BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
METADEBATE!: Noam Chomsky vs. J.Kenyon

It is not meant to be offensive to either Noam Chomsky or J. Kenyon, both of whom I consider very intelligent and articulate people. J. Kenyon's repetition of Chomsky's quote about not understanding economics inspired me to do this debate. Resolved: If Noam Chomsky were to join DDO and face J. Kenyon in a debate about a topic in economics, Noam Chomsky would win the debate. Definitions and Assumptions: 1. Noam Chomsky is an emeritus professor of linguistics from MIT and famous political critic. J. Kenyon is Jeff Kenyon, a neuroscience and philosophy student at Kalamazoo College and member of DDO. This should exhaust any possible confusion as to who I am referring to. 2. Assume the debate follows the normal parameters (3 rounds, 8000 characters) and both participants have enough time to devote a full effort to it. 3. No one on the site knows that Noam Chomsky actually is Noam Chomsky, so this does not effect anything. People will not vote for or against him because he is famous; Kenyon will not try harder or be intimidated as a result of his opponent's reputation. 4. Assume Noam Chomsky understands the general method of debate on debate. org If my opponent has any other assumptions that he/she feels are necessary or wishes than one of my assumes be removed, please specify in the next round. I am fine with removing anything except #1, which is obviously essential. The debate will technically start in round 2 and will be 3 rounds long. Because I think he is a cool guy, I will not try to attack J. Kenyon except in rebuttal to my opponent; I will focus my constructive on building the case for Chomsky. Regardless, it may be better that J. Kenyon not take this debate (unless you really want to) because the difference between my actual case and an ad hominem attack could become dreadfully confusing. Next up after this debate: Noam Chomsky vs. J. Kenyon - Hand to Hand Combat! I will be switching sides of course. ..
Christians know of God's truths, while Jews, and muslims are still in the dark

Christians have accepted God in the flesh as Jesus the Christ, who came to save the world from sin. Jews refuse to accept Jesus for who He is because they fear the truth, because that would mean that they killed the messiah. Muslims have a distorted view of who Jesus is, because they are following a false prophet. Christians definitely have separated into different "religions" because they interpret scriptures differently, but for the most part, they believe all the same facts. Jews have their own covenant with God, so I believe they will be saved regardless of their views about Jesus. Muslims will not be saved because they think believing that Jesus is real is enough, but since they don't believe the truth about who He is, it doesn't count. All three of these "religions" believe they are descendants of Abraham, and that is true, but the islamic religion has "stolen" many other truths from the Holy Bible and changed them into false stories. Christians and Jews are descendants of Issac through Abraham, which is the bloodline of Jesus. Muslims are descendants of Ishmael through Abraham which is the bloodline of Muhammed (supposedly). But God would not put Ishmael's bloodline over Issac's. He would not put Hagar's bloodline over Sarah's. But since Muslims are not allowed to read the Holy Bible, they can't figure that out for themselves. They are too deep into their culture, which consists mostly of their religious beliefs. The only good thing I can say about Muslims, is that I wish our culture was mostly our religious beliefs. Christians have allowed modern ideas, and government, and media to separate them from God. But, there are still enough of us Christians to hold strong in the light, and continue to try to pull others from the dark.
remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S.

Religious institutions are not created to be Tex-Exempt, ergo taxation is needed to stimulate the economy as well as to ensure no fraud is being perpetrated from these institutions. "With the smallest Catholic Churches in America seeing money in the range of $350,500.00/month cross their nose, fraud and scams run rampant. Thus taxation is the one sure fire way to keep them honest. This won't be used to target strictly Catholics. Muslim mosques, Jewish sinnogaues(Spelling error, my bad), and other types of religious establishments will be taxed as is seen fit by the IRS. " said Iowa Senator Jenna Hurst(L) at a 2013 conference. This will be the backbone of my argument and following contentions. I anxiously await your response and any questions you may have.
Kalam Cosmological Argument

Hmm... Okay, here's how round 3 will go: Con will attempt to defend her objection in Round 3. If the voters think this is sufficient enough to debunk the Kalam Argument, you can vote her, but give a clear reason why her objection was valid. If she forfeits, the win goes to me. If her defense isn't sufficient, say why in your vote. With that, let's see what happens!
Kalam Cosmological Argument

