BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound.

*QUOTE* Thanks and buena suerte to you too! :) I will begin with a few points to clear up our debate topic. Forest: a large densely wooded area Tree: A woody perennial plant having a single, usually elongated main stem or trunk with few or no branches on its lower part. Vacuum: a region that is devoid of matter I will now go on to my points. I. Sound is Always Created: ~The tree, while hitting the ground, will create vibrations. These vibrations will cause sound to be created. Period. There is always sound produced when a tree falls, due to physics. Any scientist will tell you this. II. Detection of Sound and Creation of Sound are Different: ~Detecting a sound means that somebody heard/hears it. The creation is just the vibrations made. Vibrations will always be made. That is proven and a fact. The detection of a sound can be limited in numerous ways: being deaf, physical blocks that keep the sound from reaching you, or just simply not being there to hear the sound. Now, you must not only refute my points, but also tell me why sound is not created. Thanks so much! :D *END QUOTE* Well, I will follow your directions and do so. ~~~~~CONTENTION 1 REBUTTAL:Sound is Always Created~~~~~ Yes, I do agree with this point. Sound is always created as stated by Newtons-by laws and yes any scientist will tell me this. However, your topic is "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound." Notice the phrase "if no one is around", nowhere in your does it state, scientifically speaking. Therefore it is all a matter of human perspective. Due to the fact that there is no one around to hear it, it does not exist. As a matter of fact, our US law system uses this very process to convict criminals. "Innocent until proven guilty" No witness. No crime. Or in this case, no ears, no sound. I would think a better topic for your argument is "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, did it still scientifically make a sound?" ~~~~~CONTENTION 2 REBUTTAL:Detection of Sound and Creation of Sound are Different~~~~~ ~Detecting a sound means that somebody heard/hears it. The creation is just the vibrations made. Vibrations will always be made. That is proven and a fact. Vibrations will always be made." I agree with you on a scientific scale however, your topic is a matter of opinion and not science. Please refer to my first rebuttal again for my arguement and rebuttal. Detection of sound and Creation are 2 different things indeed. However, if there is nobody around to feel the vibrations, they never occured as stated by the Smithsonian INstitute on December 12,2008. What my opponent lacked in his first argument was something that that may ruin him. And that was sources. this is why I urge a CON vote
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound.

Thanks and buena suerte to you too! :) I will begin with a few points to clear up our debate topic. Forest: a large densely wooded area Tree: A woody perennial plant having a single, usually elongated main stem or trunk with few or no branches on its lower part. Vacuum: a region that is devoid of matter I will now go on to my points. I. Sound is Always Created: ~The tree, while hitting the ground, will create vibrations. These vibrations will cause sound to be created. Period. There is always sound produced when a tree falls, due to physics. Any scientist will tell you this. II. Detection of Sound and Creation of Sound are Different: ~Detecting a sound means that somebody heard/hears it. The creation is just the vibrations made. Vibrations will always be made. That is proven and a fact. The detection of a sound can be limited in numerous ways: being deaf, physical blocks that keep the sound from reaching you, or just simply not being there to hear the sound. Now, you must not only refute my points, but also tell me why sound is not created. Thanks so much! :D
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound.

This debate is merely on the fact that if a tree falls in a forest, excluding all vacuums, it will made a sound, even if no one is there to hear it. I won't begin this debate with a huge argument about the physics behind it, but just because the sound of the fall was not detected, does not mean that no sound was created. Thank you and good luck! :)
It should be legal to stalk someone

I agree with the statement " it should be legal to stalk someone". My opponent (Con) will argue why it should be illegal to stalk someone. Stalking is unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking law, like rape law, are sexist laws. "The National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAW)... found that 8% of women and 2% of men have been stalked at some time during their lives. This means that 1 out of every 12 women, and 1 out of ever 45 men have been stalked during their lives" [1] It is very simple to prevent yourself from being stalked, (and raped), all you have to do is take some responsibility. By making it legal to stalk, people will be more inclined to take responsibility, this will significantly if not eliminate stalking. Also people will no longer be punished as a result of being falsely accused of stalking since it would be legal. sources: [1] https://mainweb-v.musc.edu... Round structure: R1: arguments with or without rebuttals R2: arguments with or without rebuttals R3: arguments with or without rebuttals R4: arguments with or without rebuttals R5: conclusion - no new sources Rules: Opponent must be 18+, no forfeits allowed, failure to follow the round structure or rules will result in you losing the debate
It should be legal to stalk someone

