BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All knowledge if founded on faith.

Just get to the point! You believe in a flying space alien who reads who your thoughts and wants you to worship him like a king. Here is an example of faith: In my garage their lives a 30000000 year old dinasour which can breath um fire out of its mouth You cant see it you cant touch in fact you cant use any of your senses you just have to trust me. Hmmm I wonder why someone would create a religion? Oh right if the people will trust and believe whatever comes out of your mouth because of faith then you can take advantage of them. They'll be subservient to power. I want you to answer me one simple question why do you believe in a god? Forget faith forget the invisible dragon which lives in my garage just answer the question as truthfully as you can. Because I want to know why do you believe?
To be unselfish is to be completely Selfish

Philosophically, concepts cannot be defined without the existence of its opposite. Existentially, though, this is not the case. "right" cannot EXIST without "wrong", but "right" cannot BE "wrong." This is true with the ideas of "selfish" and "unselfish" as well. Bliss is not a base, or carnal, need. It is a metaphysical need. Without conceding my point that the base needs dominate general human selfish desires, my argument allows even a selfish need for bliss. This is because the physical interactions between people, especially the accepting of selfless acts, are not greatly affected by the motivation to act. Motivation encourages a behavior, but once acted upon the "why" is of secondary importance. I will now argue that the mechanics of your proposed relationship, namely that a selfish desire for happiness will encourage us to promote happiness in others through selfless acts, is not an effective behavior model. One is not assured bliss, happiness or any other selfish desire simply by being in the presence of someone who is happy " even if our actions are the root cause of their happiness. While that may sometimes occur, it is not an absolute. Likewise, one is not assured that any selfless acts will promote happiness in others. Too many other factors influence this. A person who is selfishly motivated would be compelled to act in a way to assure, as much as possible, that his desires are fulfilled. It would be a tremendous waste of energy with inconsistent results to act selflessly in order to satisfy selfish needs.
To be unselfish is to be completely Selfish

'The terms selfish and unselfish are antonyms and preclude each other.' Selfish would not be without unselfish. Wouldn't be lucky without being unlucky, grateful without being ungrateful. One can not be without the other. I would like to thank you for clarifying as I am referring to a STATE OF BEING. 'I submit that selfishness is concerned more often for personal desires and is more likely to be focused on base needs, such as physical resources and pleasures.' I'll quote my earlier point 'If your self-centered you'll be selfish whatever you do because you are doing it for you, you enjoy it and you feel happy' and argue again that one may appear to be concerned with personal desires, when really that's the nursery of personal acceptance and inner happiness. Concern in desires is beneficial as in seeking can they realize desires are forever changing and always somehow unsatisfactory; even when it was exactly as they wished. You were right, we are more likely to be focused on base needs. Is blissfulness/happiness not a base need? Is it not a desire?
To be unselfish is to be completely Selfish

From a standpoint of language, the argument is not valid. The terms selfish and unselfish are antonyms and preclude each other. However, it is possible to debate the harmony of these concepts in different states as they relate to an individual. I will therefore dispute that an individual is better suited to unselfish BEHAVIOR by adopting a selfish STATE OF BEING. I will begin to refute the claim that a self-centered person will act unselfishly due to self-interest. The assertion that a person who is self-centered will be interested in personal bliss or happiness does not hold up to scrutiny. Selfish motivation is unique to the individual. No two individuals desire precisely the same things. But if we were to speak in generalities, I submit that selfishness is concerned more often for personal desires and is more likely to be focused on base needs, such as physical resources and pleasures. It is the brutal nature of humanity to desire the tangible more than the intangible. In nearly every way we can look at human relationships " individual, group, even primitive interactions " the competition for resources, a primary element to the evolution of the species, is undeniable. The scarcer the resources are, the less likely it is that a selfish motivation can give birth to altruistic acts.
To be unselfish is to be completely Selfish

I'd like your opinion on this opinion... Only a very deeply selfish person can be truly unselfish. It may look like a paradox but the first basic thing about being selfish is to be self-centered. The second is to always look for ones own blissfulness. If your self-centered you'll be selfish whatever you do because you are doing it for you, you enjoy it and you feel happy. A self centered person is always seeking their happiness. You cannot be happy if all those around you are unhappy as man is not an island or made of stone. You are very sensitive to our surroundings, very delicate and a miserable atmosphere will affect you. Therefore the more you seek your own happiness, the more you'll help others to be happy. An unselfish person is always serious, deep down ill and in anguish. They are fighting to be unselfish when that is going against nature. Only selfish people can be unselfish. When you have happiness inside you can share it. To share you must in the first place have it. A happy person belongs to himself. Rooted in themselves. An unhappy person needs to belong to something, some group because they have no roots in themselves, don't belong. That creates anxiety as they should belong so they create a substitute belonging. But if you are rooted in a crowd you belong to an impasse; from there no further growth is possible.
The moon landings were not a hoax

