BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 5 questions believe quizz.

1. I believe in the Big Bang Theory, and that before the Universe was created, all matter was compressed In a singular point. Matter was thrown out in all directions by an explosion, but not nessicarily by one created by a deity. The cause of the explosion is yet to be found, and advancements in astrophysics may soon reveal the cause. I believe that it was not the doing of a deity because there is not solid evidence to suggest that one exists. This is a simplified summary of my belief. 2. We humans are conscious because we were evolved to be more intelligent than other creatures. Our free will and consciousness is a product of our intelligence, and is not a gift from a god. 3. We have observed the effects of death on the body, and with the death and decomposition of the brain, that person is indefinitely dead. Eventually, nothing will be left of that person. With no physical body and certainly no intangible body, that person is gone. There is no evidence that souls, an afterlife, or reincarnation of any kind exists. 4. Possibly. Not that we know of now, but it may be discovered in the future. 5. I believe that humankind has three major paths to go down. The first is that we will destroy each other through war. The second is that we will never develop technology advanced enough to go to another habitable world, even if we find one, and we will die when the Sun runs out of fuel. The third is that we develop advanced technology to colonize another system and humankind may survive. Beyond that, I can not speculate. I apologize for being so brief. I am on vacation and I don't plan to use it forming a longer explanation.
The 5 questions believe quizz.

Score: Pro 0 Con 5. Since you forgot to tell me whether or not you are Christian or Atheist I had to check myself so if I guessed wrong then it ain't my fault. Questions: 1. If God is not real then how was the universe created? 2. If God isn't real then how did us humans get our conscious? 3. What happens after death? 4. Is there intelligent life outside our solar system? 5. How will the world end?
Playing video games promote creativity more than reading a book

To start off: "Even if I say that video games produce 1,000 times the amount of creativity than a single book, books would still, in total, aspire and "accumulate" over 4 times video game's worth." The debate is "Playing video games promote creativity more than reading a book",. Though there are more books, and they may accumulate more creativity, the topic explains how playing a video game can promote more creativity than reading a book. One book. "When someone reads a story, for example, they create individual images and concepts to represent a character." Creating a image of a character does not exactly lead to creativity. I can think about a character and what they may look like, but that does not exactly involve my creativity, I am only following what the author is saying, which does not promote my creativity. " Also, it is much easier to get a book." This is irrelevant to the debate. The question is not which one is easier to get, but which one can promote creativity more effectively. " Moreover, numerous readers use their ideas to create fan fiction" Players and fans also make fan fiction based off of the video game. Using a variety of characters and storyline, they change the storyline, or make predictions for the future of the game. Here is an example: https://www.fanfiction.net... Now for my arguments: In video games, you can restart puzzles and challenges. And every time you can find a new creative way to overcome these challenges. Not only does this promote creativity, but it also promotes problem solving. Also, video games are more entertaining, so a person would be more compelled to playing a video game than a book. So the video game would promote more creativity in the person than a book because he invests more time in the video game. According to this article: http://news.cnet.com... 91% of children play video games. Everything you learn as you grow of is based on what you learn when you were a child. So if more children play video games and gain more creativity as children, more future adults will be creative. So basically, video games would promote creativity more.
Playing video games promote creativity more than reading a book

As long as your definitions are not exclusive, I am fine, as the manner you defined them in was quite literal for something as abstract as creativity. First I will establish the quantity of books versus that of video games. First, the ESRB, or Entertainment Software Rating Board, maintains and rates around 32000 video games based on content[1]. This measly number is completely outweighed by the over 130 million books that are in the world at this time[2]. Even if I say that video games produce 1,000 times the amount of creativity than a single book, books would still, in total, aspire and "accumulate" over 4 times video game's worth. Furthermore, a book is more accessible. The only skill required of books is the ability to read, while video games, by their very nature, require a large set of skills which degrades their accessibility. Also, it is much easier to get a book. A video game requires hardware which is typically expensive and complicated, while a book is very simple to obtain and use. The reason why following a story created by someone else promotes more creativity than a video game is imagery. To conceptualize anything, the human brain (under normal circumstances, i.e. not blind or visually impaired) processes information and then mentally creates an image to pair with a character. When someone reads a story, for example, they create individual images and concepts to represent a character. They can then use these "images" to create whatever they please. The concept of an academic essay intrinsically promotes creativity. Moreover, numerous readers use their ideas to create fan fiction, a field of writing where individuals expand stories based of their own individual creativity, further promoting creativity through books. Why this matters is that it can be applied to any book, while a lot of video games cannot match this level of creativity. Vote con. [1]http://www.esrb.org... [2]http://booksearch.blogspot.com...
Playing video games promote creativity more than reading a book