IntroductionIn a world where harmful actions are, as a rule, prosecuted under law, my opponent is suggesting that we legalize a crime that harms society; this is inconsistent and irresponsible. As such, I am proud to, as opposition, criticize the motion that "it should be legal to stalk someone".SignpostThis round will be dedicated to rebuttals.Rebuttals1. Burden of proofPro states that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and uses that to justify legalizing stalking. He ignores the fact that stalking laws already treat stalkers as innocent until their guilt is proven. As Pro admits, stalking victims are already required to log evidence of stalking. Thus, his objection to how stalking laws go against the burden of proof is unfounded.2. Ability for stalking to be definedPro argues that it can be unclear what stalking constitutes. This is false, since it can be defined clearly. For instance, one possible definition is that if a person continues to be obsessed over another through sending messages and physically following them even after the victim has told them to stop more than five times, it constitutes stalking. In addition, the examples of murder, robbery, and assult can also be unclear. Lawyers frequently quabble about whether something is murder or manslaughter. Things can be more complicated that what Pro makes them out to be.3. Whether stalking laws are sexistPro argues that men are incriminated too much by stalking laws. Does this mean that we should abolish laws against everything else for being racist because Black people are more likey to be incriminated than White people for the same crimes? No. [1] Pro hasn't proven that the laws themselves are sexist, only that their enforcement might be sexist. Likewise, laws against murder, theft, and drug dealing aren't racist, it's just that they are enforced in a racist way. Until Pro proves that stalking laws are sexist inherently, the only thing we can conclude is that we need to have more fair jury selection.4. Pro's thoughts on feminismPro generalizes all feminists. Not all feminists are Tumblr users who claim to be trans-species wolfkin who sexually identify as attack helicopters. In addition, his criticism of feminism is not relevant to the topic.5. Whether banning stalking leads to more psychiatric help of stalkersPro argues that making stalking illegal would make mentally ill stalkers have fears about psychological help. I argue that, both in the status quo and in a world where Pro's motion succeeded, stalking is heavily stigmatized, so stalkers have no reason to search for help if there wasn't an attached benefit. The status quo gives stalkers a reason to search for help so that they can move from a prison in which they'd be punished to a mental hospital in which they'd be cared for.[1]http://thinkprogress.org...
Joker

haha, YES! i completely agree with you, you win. Im new to this and nooone would debate me so i figured with your love to joker, you would debate me and it worked. Sorry for wasting your time, but yeah i 100% agree, jokers my favortite vilian. I went to that 6 hour batman marathon when it came out, great stuff. the Joker is the only phyco that actually scares me and his phyco mind is...refreshing. A villian who does not care for money, fame or...anything...is really the only way to be a true villian.
Joker

I can't fathom why this user would challenge me on such a ludicrous subject........... But I will accept and will be debating on the Pro side therefore I am "Pro-Joker" haha derpaherp............ And against the idea that he is ridiculous and stupid........Definitions-Stupidity- a lack of intelligence, understanding, reason, wit, or sense.Ridiculous- that which is highly incongruous or inferior, sometimes deliberately so to make people laugh or get their attention, and sometimes unintended so as to be considered laughable and earn or provoke ridicule and derision.Contention 1- Why the Joker is not stupid........As observable in many of the comics he is written in it is evident that the Joker is not portrayed as stupid. The Joker is portrayed as highly intelligent and skilled in the fields of chemistry and engineering, as well an expert with explosives. From his first appearance onward, he has been consistently portrayed as capable of hijacking broadcasts - usually news programs - of both the television and radio varieties. In a miniseries featuring Tim Drake, the third Robin, the Joker is shown kidnapping a computer genius, and admitting that he doesn't know much about computers, although later writers have portrayed him as very computer literate.Contention 2- My opponent's own argument can be turned against her....... XDAs shown in the definitions at the top, ridiculous means something that is highly incongruous or inferior, it is clear that the Joker is portrayed in the comics to be inferior and irrational....... But isn't that the beauty of it......... Comics were made to entertain people........ And forms of media and entertainment that are ridiculous and inferior are usually the most popular......... This is observable in the natural world: Clowns wear exaggerated makeup and big shoes, sure it's ridiculous but they've entertained us for years........ Ridiculous phenomena are usually more likable nowadays because if everything is the same, whole world's bland............Contention 3- My opponents is bringing "I think" into a debate, that's a horrible mistake you no do that DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD::::::::: f*ck you bic ;((((Anyways......... Con is bringing "I think" into debate......... Thought is not logic........ There's a fine line between belief and knowledge......... He will slit your throat while you're sleeping.......... Why so serious? ;) You've been Joker'd!!!!!!!
Joker

yes im glad, cause i have more questions if you dont mind...i actually find people thoughts really fasinatiing...too fasination, i wanna be a therapist to talk about whats in peoples minds 24/7. and thats a relief because in all honesty i was really scared of you at first..but your kinda like a teddy bear...haha sorry thats the only thing i could think of to relate you to xD overtierdd dont mind mee... and COOL, geez misouri just sounds like an 8, massachusetts is my favorite state, and the governor is just the best :D romney all the way.
Joker