You are quite right to say that Moon Landing theories rely on the assumption that he government falsified documents. However, that doesn't automatically mean they're unwarranted. The government had several possible motives for falsifying documents, not the smallest of which was to "beat" the Soviet Union, demoralizing them and getting the US a leg ahead in the Cold War. The fact of the matter is that the Government will always try to save money, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper to doctor some photographs and make a video of a moon landing than to actually build a multi-million dollar, astronaut-sustaining, shuttle holding, laser placing rocket. Placing a man on the moon has no advantage other than that of ethics, and this was the MOTHERF*CKING COLD WAR! There were no ethics! You also say that there is no evidence to support accusations of trickery. To the contrary, there is lots of evidence. I just haven't shown it to you, yet. Let us embark on a journey through space, to try and find holes in NASA's story. It's photo-breakdown time! 1. The American Flag pictures http://www.flagsbay.com... In the picture released by NASA following the Apollo 11 launch, you can clearly see an astronaut saluting an American flag, which appears to be fluttering in the breeze. Unfortunately for the Government, there is no flag-fluttering breeze on the moon. There is, in fact, no atmosphere. The photo must have been fabricated. 2. Same picture, different theory Click on the link above again, please. You can clearly see that there are several shadows in the picture. Shadows that, for some reason, are pointing in different directions. The obvious explanation is that there were multiple light sources, something not present on the moon. Here's a better picture: http://www.aulis.com... 3. More fun with shadows As you probably know, the sun is very, very far away from the moon. So far, that two objects of approximately equal height, about a foot apart from each other, should have shadows of approximately equal length. So check out this photo. http://www.braeunig.us... 4. Rocks as props http://www.armaghplanet.com... Look at that picture. Look at it. Now look at this one. http://www.armaghplanet.com... The difference between the rocks is fairly obvious. Do you see the C? Movie props are numbered or lettered, to show stagehands where they go. The rock is a stage prop. They don't need props on the moon, they have real rocks. There you go, Pro (Hah! If NASA had GoPros in 1969, they might have gotten away with it!). Pictures. Pictures that were doctored, pictures that aren't all they seem to be. Is that evidence-y enough for you? Also, I didn't know this debate was only three rounds. If pro would agree to continue this debate at a later date, I'd be happy to accept. In the mean time, just vote on whoever had better arguments (hint: It's me!). Peace.
The moon landings were not a hoax

The lunar landing conspiracy theories date back to the day after the moon landing, when man stopped, looked up at the sky, and said, "Aw, hell no! We couldn't have possibly landed on the Moon. That's, like, a gajillion miles away." I am here to show why these people think that. Keep in mind that I'm not actually a Moon Landing Conspiracy Theorist. "hundreds of people were on sight watching the Apollo launchs" Only the really, really crazy Theories say the launch never happened. This debate is about landing on the moon, not shooting a giant missile into space. Hell, even the North Koreans can do that. "the government spent 24 billion dollars Correction: The government claims to have spent 24 billion. These figures were released by the government, approved by the government, and controlled by the government. If they faked a moon landing, they could easily add a couple dollars that don't exist. "if NASA wasn't working on the Apollo moon landings for 10 years then what were so many of the scientists and engineers working on?" Moon landings were far from NASA's only project in the 60s. Even the most levelheaded of Americans won't dispute the fact that the Moon landings were merely a PR-friendly face for the Cold War era space race. There are several explanations for what NASA was doing during the Space Race. 1. They were building Space Lasers 2. They were inventing Space Pens 3. They were studying the remains of Aliens found at Roswell 4. They were actually trying to get to the moon, but came up behind schedule and ended up faking the trip. 5. There never was a Space Program, or even a Cold War, and all that was just thought up by the US and the USSR to give them more leverage in global politics. 6. They were producing 2001: A Space Odyssey 7. Tang! 8. It was a money laundering scheme. There never was a Space Ship, just a giant rocket they shot off into the air to impress the Soviets. The government was so embarrassed, they covered it up with a sh*tty movie they pieced together from some astronaut costumes and washed-out footage of New Mexico. "Also the government must have given a pretty big bribe or threat to keep the 400000 workers and 20000 industrial firms and universities from saying a single word about it being faked" Where did you get those figures? Wikipedia. Where did Wikipedia get them? The goddamned NASA website. Actually, I'm gonna stick with #8 of the "Things NASA was doing in the 60s" list. It sorta makes sense, now that I think about it. You can try to refute that. You will fail. Mwahahaha!
The moon landings were not a hoax