Don't worry, I am not very good at debates. Any ways, Video games are fun entertaining devices that aid people in enjoying their day, while overcoming various challenges and storyline. The definition of video game is: "an electronic game in which players control images on a television or computer screen". A book is a "A set of written, printed, or blank pages fastened along one side and encased between protective covers." http://www.merriam-webster.com... "http://www.thefreedictionary.com...; In a book, you follow the story on a main character, or many main characters, and minor characters. In reading a book, you learn new vocabulary, and think of possible stories, however those stories are very similar to stories already told. So you don't exactly become creative, but you create stories that are already made, but by fusing or tweaking a previous story. In a video game, you over come various challenges, and learn from a smart interesting story line. However there are also games like minecraft and animal crossing where you create your own world. In these games, you challenge your creativity, and create amazing things. Basically, I am trying to explain that in a book, you follow one story created by someone else. In a video game, you create your own story, you create your own world, you construct. Sometimes you also follow stories, and find ways to overcome challenges that may come your way. And you find a variety of creative ways to overcome these challenges.
I automatically win

Thank you for accepting and now lets begin! Content: o My opponents arguments o Definition of burden of proof o Summarization o My opponents arguments Contention 1: Credibility Definition of credibility: The quality of being convincing. What is convincing? I think it's a no brainier that something that has proved itself is extremely convincing. Now how does one prove itself? By providing evidence in other words by fulfilling its burden of proof. Indeed this argument works for me rather than against me. Now lets briefly address few things my opponent has said: "Pretend you say nothing" Not saying anything isn't what debaters do ; this is a debate. No burden of proof does not equal no arguments. One must ask himself "no burden of proof" to what? As you can see one must propose something in order to begin. Now with no burden of proof ones proposition automatically succeeds in other words he wins the argument. "Does this fulfill the burden of proof? No." I find this funny because no burden of proof equals a fulfilled burden of proof. Contention 2: See-saw There's no need for definition instead lets just dive into what my opponent said: "You are not fulfilling the burden of proof for your side. You are not advancing your case." Verily I have no burden hence the case is already won ; there is no need to advance my case. "You may still win if you fully defeat all my arguments" A proposition with no burden of proof would win because it can't be challenged or doubted while one can still have doubts about a statement which fulfilled its burden since there might be an error or something else. "Thank you to the voters, to mom, to dad, and to America and the global economy as a whole. Goodnight ladies and gentlemen." This is an excellent ending hence Ill copy it for future debates. o Definition of burden of proof http://dictionary.reference.com... o Summarization I have asserted in round one that someone in a debate with no burden of proof would automatically win ; which is true because an argument is automatically proven. Then my opponent began to argue otherwise and now I'm trying to show him his errors. Thank you to the voters, to mom, to dad, to sister, to my ten cousins and to America, to Russia, to Britain, to nations whose names I can't pronounce and the global economy as a whole. Goodnight ladies and gentlemen. Also good night to you too Tony - my favorite alien...Thats all folks ! Lets now not forget my opponent and me. Furthermore the people that are yet to come or have died, goodnight to you too! Moreover goodnight to animals of all kinds ! And rocks too ! I thank you all !!!! I thank myself !!! Thank you all !!! All of you I thank !!! So without further ado adieus and again goodnight !!! Unless you're reading this while in another part of the world then good day !!! To all !!! It was a fun round !!! Also you may read this at a different time, good night and thank you to you too !!! *Keeps on rambling until morning*
I automatically win

automatically= occurring spontaneously, reflexively. burden of proof = the duty of proving a disputed charge [1] Untrue. Contention 1: Credibility Debates are decided largely on the basis of credibility. Pretend you say nothing. You do not reply to this argument. You fail to post an argument in all subsequent rounds. Does this fulfill the burden of proof? No. So it is an action the affirmative is trying to defend. Yet if a person says nothing, there is nothing to sway the mind of others toward their side. Contention 2: See-saw. In a normal debate, each person has arguments to prove a resolution. Yet suppose one side does not make any new arguments, but only reply to those of their opponent. You are not fulfilling the burden of proof for your side. You are not advancing your case. You may still win if you fully defeat all my arguments, but if I have even one argument left standing, then I win the debate. To win, you must tip the see-saw of opinion toward your side, or at least make it balanced. Yet if I have anything left on one side, I still win. Thank you to the voters, to mom, to dad, and to America and the global economy as a whole. Goodnight ladies and gentlemen. [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Black women should marry white men