I thank Con for entering this debate. I look forward to defending the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Rebuttal: "if the universe is understood to include all physical things, then it seems obvious that it as a whole cannot have a physical cause." God isn't physical, first of all (I believe). 2nd, How would you propose the whole universe has always existed, and where is the infinite energy coming from? "Even if every physical thing has a cause, it doesn't follow that the entirety of physical things has a cause." Such as? We can clearly see that anything could not pop up from nothing. If bicycles, pianos, Tom Hanks, and Charizards were able to pop up, why don't they? There's sufficient evidence proving the Universe began to exist, especially the fact that we're running out of usable energy. If the Universe always existed, we'd be out of usable energy by now, like I said in round 1. If Con can explain how the Universe always existed, or that it just popped out of nothing, please do. "we need to separate between our local universe, for which there is some evidence of the 'big bang' occurring over 13.7 billion years ago" There is proof. "and the global universe, otherwise known as all physical things." Which couldn't have always existed. "there's no contradiction that the global universe is infinite in the past even if the local universe is not." Can you back this up? As far as I'm concerned, what proof is there to doubt the "Global Universe" is finite? The Universe that humanity explored may not be the entirety of the Global Universe, but why assume it is infinite? The Local Universe has been proven to have began to exist via energy shortage. If the Global Universe always existed, wouldn't there also be an energy problem? I await my opponent's response.
Kalam Cosmological Argument

Well, a more precise version of the Kalam Cosmological Thesis is whatever begins to exist, has a physical cause. However, if the universe is understood to include all physical things, then it seems obvious that it as a whole cannot have a physical cause. As applying it to the entire universe seems all but doubtful in my eyes as I have excellent reason why that is. I. It illustrates how problematic it may be to extend any principle from a part to a whole. This is a mistake sufficiently well known as the fallacy of composition. i. Even if every physical thing has a cause, it doesn't follow that the entirety of physical things has a cause. II. To make things more simple, we need to separate between our local universe, for which there is some evidence of the 'big bang' occurring over 13.7 billion years ago, and the global universe, otherwise known as all physical things. ii. Even if our local universe did actually begin in the big bang, it's entirely possible to have a physical cause. However, there's no contradiction that the global universe is infinite in the past even if the local universe is not.
Kalam Cosmological Argument

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, it can't come from nothing, and no object can create itself, since it would be coming from nothing then. The Universe began to exist, since if it didn't begin to exist, we'd be out of usable energy 100 years ago. Therefore, the Universe has a cause; a timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, uncaused, beginingless, extremely powerful, personal being: God. Enter this debate if you object to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
1 Round debates should not be an option on debate.org

I welcome Metallicasucks to debate.org. Allow me to show you why you're better off not creating 1 round debates.1: Lack of DebateIn a 1 round debate, the Instigator (the one who created the debate) posts 1 round, and the Contender (the one who accepts the debate) posts for Round 1, and the debate's over after Round 1. There's not much going on, not much debate. The Instigator, unable to respond to the Contender's argument, can't refute their opponent's argument, only relying on their own argument. Because the Instigator can't defend their arguments from the Contender's rebuttal, the majority of the time, the Contender wins the 1 Round debates. My point is, there's no reason to make 1 round debates because you're probably not going to win.2: No experience to gainWith the lack of debate going on, you aren't going to get any better if you make 1 round debates. In order to improve in debating, you need to clash with your opponent. By "clash" I mean the process of refuting your opponent's arguments while defending your own arguments. An experienced debater can easily detect flaws arguments, since they've either improved in percieving flaws, or they already encountered an argument with a similar flaw.In conclusion, we shouldn't have 1 round debates because there isn't any real debating going on, and lack of debate means neither side learns how to debate better. What do you say?
1 Round debates should not be an option on debate.org

I never really enjoyed 1 Round debates, since there's not really any point to having them. So I've decided to make this debate so maybe I could understand the benefits of 1 Round debates.Definitions:1 Round debate; A debate on debate.org that only lasts 1 round. Once the Contender posts the Round 1 argument, the debate goes into voting.Rules:1) Running out of time is not an option. If you can't come up with a rebuttal or arguments, just pass the round and promise to come back the next round.2) No trolling, semantics, etc.3) Round 1 is acceptance only. No arguments will be posted in Round 1.I'm looking forward to a challenge.
Global warming is occurring and it is the fault of humans.

I see that this is your first debate so I welcome you. You say I have the easy side in which case I hope you enjoy a challenge. My basic arguments are as follows One thing that proponents of man made global warming rarely mention is the medieval warm period which was warmer than it has been in recent years and they would have had far less means of creating Global warming. This was succeeded by the Little Ice age which is the starting points of many of the graphs. [1] It was found that they had lied and deliberately skewed the data so that it looked that the temperature change was worse than it actually was. [2] In fact in recent years it has actually been cooling, but this is also part of a natural trend. [3] Therefore, heating and cooling of the earth is a natural process that humans have very little effect on. I await my opponent’s response 1 . http://jasonjeffrey.wordpress.com... 2 . http://www.c3headlines.com... 3 . http://people.tribe.net...
Football is a "better" sport than Basketball