I will begin my case with the fact that hundreds of people were on sight watching the Apollo launchs, the government spent 24 billion dollars on the first and much more for every subsequent one, and if NASA wasn't working on the Apollo moon landings for 10 years then what were so many of the scientists and engineers working on? Also the government must have given a pretty big bribe or threat to keep the 400000 workers and 20000 industrial firms and universities from saying a single word about it being faked-http://en.wikipedia.org....My second piece of proof is the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment deposited by Apollo 11 which is routinely used to this day to find the distance of the moon. No lunar rover has ever been created that could carry something like that and place it in the correct place.I would appreciate it if con could give me a plausible explanation for these inconsistencies in the Lunar Landing Hoax "theory."
I will not contradict myself

My opponent claims that her use of "himself" was neutral. However, that is only when the person referred to using "himself" is of unknown gender. In this case, my opponent knew of her gender to be female, but still referred to herself as "himself. " Furthermore, she was mad when she was referred to as "he," so she does not think that she should be referred to as if her gender was unknown (see Comments). This is a clear contradiction, and thus a reason to vote CON. Also, her name is still private. Just click on her link. It is private, unless you are one of her friends, which is not the general community of DDO, so that contradicts with her belief, and thus gives you a reason to vote CON. Even if she has it in "About Me," she excludes it from the actual name box, which contradicts with itself. Finally, she agrees that Abortion is life versus liberty, and that life should be valued over liberty, but she is PRO-Abortion, as indicated by her profile. A person who values life over liberty should be PRO-Life. This is a clear contradiction, and yet another reason to vote CON. Finally, she thinks that anything done for the common good is good. However, that would mean that killing off 49% of a population so that the remaining 51% can enjoy eating their flesh would be a good thing. However, she values life over liberty in a conflict.
I will not contradict myself

Himself/Mankind. .. etc. examples of gender neutral language . http://www.english.upenn.edu... word of mouth often constitutes gossip. .. . my debate coach and I do not gossip (Let me preempt my opponent by saying, that if he really cared all that much about his definition of word of mouth he should have posted it in the first place) . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... 21. Yes. 22. On certain things. 23. Ignorant : 1. Unknowledgeable or uneducated; characterized by ignorance. 2. (slang) Ill-mannered, crude. . http://www.google.com... I don't think so, no. 24. Physically, no. 25. I can. I generally do not. 26. Depends on the person, the grounds they are accepting the debate under and the arguments they provide. 27. Generally speaking? Sure. Why not. 28. I didn't answer 'Duh' for question 17. 29. I copied the rules, yes. You would have posted them at a later date - or defied mine if they weren't on track with you so yes, I did. 30. Depends on the degree and what it used for. In terms of debate. org, no. In terms of my profile, I don't understand how you cannot see my name. .. . http://www.debate.org... It is under the name box, as well as the About Me box. Therefore I did not contradict myself.
I will not contradict myself

I quote rules 7 and 8: "7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself, PRO loses." This specifically refers to PRO as "himself," even through PRO is female. Under the name box, your name is marked as "- Private -." My opponent contradicts herself again. She claims that she did not hear about this site through word of mouth, but then says that her debate coach suggested for her to join, which is by word of mouth. I request that you re-answer the question that you didn't understand. 21. Is abortion a conflict of life versus liberty? 22. Are you apathetic? 23. Are you ignorant? 24. Are the answers blowin' in the wind? 25. Can you vote on this site? 26. Is it okay for people to accept debates that they can accept? 27. Is anything that is done for the common good a good thing? 28. Does "Duh" mean "Yes" for Question 17? 29. Did you copy your Round 1 argument from another debate? 30. Do you believe that plagiarism is bad?
I will not contradict myself

How did I refer to myself as "himself"? My name is not blocked on my profile.... it is seen under the name box as well as my "about me" box. I have not contradicted myself. 11. I mean, I don't really care, its online debate.... 12. See above. 13. Basically 14. Obviously not if you toyed with the like a corporation part, making it a semantical debate. 15. No. 16. Probably not. 17. No. 18. Duh. 19. Neither. My debate coach suggested it. 20. Not really, I don't think Maryland could house it.
I will not contradict myself