1. Because when I was a young boy I saw a meme, of Spongebob Squarepants edited to look emo :) and who could go wrong with emo and spongebob ;D 2. Sorry didn't realize that, I thought I did, I guess I will have to change that......... 3. Missouri is great I have lived out here my whole life, I give it an 8, although I feel conflicted with the Missouri Government having a strong uphold with Conservatism...... And being Agnostic isn't always easy when you live in the Bible Belt XD
Abortion within the United States

No argument shall take place during this period, only opening statements. This debate will be between wether or not the United States should allow abortion. I know abortion is in place today, I am stating wether it should stay legal or not. I am taking the side of the United States should not allow abortion to be a practice. It is immoral and it is murder to the baby in the womb. Rules: 1. No trolling 2. No forfeit 3. Must have reliable information (citations) Terminology: United States- An independent nation in which is consisted of 50 states Abortion- The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.
new generation video games give a better experience, opposed to older games

In Closing My adversary has shown that new generation games offer a good experience, but has failed to disprove or show that they offer a "better" experience than old generation games. I have shown how age, the type of games, and even cost can play a factor in someones experience playing a game. While he says such a broad term as "better", this is completely subjective and mainly just his perception. In the end I think old and new gen games both offer good experiences. Different people get different types of experiences from games that they play.
new generation video games give a better experience, opposed to older games

To conclude this debate. this has been a very epic battle between both my opponent and I, both arguments in my opinion are very professional and each of the debaters took time to carefully choose defend and attack their side. I would hope that my opponent has manners and honor and meet me half way by saying what a hard topic to justify. My opponent pushed and pulled me and so did I, be I believe we did not faulty. I will conclude by saying, I was to prove that newer generation games provide a better experience and did this quite well I would say my argument was the strongest.
new generation video games give a better experience, opposed to older games

I'm starting off with what would have to be the best part about a games development; the music, it enriches and enhances the games experience. as you can see over the years the gaming industry has gone from 6 bit music for background, then the digital sounds of the 90s to the large orchestras and array of bands that feature in the games of today. take on of the biggest of today, Bethesda. Bethesda has created such things as fallout and elder scrolls. There most recent skyrim game, the atmosphere that is created through the use of the music. The composer Jeremy Soule said that "The orchestra is the ultimate instrument. I find it has the ability to define nearly every human emotion in existence". http://www.imdb.com... this is clearly not defined when playing games for the previous era, the digital music and light orchestral sounds give little to the story and don't pose the same ability as the full orchestra does. second pointThe character development is crucial to any game, this does not just revolve around the back story that he/she is given or the dialogue that is written. Some of the most important features of the character is the actual look. Developments in technology enable developers to create more realistic looking and sounding characters. http://www.facewaretech.com... humans respond to immersion in a video game even more when they feel like they are playing what seems to be a real human and almost as if they themselves are in the universe. another part is the actual affects that a player can make on a universe and the way the character and the whole universe changes and adapts but also reacts and interacts with the game itself. Take another iconic game such as mass effect. The players are able to create a character to their liking adapt it to their preferred play style, and not only do they have the ability to create, they have the ability to affect the environment. With full dialogue control and the choice of being good or evil can have a major affect on how we see the game but also how we feel about it. http://www.psychologytoday.com... http://au.ign.com...
I luuurve u

What the freak did you just flipping say about me, you little Apostate? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in Seminary, and I’ve been involved in numerous splits with the Elders, and I have over 300 confirmed baptisms. I am trained in the Commitment Pattern and I was the top converter in the entire Church. You are nothing to me but just another unfaithful servant. I will dust my feet at you with precision the likes of which has never been seen before upon the face of the Earth, mark my freaking words. You think you can get away with saying that "anti" stuff to me over the Internet? Think again, brother. As we speak I am contacting my sacred network of Danites across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the brimstone, maggot. The brimstone that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re flipping dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can cast you out in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in the laying on of hands, but I have access to the Signs and Tokens of the Holy Temple and I will use them to their full extent to smite your miserable kiester all the way to Kolob, you little turd. If only you could have known what holy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would not have spoken ill of the Lord's Anointed. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you stinking idiot. I will let Satan's water wash over you and you will drown in it. You’re flipping dead, kiddo.
I luuurve u