My opponent has disregarded and dropped all of my refutations except for one and has ignored my contentions, therefore, those are counted as concessions all of those are extended. My opponent says that football "demands running, jumping, kicking, and throwing the ball." Next, my opponent goes on to show that football has physical benefits, giving details that show that muscles are improved, and speed, acceleration, agility, endurance, flexibility, and mobility are promoted. I maintain that as basketball also promotes speed, endurance, and mobility. Notice that here, my opponent gives no reason as to why football is "better" than basketball, he only gives reasons as to why football is unique. Therefore, since all sports are unique, this argument cannot be counted as an argument as to why football is better than basketball. The two arguments that my opponent returns to is that football burns more calories, and football is more entertaining. Regarding entertainment value, my opponent mentions the number of people that watch important sports events. However, research shows that at least 54%[3] of people only watch the super bowl for the commercials, not the sport itself. Since my opponent has conceded to all of his original points and most of my refuations, has not satisfied his burden of proof to show why football is better than basketball, and as his only argument is that football burns more calories, I urge you to vote Con. [1] http://www.youth-basketball-tips.com... [2] http://www.sportsknowhow.com... [3] http://www.mlive.com...
Football is a "better" sport than Basketball

Due to the very tight character limit I will only focus on AthleticsIn the 1st round I only focused on Entertainment now I will continue to focus of Fitness. Both important factor of a sport.Sport [1]1.An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment 2. Entertainment; fun3.A source of amusement or entertainment [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...Fitness/Physical Football provides superior workouts and fitness levels. Football allows a person to use a wider variety of different muscle group. Football demands running, jumping, kicking and throwing the ball."...basketball allows a person to use a variety of different muscle groups when playing the sport. For example, basketball includes, running, jumping, and arm exercise from dribbling constantly" 1.Lower Body Running at relatively high speeds while wearing heavy equipment ( Often longer distances than Basketball up to 100 yds. ), "explosive" jumping, and field kicks plus punts. Here, you work your quadriceps, lower leg,hamstrings, and calve muscles.2.Upper body: Important upper body muscles you use during catching and throwing are pectorals (chest) and triceps. If you play a skilled position (running back, wide receiver, defensive back, or tight end) the you may also work on (abs) and traps (shoulder area near the neck). Football promotes: Maximum speed, acceleration and agility Muscular endurance Flexibility and mobility(On average football burns about 100 more calories than basketball)One last thing... Football is more entertaining and more acclaimed than basketball. This is the second reason why American Football is better. Over 106 Million people watched Super bowl 2010 ! But only 28 M. watched the NBA finals both the most important events in each sport. I think this shows the love and admiration directed towards football.Both sports are great games, but I think Football just has superior qualities.
Football is a "better" sport than Basketball

My opponent first touches on the physical fitness aspect of football, and stating that more calories are burned by playing a football game as opposed to a basketball game. While this may be true, basketball allows a person to use a variety of different muscle groups when playing the sport. For example, basketball includes, running, jumping, and arm exercise from dribbling constantly.Next, my opponent touches on the uniqueness of football by stating that "it is amazing to watch the acrobatic and quick moves those guys can do while wearing around 20 pounds of padding". This argument has two flaws. The first is that it is entirely opinion-based, and not everyone will share the same opinion. The second is that my opponent is listing things that are unique to football with no concrete reason as to why they make football better. Every sport, including football and basketball, has its unique points that make it enjoyable- but these unique points cannot be used on their own as a reason to be "better" than another sport.Regarding teamwork, my opponent mentions the limitless number of things that can happen. However, in football, there are common "plays" that are used very often in games[1]. On the other hand, in basketball, the game isn't divided into definite "plays", and anything can happen at any moment.My opponent talks about the availability of football and basketball playing areas, and states that one can play football anywhere there is a field, but in basketball, one needs a court. While this may be true, playing basketball on a court gives the game a greater realism because it's look and feel is nearly identical to what professional basketball players play their game on- a court with lines and hoops at either end. Alternatively, playing in an open area using a shoe as a touchdown area removes that sense of realism.I would elaborate, but I cannot, due to character limit. I look forward to the next round.[1] http://www.mademan.com...;
Football is a "better" sport than Basketball

