BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
January First is New Years Day

Enero primera is January 1st in Spanish - my points have nothing to do with the English speaking part of the world. I already pointed out that the ONLY country who doesn't follow the Gregorian calendar is Israel. The calendar is the same regardless of the translation. Con didn't argue this from the POV of someone NOT using the Georgian calendar, or not living on Earth as implied, so my points must apply. NYD refers to the 1st day of the new year. The 1st day of the New Year is January 1st.
January First is New Years Day

Yes but that's the English-speakng part of this planet. It's not called January in other countries so how do we know they really mean January or have they added or subtracted a few days? What exactly do you mean by "is?" There are other solar systems with years with only one day anyway or less than one, so they have New Days Year, or no New Years Day at all, or several of them, or celebrated on some other day, or without Januaries, or where January is not the first month. Need overtime. Thanx.
January First is New Years Day

Regardless of when it is celebrated, NYD is defined as being the 1st day of the new year. All countries with the exception of Israel follow the Gregorian calendar. According to the Gregorian calendar, the NEW YEAR begins on 1/1. Even if you argue that there are OTHER New Years Days according to other calendars, that doesn't change the fact that 1/1 is still NYD according to 1 calendar. That one calendar applies to most of the world. Also, NYD and 1/1 had to originate at the same time... :-)
January First is New Years Day

Another way they are different is that even calendars without January, such as in other cultures, still have New Years Day, but not on January 1. Besides you would have to show that the concepts of January First and New Years Day originated at the same time. This is unlikely because the concept of year is sufficient for the concept of New Year, and the concept of January is necessary for the concept of January First. There had to be years without January before January could be invented.
January First is New Years Day

Well a substitution of the predicate "is celebrated on" for the predicate "is" clearly does not work. Independence is celebrated on July 4 but that does not mean it is July 4. Also invalid is your transposing of "If January First and New Years Day are to be the same then they must mean the same things to all people at all times" into its converse "If January First and New Years Day are to be different then there must be some etc." They could be different in some way other than that. Out of.
January First is New Years Day

"any unqualified assertion that x=y it must be true in all circumstances" Apply this to your own argument. "they must mean the same thing to all people at all times or there is some difference between the two and they are not the same." Xmas is on 12/25. Not everybody celebrates Xmas, so it may not be an important day to all people. However, there's no debating that the holiday IS celebrated on 12/25, the same way New Years Day IS on January 1st. Resolution affirmed!
January First is New Years Day

Well if you are going to make any unqualified assertion that x=y it must be true in all circumstances; therefore your assertion that you have proven it by demonstrating it is true in some circumstances may need some additional work. If January First and New Years Day are to be the same (and that's what "is" means) they must mean the same thing to all people at all times or there is some difference between the two and they are not the same. January First and New Years Day are quite different.
January First is New Years Day

Note - 500 character limit (so small! ). As Pro, you will have the burden of proving that people refer to any time after midnight on NYE (so technically New Years Day) as NYE. The truth is that not everybody does. So this point of yours cannot hold any weight, because it can easily be highly disputed and not accepted as a true premise. I might not refer to post 12AM as "tomorrow," but it IS technically January 1st and New Years Day.
Jesus was dead when he was taken from His cross

This debate is to decide whether or not Jesus was dead after He was removed from the cross. The first round is for acceptance, the second for arguments, the third for rebuttals, and the forth for closing statements. Jesus= The founder of Christianity. For the sake of simplicity, we shall assume that Jesus was nailed to the cross by romans, like the Bible said. The question is, could Jesus have survived a Roman Crucifixion? Any takers? By the way, please vote. I can't improve my debating skills if no one tells me what I did wrong.
Abortion Should Be Banned.

