top becomes flat. But it's shown in an experiment that water can stick on a ball despite Earth's gravity pulling on it, even though they tried to spin it, the water remained on the ball, to do this they use an adhesive force, they don't have to throw it into space or anything like that. . https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.co.uk... Also if you look at a line of transmission towers, you will notice that that they curve along with the Earth, if Earth was flat, then it should've been a completely straight line and it's not, it's curved. . https://gyazo.com... [1] . https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.co.uk... [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] . https://www.livescience.com... [7] . http://www.newsweek.com...