I'm lying alone With my head on the phone Thinking of you till it hurts I know you're hurt too But what else can we do Tormented and torn apart I wish I could carry Your smile in my heart For times when my life seems so low But make me believe What tomorrow can bring When today doesn't really know Doesn't really know I'm all out of love I'm so lost without you I know you were right Believing for so long I'm all out of love What am I without you? It can't be too late To say that I was so wrong I want you to come back And carry me home Away from these long loneley nights I'm reaching for you Are you feeling it too? Does the feelings seem oh so right? And what would you say If I call on you now And said that I can't hold on There's no easy way It gets harder each day Please love me or I'll be gone I'll be gone
Which is better Google Chrome or the Internet

I negate Negate is defined as "to disprove the truth of", so proving the resolution false is textually sufficient to negate Contention 1 Internet Explorer blocks malware more effectively http://news.softpedia.com... Benchamarks have shown that Explorer 10's malware blocking systems are far superior to those of firefox and chrome, In a world where technology is racing superfast towards a technological singularity, and transhumanism is a technological fact that we know will happen some day, blocking malicious hardware is more important than ever, and because IE10 is the best at blocking out malware, it clearly is the superior browser Contention 2 Microsoft makes a greater profit than Google, indicating increase in quality http://royal.pingdom.com... As I have demonstrated that the profit increase is much greater than google's we can assume that Microsoft is the superior brand, and thus IE10 the superior borwser Contention 3 IE10 comes natively installed on nearly every windows computer This is a known fact. With IE10, you don't have to go through the hassle of downloading and installing third-party browsers such as chrome, which is a massive bonus in a world as technologically illiterate as this Since I have demonstrated that IE10 is far superior to Chrome in multiple respects, I urge a strong negative vote
Which is better Google Chrome or the Internet

First, I would like to state that THE TRUTH IS NOT A DEMOCRACY Polls on people's opinions do not tell us that Chrome is objectively better than IE10 on every fundamental level. In addition, my opponent has no actual proof that he has actually posted such a poll. We're supposed to accept on face that he conducted this poll and didn't fake the numbers, or just make it up. Ignore this evidence. With that said, my opponent didn't try to turn any of my contention level arguments, so just extend all of my arguments. At this point, since my opponent has responded to none of my arguments and has yet to make any substantial ones that win him the round you must vote neg. My opponent has no offense, while I still have all of mine intact. Thus, I urge a strong negative vote (sorry if this NR is sloppier than my last two, I was pressed for time when I wrote it)
Which is better Google Chrome or the Internet

I shall begin with my opponents case and then move on to my own. My opponent states that because Google's stock prices are higher, they accrue a greater bet profit than Microsoft. This simply is not true. Not only have I already proven that Microsoft makes more profit total, but My opponent seems to have a very rudimentary knowledge of the stock market as total profits are only one of the many factors that decides stock price. Although Google's stock price is higher than microsoft's, we don't know how all the factors interact with each other reproduce that number, i.e, 2 plus 10 is 12. We don't know if googles profit is the 2 or the 10, so we cannot rightfully say that they make more money than Microsoft. Ignore my opponent's only argument. Moving on the the NC My opponent's only argument is the one ehich I just overturned, meaning he has absolutely no offense, meaning you prefer neg. but, just because I have extra time, ill go over my case again and tell you what to extend. Extend contention one, my opponent has conceded my malware/transhumanism argument. He drops my first argument, meaning I already have more offense than him Extend contention two, I've overturned my opponents argument that stock price are directly correlated to profit. I've overturned tho above? Meaning I have more offense than my opponent. Extend contention three, my opponent has conceded my technological illiteracy argument, meaning that he may as well agree that technological illiteracy is a problem which IE10 helps fix Having shown my opponent that the value of a stock is not based solely on profit, leaving me with three extended arguments, and him none, you can only vote negative
Relativity Is Wrong

I am sorry about my rushed arguments, I have very limited time to type them up. On an iPad. Let me explain why your arguments are incorrect: although you have given an experiment where relativity could not be proved, you did not try to refute my proved experiments shown above. Your YouTube video does summarize Einstein's points about relativity and how they may be awry in some cases, but as proved upon my experiments, relativity is true. You have not really given reasons why my experiments are flawed, but rather, you try to disprove other different experiments. That is irrelevant to this case and does not disprove relativity. In conclusion relativity is right.