Well this threw me quite a bit. It's refreshing to see someone actually have an open mind regarding this topic, too often I see the usual 'its plain murder!' argument without consideration for anything else. I guess we don't really have much to debate here but for the sake of other people who may come across this post I suppose I'll try to get some of my points out. I agree that some people abuse abortion and turn it into a method of contraception and we should be trying to provide every alternative for young people especially to avoid this. But you can never, ever deny someone a choice especially when it affects their life and has no impact on anyone else but them. This goes against the premise of freedom which I'm not American but everyone knows that's what America was built upon. The freedom of the people to say what they want and to make the choices they want. Some common arguments people have for banning abortion are things like the methods used.. Okay that's perfectly fair, it's not exactly the most elegant way, true. But it's a whole lot better than it was 100 years ago, not even that long. And it will be a whole lot better in 100 years from now. In some places its required by law that the fetus receives anesthesia prior to the procedure. This is already a step towards better methods. But a big risk in banning abortion is then reversing that decision in the future. This can also have catastrophic results in other countries especially poverty stricken ones because the world looks to the United States and tries to emulate it. If the U.S brings this into law other countries will follow and this is not a good thing, we already have people in places like Africa as an example, pushing out baby after baby after baby with no way to care for it and provide any sort of quality life for it. This happens in Western countries too, people living in poverty are having kids they can't provide for and if we completely eliminate the choice of abortion this will be happening even more frequently and what do you suppose happens to these kids? Some turn to crime. Now, admittedly that's a very anecdotal scenario and I could of put it in better words but the point stands that you cannot completely eliminate the CHOICE. As far as putting up for adoption, that's not always a viable solution. If you are pregnant as a result of an accident which happens all too frequently and you are a single working woman you can't always afford to carry a pregnancy to 9 months, this means having to take time off or not being able to fully perform at your job what happens then? I think you get the idea. In the end, there are plenty of valid reasons why it should be a choice. It doesn't affect anyone but the mother and father. And we can go into the whole it affects the baby argument but no, it doesn't, the fetus isn't conscious. I guess I'll end it there since we don't have much to debate here. I appreciate your honesty that something was able to change your opinion on this topic and I hope more people can at least see other sides to this rather than just 'its murder!' Have a good one!
Abortion Should Be Banned.

Abortion should be a choice and there are plenty of valid reasons why. Firstly, quality of life and this ranges from medical to social reasons. As the world progresses and becomes more medically advanced, we have the ability to test for birth defects and other medical issues that may arise with newborns things that will impact not only the child but the parents for the rest of their lives. Social situations may not allow for the proper care of the child, this then becomes a government problem which becomes a tax payer problem. While I agree that abortion should not be a form of contraception - there is no valid reason to outright ban it, people should have the choice of how they will live their life.
Violin is more difficult than Cello.

Constructive Case:C1: Inherent difficulty in regards to spatial navigation:The finger board of the cello is much larger than the fingerboard of the violin, thus it is harder to navigate.Shifting jumps on the cello, since they are naturally larger, leave more room for error, than the smaller shifts on a violin.C1b: Early shiftingAfter only a very short duration of time, the cellist is required to learn how to shift, because only a very miniscule portion of their notes can be played in position I. While the violinst can play a plethora of compositions all in position I.C2: Kinetic Restrictions:A violin can be played anwhere at anytime, while a cello can only be played sitting down, with a rock stop.C3: Thump Position:While violin parts(Especially the first) require shifting prowess, we are still permitted to retain our natural wrist position, while the cellist is required to awkwardly rotate their hand so that their thumb is on the finger board, so they may reach the uppermost notes. C4: Compositional DifficultyThe violin has hard pieces no doubt, but the cello has hard pieces too and violin pieces transcribed for cell are harder on cello. C5: Key Signatures:Since the cello often shifts to high positions, and excessive ledger lines would be blury, the cello must learn to read alto cleft in order to discern higher notes.In my next round, I will rebut my oppent's points.(Ps; Do you want to have a debate on violin compositions sometimes? I was thinking maybe over what the most difficult piece was, I'd argue Schoenberg's concerto or Ligetti's)http://www.metzlerviolins.com...
Violin is more difficult than Cello.

In today's society, many of us are familiar with what the violin looks and sounds like. Not only is it one of the most commonly played instruments in the world but it is also one of the cheapest. Therefore, when one is competing for a 'chair' in an orchestra/symphony, it should be statistically harder to obtain as there will be more competitors in comparison to the cello. 1) Violin is more difficult because there are more people that plays it than cello. Thus making it harder to obtain a desirable 'chair' 2) The violin most of the time has the melody in an orchestra/symphony because of it's range, therefore allowing the cello not having to struggle to learn the notes as commonly as the violin. 3)The violin has a more unique/awkward hand position unlike the cello, making it more difficult to originally learn. 4)Because of the 'deep' sound of the cello, making an incorrect sound is less detectable than a violin that has a 'high sound'. 5)In a symphony, the cello's rhythm is normally slow in contrast to the violin's 'high-notes' and 'fast-notes'.
Violin is more difficult than Cello.