Sorry for writting this at the elleventh hour but, it has been a pretty hectic week for me. I will like to add some arguments and I will like to state that I will be responding to your responce regarding 1 &2 from the previous argument due to character limitFitness Football demands more physical interaction and workout, thus it promotes better health and fitness among individuals. Below there are some pretty acurate estimates about the calories burned while in competetive/noncompetetive basketball and football. Calories Burned per Hour 130 lb 155 lb 180 lb 205 lb Basketball game, 472 563 654 745 Football game, 531 663 735 848 Playing It's the only place where hitting is not only tolerated but encouraged as a need. When playing it is exellent for stress relief and getting out anger. Football also has other great merits. It is amazing to watch the acrobatic and quick moves those guys can do while wearing around 20 pounds of padding. Something you cannot see in basketball.TeamworkFootball is truly a team dynamic. If one guy messes up, the whole play is dead. It takes all 11 guys working together in sync to make a play go. I also see more strategy in football, now I know there are strategies in basketball too, but In football there are a limitless number of formations you can line up in and an equally limitless number of plays to callAvailabilityYou state that people have more access to playing basketball than to playing football but this is not true, there is no need to go to a stadium to have a fun day with your friends. All you need is an open area and a ball.You don't need pre printed lines on the floor to play all you need are some markers like cones or even a shoe which designates where the touchdown area is. These simple elements can easily instigate a competetive and exiting game as oppose to basketball which requires a hoop, in other words a court. [1] http://www.nutristrategy.com...
Football is a "better" sport than Basketball

Before we begin, I'd like to make a clarification, that when we say "football" we are referring to American football. I would first like to look at his arguments: 1. My opponent claims that when he watches football, he is "waiting for the big play", as well as "waiting to see a defense or offensive player get hit". Notice that he is constantly "waiting". Basketball, on the other hand, is extremely fast paced, where things are constantly changing- scores can change drastically in short amounts of time, and something exciting can happen anytime. He also claims that football is more competitive. However, the Olympics has an event for basketball and not American football, showing basketball's greater competitiveness. 2. My opponent talks about the NFL's marketing strategies. However, I would like to point out that this debate is not at all regarding which governing sports organization is better, but which sport as a game is better. As Football's marketing is not directly involved in its gameplay, the argument about the NFL's marketing strategies and commercials are irrelevant to this debate. I would now like to add some contentions of my own to this debate: 1. The one thing that really stands out about basketball is that anything can happen at any moment. As compared to football, it is easier to recover from being behind by many points in basketball due to the nature of the game. A good example of this is the Bulls/Celtics Game 6 [1], in which the final nine minutes of the game consisted of many twists and turns for the came, completely changing the outcome of the game. 2. Basketball courts are more common and more public than football stadiums, which means that more people have access to them and can play them more often, therefore making it a more accessible sport and better. I'm out of characters, so I will now turn the debate to my opponent. [1] . http://espn.go.com...
Football is a "better" sport than Basketball

Well, some of the reasons why: 1. It seems to be more competitive and physical. When I look at football I am not only waiting for the big play, but every now and then I am waiting to see a defensive or offensive player get hit in the mouth or taken down with such force that it causes me to open my mouth in amazement. Anytime you see a tackle or hit, and the crowd collectively screams in excitement, then it was a huge play. Fans want to see players hit hard sometimes (not to the point where it causes physical injury) but it heightens the excitement. With basketball the only exciting moments are dunks, and the occasional buzzer beating shot. Usually the game slows down because there are too many fouls which means seeing free throw shots. 2. Better marketing. During the season and the playoffs, the NFL has prided itself on marketing. I seem to see more commercials during that time geared towards beer, NFL apparel, and NFL players that represent various products in person (i.e. old spice commercials by Ray Lewis). Fans love it because the NFL markets towards what they want. The marketing for the NBA is a bit cheap, and in some cases not very effective. It just seems to me (especially during the super bowl) the NFL markets much better in comparison. Fans want the products the NFL is advertising thus you have more popularity.
Over population is one of the cause for Global Warming .

Then for your kind information Global Warming is the one of the main environmental problem the globe is facing as the ozone layer is depleting because of that . That is incorrect, because Global Warming is the increasing of Earth's temperature due to the thickening of Earth's atmosphere by Green House Gases. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) The Ozone hole is caused by the production of Hydro Carbons, but the Kyoto Protocol put an end to the production of Hydro Carbons. (. http://unfccc.int...) Thus, a world of seven billion people living in mud huts, eating vegan diets grown in their own gardens, and walking instead of driving has the same effect as perhaps three billion people living 1960s American-style lifestyles. Trying to reduce impact becomes a losing game once we see how low we would have to make impact in order to accommodate our sprawling population. Even more, that misses out on the real problem brought on by overpopulation, which is land overuse. I never said that we have to live in mud huts. If you read my first round argument I stated that everyone in the world had the same living space as New York City that the entire world's population could fit into Texas. (. http://www.realclearscience.com...) Which means the world cannot possible be overpopulated if we still have all that unused land. In conclusion, one can see that Pro has not been able to hold up the BOP nor has Pro been able to substantially argue my points. We can obviously see that the world is not over populated and Global Warming does not exist and Pro has dropped some really key Global Warming arguments that I have made.