"I did not mention all black women. In fact I mentioned 50% as a random number. I argued that marriage in and of itself would decrease racial tensions in society as a whole. " And I argued that it would do little to help. For example, say there is a boy in your school who is racist towards black people. A new student in the school is mixed black/white. What makes you think the racist boy will treat the mixed boy any differently than a black person? "The majority of that racism is by women in their mate selection. This is much more significant in terms of cultural attitudes than overt white on black racism and black on white racism. " Preferring to marry your own race is not racism. Perhaps you do not want a mixed child, or ridicule from family/friends. Whatever the reason, unless you are racist, it is not racism. I could further prove this point through the C/X, but you didn't answer them, so I will address them later. "Many black women and white women would not consider dating outside of their race. Hispanics and Asians have demonstrably shown they are willing. Most of these interacial marriages are done with white men indicating white men are willing to marry outside of their race. " That point actually helps me. Why should a woman marry out of her race if she doesn't want to? This does nothing to prove your claim. "As for white women, they should also consider other races, especially if they are interested in relationships and they find it difficult to find an appropriate mate. Their situation is less dire in the sense that far fewer percentage of white women are single. " Not every person prefers to marry. I know many people that would rather remain single, or are single and do not plan on marrying. Maybe a large portion of those black women do not want to marry at all. "My views on interracial marriages are irrelevent for the terms of this debate as are any of the personal information you suggest I put forward. " Really? I'll look at each question and show how it is blatantly important to the debate. Question 1: This helps with answering the other questions. Also, if you were a white male or black female you may have a biased view or, depending on the other questions, your own reasons for supporting this resolution. Question 2: Racism, obviously, would play a part in this resolution and the C/X. Question 3: If you chose same race, it would mean that you find your own race more attractive than other races (most people do). So if you preferred your own race to another, why would you want to marry outside of your race? Question 4: See above. Question 5: If you didn't know any people in an interracial relationship or any that have been, it could show that people may prefer their own race to another. Question 6: If you/a commenter disagree with interracial relationships, then it would mean that someone is against black women with white men. If you/they are a white man/black woman, then you may be biased. Question 7: See above. So now you can see that these questions were important to the debate, and my opponent failed to answer them for no reason.
Black women should marry white men

I agree with you that marrying a white man is not the only route to decreasing racial tensions. This is not what I put forward. What I did propose, was for black women to marry white men. I did not mention all black women. In fact I mentioned 50% as a random number. I argued that marriage in and of itself would decrease racial tensions in society as a whole. I do think there is racism in our country. The majority of that racism is by women in their mate selection. This is much more significant in terms of cultural attitudes than overt white on black racism and black on white racism. Many black women and white women would not consider dating outside of their race. Hispanics and Asians have demonstrably shown they are willing. Most of these interacial marriages are done with white men indicating white men are willing to marry outside of their race. As for white women, they should also consider other races, especially if they are interested in relationships and they find it difficult to find an appropriate mate. Their situation is less dire in the sense that far fewer percentage of white women are single. My views on interracial marriages are irrelevent for the terms of this debate as are any of the personal information you suggest I put forward.
Black women should marry white men

"There is a large number of black women who do not date. Currently, I contend that black women are racist to the extent that their dating preferences, by in large, are limited in scope to black men. Black women should date white men because there aren't enough black men to fill the demand of black women and the population of single white men dwarfs the number of single black men." If "a large number of black women do not date", then certainly there would be enough black men for them. Regardless, the resolution states that "black women should marry white men". Surely only a portion of those black women, not all of them, should marry white men, right? Otherwise, to use the context of your argument, what would we do about the population of white women? "To the question of whether or not it would be good for society, I don't think one would have as many racial conflicts or acriminous attitudes if half the black women were married and had kids with white men. It would be a testatment to their integration into society much as the Hispanics and Asians." But your resolution implies that ALL black women should marry white men. Even if it doesn't, racist people would still treat you differently if you were mixed. Furthermore, marriage to white men does not act as a "testament to their intergration into society". To be integrated into a society, you do not have to marry a white male. "99% of black women marry black men 98% of white women marry white men 80% of hispanic women marry hispanic men 60% of asian women marry asian men One hardly hears of the 'asian' riots. Nor of 'hispanic' riots. Black riots I think to a large degree is predicated on black's feelings of aliention from the rest of society. That alienation could be nearly removed if half the black women were married to white men." "Black riots" (I wouldn't call them that) are mainly because of the living conditions of those people. Other causes are racism, discrimination, and other things that would trouble any other race. Black people do not need to marry white men more than any other race does. Also, like I stated before, marriage to a white man does not prevent alienation or racism. Now for my part of the case, I'd like to have a brief C/X with my opponent. I'd also like any people reading this to answer the questions in the comments sections (before the last round). Don't answer any if they make you uncomfortable. I also wish to make it known that refusing to answer the majority of these questions would be considered obstruction of evidence or w/e. 1. What race are you? (If you are mixed please state which races you are) 2. Are you racist? 3. Which do you see more often, a person you think is attractive of the same race as you, or from a different race? 4a. Overall, would you prefer to have a partner of the same race or a different race? 4b. Why? 5a. Do you know any people who are in a relationship with a partner of a different race? 5b. If so, how many? 6. How do you feel about interracial relationships? 7a. Do you think race matters in a relationship? 7b. If so, how?
Black women should marry white men

There is a large number of black women who do not date. Currently, I contend that black women are racist to the extent that their dating preferences, by in large, are limited in scope to black men. Black women should date white men because there aren't enough black men to fill the demand of black women and the population of single white men dwarfs the number of single black men. To the question of whether or not it would be good for society, I don't think one would have as many racial conflicts or acriminous attitudes if half the black women were married and had kids with white men. It would be a testatment to their integration into society much as the Hispanics and Asians. In one article in the economist years back they stated: 99% of black women marry black men 98% of white women marry white men 80% of hispanic women marry hispanic men 60% of asian women marry asian men One hardly hears of the 'asian' riots. Nor of 'hispanic' riots. Black riots I think to a large degree is predicated on black's feelings of aliention from the rest of society. That alienation could be nearly removed if half the black women were married to white men.
Black women should marry white men

I will start by addressing my opponent's statement. "70% of black women are single. For the benefit of society and black women, black women should marry white men." My opponent also uses two sources. The first is Oprah saying that 70% of black women are single. The next is some random shirtless old man commenting on interracial marriages XD. However, as far as I can see, this source has no hard evidence to support his claim. Being as how the first source is only a statistic, this leaves my opponent with no contentions. Now I will support my position. Let's look at the resolution. "Black women should marry white men" When I read this resolution, I assume that my opponent is stating that "all black women should [only] marry white men". I can further interpret this in two ways. 1. "All black women should marry white men." This can mean that a black women should marry white men. However, this is illegal. So they shouldn't. 2. "Black women should only marry white men." This is probably what my opponent means. However, this is not true. Take this example. Morgan is a single, black mother looking to marry. John is a very poor white male living in a single bedroom apartment. He can barely support himself off of his low-paying fast-food job. I think everyone would agree with me when I say that Morgan and John should not get married. So all black women should not marry white men.
LIVE DEBATE: The Right to Be Forgotten

PrefaceThanks so much to Fizzy for this debate! I am looking forward to my 3rd Live Debate on DDO :)The voting floor is set at 2000 ELO. Please do not vote unless you have some rudimentary (or better) familiarity with LD.Full TopicThat the "right to be forgotten" from internet searches Ought to be a Civil RightNon-Live Debate StructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Con posts a Video-recording of the Live Debate; Pro posts "no round as agreed"Live Debate Structure6min - Aff Constructive (AC)3 - Neg CX (1CX)7 - Neg Constructive and First Rebuttal (NC/1NR)3 - Aff CX (2CX)4 - Aff First Rebuttal (1AR)6 - Neg Second Rebuttal (2NR)3 - Aff Second Rebuttal (2AR)w/ 5 minutes of prep time each to use at their discretionRules1. No "kritiks" or "theory"2. Debaters must go at a reasonable speed and slower than in the debate I did with Zaradi (the interpretation of this rule is at an individual judges' discretion)3. A value and a criterion must be offered or agreed upon--no non-V/C standards are allowed4. No flex prep5. Debaters must have, upon their opponent's request, citations for their sources which contain roughly all that a regular MLA citation might. Citations can be exchanged in=between speeches (with no loss of prep), over DDO PMs, in the comments sections of this debate, or read out loud into the video.6. Debaters must post transcripts of their constructive cases (though not rebuttals) into this debate for the voters' convenience; relevant citations should be included in the body of the round in which the case is posted.7. Violation or non-acceptance of any of the above rules, structure, or terms merits an auto-loss.Thanks......to Fizzy for this debate! LD is awesome--woot!