Rebuttals: Pro says: ") Violin is more difficult because there are more people that plays it than cello. Thus making it harder to obtain a desirable 'chair'"This is a red herring. This point does not address playing the instrument. And there are a lot more violin spots compared to the other string instruments. Pro's point 2: This is true to an extent(certainly not in more contemporary compositions), however in my experiences in youth symphonies and contests, the other instruments have to work just as hard. Also, this is not a big deal, because violins(especially 1st) are conditioned to be able to play those parts, so it comes naturally.Pro's point 3: This is false. Left hand violin technique is largely straight forward, the only instances in which it's not is tenths, weird atonal triple and quad stops, and left-hand pitzacato. Pro's point 4: This point is a red herring, it's not particularly useful in regards to the resolution, however, the low tone only helps a minimal in regards to intonation. If you're not very,very,very close to the note, the cello will be blatantly out of tone. Also vibrato on the violin will mask subtle tuning mistakes. 5: This is sometimes the case, but in many compositions, the cellos have very challlenging parts. New point 1: No, this is certainly not the case, this is an utter ad absurdum. Once again only miniscule tuning errors will be masked.New point 2: That position is not at all analagous to a handshake.New Point 3: While Sarasate is always difficult, it does not come close to Penderecki.This is an excerpt from his cello concerto. It shifts key signatures a lot, because of the extreme shifts, it is extremely atonal, resulting in painfully awkward hand positions, the rhythms are awkward and syncopated , it's very fast and it requires extreme bowing technique.Rebuttals to my opponent's rebuttals:My C1 still stands, because the margin for error is much smaller on violin , due to it's smaller size. Pro admits that the margin will decrease with practice, but the cello will always be more difficult, because there's more of a chance you will miss the shift. Also, once again, the low tone, is only relevant in instances of extremely miniscule tuning errors.My C2 still stands, pro just merely thinks it is not relevant. However, in many instances, in my experience, especially at non-formal outings, the cello's find it extremely troublesome to navigate.My C3 is that thumb position is awkward. Now obviously for a professional it would be natural, but when learning, it is quite difficult.My C4 is still standing because the Lalo concerto and Twinkle Twinkle little star are analagous in NO UNIVERSE. The concerto includes 3-4 octave arpeggios, double/ tripple stops and so forth. Pro has been playing 12 years; I am completely shocked he made that comparison. https://www.google.com... Conclusions:My contentions have not been adequately refuted and I have refuted my opponent's points.I remind my opponent that he has BoP to prove that the violin is more difficult.Back to you :)
The User "Anonymouse" is a Troll

Well, it looks like I was right. The regime wastes no time trying to censor me. Read my arguments. Read my comments, and pay close attention to the revolutionary language in it. Empire hates that. Ever wonder why most comments on the internet are pro-imperialist? It's because they censor everyone else that thinks otherwise. This is the very nature of totalitarianism, and fascism. Why do western regimes talk about freedom of speech, when they take every opportunity they can to get rid of dissent? Thank you for teaching me the methods and protocol that empire uses to silence the opposition.
The User "Anonymouse" is a Troll

I have seen myriad harassing, insulting, and mean-spirited comments posted by the user "Anonymouse," which I would like to see halted. I am a firm believer in the notion that debate should be a relatively civil discourse, and I would never want to be in a debate where hateful or nasty language was being spewed at me by my opponent. In other words, I would like to call attention to this trolling, and hopefully nip it in the bud. Definitions: Troll - a person who deliberately uses harassing or insulting language or who uses inflammatory language with no other purpose but to sew derision and to upset people. It is "e-defamation" or internet defacement. I can't say I look forward to this debate--I don't. But, I think it's warranted.
genetic engineering is useful

genetic engineering provides a sight into more diseases, into preventing and stopping them, genetic engineering cannot make someone immortal, genetic engineering is not used to create perfect genes, that of which can make someone immortal nor can it bring someone back from death, genetic engineering is used to improve or fix genes, so to rebut your point saying that it would break the balance of nature, it would not, genetic engineering cannot create perfect genes, it can fix and create missing genes, genes contain chromosomes, if you were to make perfect genes, which you need to become immortal as you say, we would all be the same. genetic engineering is useful and if we are too take in count natures balance you put many people in a ditch. if we stop genetic engineering because of nature,, diseases will continue to grow in number and become immune to antibiotics, and if genetic engineering is stopping natures balance as you say , of death, then we should not take medicine or antibiotic
genetic engineering is useful

(i don't know what side i am supposed to argue for, so i will argue genetic engineering should not be used not it is useless because it is factual that it has a use. i hope that is settled) The world is not prepared for genetic engineering yet. Changing ones genes before they are born is extremely dangerous and could have severe effects to the world. It is true that genetic engineering could foresee the diseases one may have and fix them. It could also mean that, some parents could change the appearances of a child or their niche. However these technologies are not yet developed. Nature always have a balance and this balance include the number of deaths in an organism. Although this may sound harsh, genetic engineering could break this balance and make humans (theoretically) immortal. Also genetic engineering would not be offered to all human beings meaning that only the wealthy few could have access to it and would further put the gap between the rich and the middle-class/poor.
Judaism is intrinsically fascist.

first off, I am against the above idea, and this is why: Fascism is a system of government that believes in an overthrow of an old order so that a new one may take its place. it is strengthened by a strong sense of nationality and patriotism. it uses a small group or one person to be a total representation of the people, without opposition. it uses violence in at least some degree to stop any resistance. it curbs freedom and gives an idea of one strong nation above all others, avoiding any sort of different people or culture. it is extreme patriotism and dictatorship. Judaism is a world religion dating back 3500 years. it is the belief in a chosen people being protected by God (Jehovah) and being freed from slavery to be brought to a land of freedom and prosperity. it also focuses on heroes of the people. unlike fascism Judaism actively promotes freedom and fighting for defence, whereas fascism works on aggressive expansion. Judaism spreads culture around the world, and does not necessarily believe in one particular country, except the theoretical Jerusalem, the promised land in Heaven. secondly I am neither a fascist or a Jew, so my argument should hopefully be unbiased.
Judaism is intrinsically fascist.