My opponent has contradicted herself. In Rules 7 and 8, she refers to herself as "himself," but she admits that she is female. This is obviously a contradiction. Additionally, she doesn't believe that her name should be kept private, but on her profile, it keeps her name private. Therefore, my opponent has contradicted herself, and loses this debate. To clarify question 2, it basically means, can I have a cup that is over 100% full? Can I be over 100% dead? More questions: 11. Was your conscience affected in a positive way whenever you won a debate through vote abuse? 12. Was your conscience affected in a negative way whenever you won a debate through vote abuse? 13. Was the PRO argument in this debate (http://www.debate.org...) a semantical argument? 14. Did your source in Round 1 accomplish its purpose? 15. Have you lied at all in this debate so far? 16. Are you going to lie at all in this debate? 17. Do you regret starting this debate? 18. In conflict, should life be valued over liberty? 19. Did you hear about this site through word of mouth or e-mail? 20. Do you wish that the Olympics would be held in your state someday?
I will not contradict myself

For starters, my opponent's definition of "contradiction" is rather strange. I think we should use this: http://en.wikipedia.org... 1. Do you believe that your name should be kept private from the general community of Debate.org? 2. Can something ever be over 100% of its limit without being contradictory? 3. Have you ever won a debate because of vote abuse? 4. Have you ever lost a debate because of vote abuse? 5. Was the PRO argument in this debate (http://en.wikipedia.org...) a semantical argument? 6. Is your profile as a whole an accurate description of yourself? patsox834: "Either someone likes you an awful lot, or you just have some really disliked opponents." 7. Is the former option correct? 8. Is the latter option correct? 9. Are you female? 10. Are you a nice person?
I will not contradict myself

Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org...... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are irrelevant, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. Good luck.
The Avengers can destroy the Justice League

https://onlynerdsallowed.com...In the comics Batman has made contingency plans for all the members of the Justice League. Even though Ra's al ghul is slightly less smarter than Batman he was still able to obtain the plans and he almost defeated the justice league on his own before he was stopped by Batman. Iron Man is smarter than Batman and could get Jarvis to get the contingency plans from Batmans computer. Iron man will know how to get the plans and tell the rest of his team. This will be easier for Avengers to win.Contingency plans are below: I Iron man can tell Thor how to defeat Superman. Iron man or Thorcan retrieve the kryptonite in the bat cave and use it on Superman. Scarlet witch can give wonderwoman a vison that makes her think she is fighting an opponent equal to her. If wonderwoman thinks she is fighting an equal she will eventually tire out l, and will become so weak that scarlet witch will kill her. Black widow is a sniper marksman and can shoot from miles away at batman to kill him. Iron man can give Hulk a water absorbing foam to kill aquaman. If aquaman has no water he will die. Iron man can give Hawkeyes a EMP arrow to shoot at cyborg to shut down half his body. Once half his body is shut down Hawkeyes can shoot another arrow to kill him. Captain America Hawkeye and black widow would team up against green arrow and could disable him by taking away his bow and break his arms. The rest of the avengers could surround scarlet witch and protect her from the flash so she could stop his body or give him a vison that will keep him from attacking again. Then Hulk could finish him off. This information came from the comics Tower of Babel.
The Avengers can destroy the Justice League

My argument is that the Avengers from Earth 616 can abolish the Justice league from Earth one. The Avengers team will consist of the following: Iron Man Captain America Hulk Thor Hawkeye Scarlet Witch Black Widow Justice League: Batman Superman Flash Cyborg Aqua Man Wonder Women Green Arrow Rules for the debate are to include reliable sources or else the argument will be considered invalid. Use proper spelling and Grammar. No name calling.
The Avengers can destroy the Justice League

Yes they have increased Scarlet Witch"s powers over the years (as they have with all characters really), and she has remade the universe a couple of times. Plus she kind of changed reality to allow herself and The Vision to have children. However the reason I said we would not count those types of powers is because it was something that was clearly used as a plot device to lead into a new series, as opposed to something in the character"s move set. Superboy Prime does not just use his "reality altering punch" move as a Mortal Kombat style fatality. It was used so that the DC universe could become more streamlined, similar to Scarlet Witch saying, "No more mutants", and drastically reducing the amount of mutants in the Marvel universe. However, after using it as a plot device, her power levels have since returned to normal, where she can no longer alter reality (Avengers: The Children"s Crusade 8). Which means although she is very powerful, she is no longer able to remove the powers of the JL, and she is still subject to a really fast punch in the face. The projecting visions thing is an interesting move. However that would still take probing to find out what their weaknesses were (she is not a telepath and couldn"t read their minds), or she would have to have researched the JL in advance to even try it, and hope the Flash didn"t see her first and perceive her to be a threat. As far as Thor vs Superman goes, I fully admit Thor has some major advantages. However Wonder Woman is also thousands of years old, has magical weapons, and is a highly trained and skilled warrior. Neither one of them would be able to handle him on their own, but the combined powers would eventually wear him down. I understand about the time issues, life happens. Thank you for this debate as well. I will look forward to following your debates in the future.