Definitions: Fascism - "a right wing system of government characterized by extreme nationalistic beliefs and strict obedience to a leader or the state" Intrinsic "Belonging to the basic nature of someone or something" Both definitions from Compact Oxford English Dictionary Third Edition 2008 My position is in agreement with the above statement, that is I agree that what we now describe as fascism belongs to the basic nature of Judaism.The main part of my argument will focus on explaining why I think that some tenets of Judaism are or are similar to beliefs or ideologies found in fascism or fascism in practice. I will also state that the combination of the history of the treatment of Jews and advancing modern standards has caused a change in the way the religion is taught and practised and therefore an ignorance of the fascist tenets found within Judaism. Debate Structure: Round 1: Acceptance and description of position and main ideas behind position Round 2: Arguments and rebuttals Round 3: Arguments and rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals and closing statement (NO NEW ARGUMENT) Please only accept the challenge if you are willing to argue with rational statements. No rants.
The Supreme Being Exists

Rebuttals: 1. Pro has still not provided PROOF that the Supreme Being transcends science. Pro just accepted the notion that the Supreme Being exists while rebutting perfectly valid, scientific arguments. What PROOF does Pro have? The laws of physics are laws that apply to everything in existence. [1] A Supreme Being did NOT create science, as to do that, he would have to be omniscient, which is inexplicable and impossible by the Omniscience Paradox [2]. By the rules of this debate, "All arguments must strictly be based only on verifiable proof." [3] Pro has seemingly ignored this rule and has not provided ANY verifiable proof. 2. Jesus may not have been lying; he may have spoken in metaphors talking of particle physics' laws [4][5][6]. Arguments: Since Pro's previous argument was equally void, I extend all my arguments from previous rounds. Reasons for Victory: 1. Pro DID NOT provide ANY valid proof, and by the rules of Round 1, "any violation of the rules and regulations will result in my immediate 7-point victory." Thus, since Pro has violated the rule "All arguments must strictly be based only on verifiable proof", I am guaranteed my immediate 7-point victory. Even if Pro produces proof in the next round, ALL arguments MUST be BASED ON verifiable proof; the proof will have been provided late, and the arguments will not have been BASED ON them, thus guaranteeing my victory. 2. I had better conduct because of Pro not following the rule mentioned above, and my arguments were more precise. Pro did not use any sources whatsoever. My sources were works by major physicists and dictionaries. Please vote for me. Thanks to @JimmyBoJangles for accepting this debate and for their active participation. Sources: [1] "Laws of Nature" - Oxford Dictionary of English [2] Round 2: The Omniscience Paradox (http://debate.org...) [3] Round 1: The Positions (http://debate.org...) [4] The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra [5] http://gotejas.com... - E Pluribus Unum, What Is Nothing?, and God Does Not Play Dice With The Universe [6] God & The New Physics by Paul Davis
The Supreme Being Exists

Well if it's human or not, you assumed that the supreme being couldn't be intelligent. However, the supreme being created science, and the evolution that created humans. Also, it does not take any human form. You also haven't told me where all the substance that came from the big bang appeared. And the supreme being wasn't "created" since it doesn't have any matter, but can create matter to take a form. And this does not violate the laws of science since the supreme being created science.
The Supreme Being Exists

Rebuttals: 1. I did not state that the Supreme Being was human; I said that the Supreme Being was an intelligent being, that could not have existed before a certain period. 2. IF the Supreme Being exists, then what created this being? If the Supreme Being can self-create, then why can a particle not self-create? [1] According to physics, a singularity can be created by warped gravitational force that then releases photons; hence, "creating the universe". 3. My proof is by the laws of science. You must PROVE that a Supreme Being can violate the laws of science, or even exists. My proof lies in physics. Pro has not proven anything, and yet, by the Russel's teapot analogy, the burden of proof lies with Pro. Pro has not proven anything, and hence their arguments are void. I have thus PROVEN my arguments with the laws of physics. The existence of a Supreme Being DOES violate these laws of existence. Thus, Pro has not fulfilled the necessary objectives of this debate. I have no direct arguments for this round, and I extend all my previous arguments since Pro's previous argument is void. Sources: [1] The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow