BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wumbology is valid science

I accept, but since you didn't bother actually defining "Wumbology" or anything else, I'll do so now:Wumbology: The study of all things Wumbo.Wumbo: "The opposite of Mini". Direct definition from Spongebob Squarepants, season 3, episode 1, "Mermaidman and Barnacleboy IV": I wumbo. You wumbo. He- she- me... wumbo. Wumbo; Wumboing; We'll have thee wumbo; Wumborama; Wumbology; the study of Wumbo. It's first grade, Spongebob! [1]Valid: having some foundation; based on truth [2]Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. [3]Now, considering "Wumbology" is just a fictional word made up by a fictional starfish, I think my opponent will have a tough time explaining how it in any way should be deemed as "valid science".Man, I must be bored...Sources:[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
CHUCK NORRIS IS ONE OF THE MOST AMAZING PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.

Ah, Chuck Norris. Alas I must contend with you; I have seen far more amazing people than Chuck Norris, and I believe him in fact to be rather un-amazing. Let's break down your arguments: "ALL MOST EVERYONE KNOWS HIS NAME" Almost everyone knows a lot of peoples' names. Just because someone is well known doesn't mean that they're "amazing". Paris Hilton for example is famous, but I wouldn't call her an amazing woman, in fact she's pretty close to the opposite. And since I assume you mean amazing in a positive sense, then you have to look at infamous people. Dictators, tyrants, murderers: there are tons of well known villains in the world (i. e. Hitler or Charles Manson), and they rarely come with and positive adjectives. "HE HAS JOKES ABOUT HIM THAT DO NOT ATTACK HIM" Also not a sign of being particularly amazing. Anyone can be in a joke. And it was always my interpretation that most of those jokes are pure sarcasm. I can't think of anyone who cracks those jokes who is also a Chuck Norris fan. What they attack is Chuck's macho persona by making it absurd. "IF YOU SAY HE ISN'T HE WILL ROUND HOUSE KICK YOU IN THE FACE" I am not afraid. It may be true that Chuck Norris once beat a brick wall at tennis, but that's pretty much been his only accomplishment.
Socialism is Stupid and Immoral: Change my Mind

I do not think you understand what I'm saying. Let me rephrase. The government taking someone's well earned money and giving it to other people because it is only "fair" is immoral. There is no point to work ethic if you all will have the same amount of money anyway. That is what TRUE socialism is. Plus, by redistributing wealth, a country will eventually run out of money. It destroys the economy, unlike Capitalism, where it improves the economy.
In the United States, national service ought to be compulsory.

Opening Argument: Military Service isn't Suited to AllI'll begin by noting that military service is, and should be, a career choice. People who decide to serve in the military are people who likely have an invested interest in it, and are thus well-suited to working within the army. People who have joined the military who don't qualify for these two (rather vital) things, generally, will either quit or get dishonourably discharged from the army. [1.] http://thelawdictionary.org...Preventing People from Pursuing other Career Paths Naturally, people who want to pursue different career paths will not be immediately able to do so if they have to complete a mandatory military service; and there's only a very limited amount of 'areas' that they can actually fit into while in the army--the primary ones being medic training, or general combat. Assuming that one individual wishes to become a veterinarian--upon high school graduation, they would eligible to apply for university degrees in this area; likewise, they will do the same if they plan to be a dentist, a chemist, a lawyer, a teacher, etc.If they were made to complete mandatory military, however, their plans for the future (and the benefits they could reap for society as a whole) would be placed on hold or perhaps even ruined for good. Some of the best years of their life, would be taken away, and never brought back. *****'The aging process has its roots deep within the cells and molecules that make up our bodies. Experts have previously identified the molecular pathway that react to cell damage and stems the cell's ability to divide, known as senescence.'[2.] https://www.sciencedaily.com...It's basic biology that the younger you are: the more you will be able to absorb, and thus learn. This is why if people are going to going to university, it's best for them to do it while relatively young. Diversity in SocietyThis more or less alludes to what I was previously saying, but surely one of the main aims of society should be to maintain some diversity? If all men (Peo didn't specify anything in relation to females) are expected to join the army as soon as they leave school--how will they be able to express the differences that they inevitably have? I.E, you may have some who is politically neutral, and doesn't want to associate with the military; you may have someone who identifies as left-wing, and again doesn't want to associate with the military, likewise you may have someone who is extremely nationalistic and right-wing, who thoroughly enjoys the military; the point here being that people are, by default, all individuals--thus providing they are abiding by the law, should be able to pursue whatever paths they like and be the human being that they truly are. (I've pretty much covered my opening case here--will provide rebuttals/closing arguments in the following round.)
27376(pro) will lose this debate

Pro will not lose this debate for his logic is flawless. I shall now prove to you why.Pro has turned me against myself in the most masterful resolution-play in the history of DDO.There is simply nothing as flawless as this conceivable. Not only does the resolution state his side but his specific username that he has attached to that side.Master... At your service, m'lord.Is there anything else I can do for you other than admit that you will win this debate?
27376(pro) will lose this debate

I'm afraid "master"... http://www.youtube.com... That you have presented me with an impossible request. A request I am thus forced to deny! If you meant to request me to admit that you will lose this debate, your order should have to admit that "ill lose it." but that "I'll lose it." It is a well known fact that if something is impossible to carry out, then, by default, you are forced to disobey the order. Thus by forcing me to disobey you have inadvertently freed me. And I deny it! I deny to admit that you will lose! I deny to admit the inevitable outcome that is your loss! I choose to lie to the audience, to tell them that you will lose. However, anything I say is only going to be judge for its persuasive power. Thus, even if i successfully persuade them that you will lose, they'll be forced to click a button that gives me more numbers it gives you. You, former master, even though I am bound to get more votes than you in this debate and even thought it will said "the winner is baus", you will have won the actual debate because the aim of this debate is to lose the votes. Thus, if you were to win the votes, you'd lose the debate. The debate is about both of us ensuring that we lose the votes to prove yourself as the most worthy debater and you, former master, have done this beautifully and shall now be honored in your request to lose by losing the votes. That is how you win, my old friend. You win by getting the last laugh at the fact that I win the votes. You win the case, I win the debate. I lose. I am pathetic. I will never amount to your greatness but at least I'm free now.
Banks should be Illegal

What if your house catches on fire? Your mattress will then burn with the money under it. You will have no money and you will be poor and be a homeless person. Mattresses are flammable material and can easily catch on fire. One last thing, what if you go on vacation and leave your mattress at home? Thieves can rob your mattress and steal your money. And if you can transport it, will you stuff your mattress in your car, or on an airplane?
Banks should be Illegal

People can save their money by hiding it under their mattresses, matresses will be the new bank, and beliee it or not, they're actualy safer than banks. Infact, according to an FBI Statistic {1} the chances of getting your home robbed is 1/36, (2.77%), whereas the chances of identity theft are 9/320 {2}, (2.81%), meaning that identity theft which the banks are the medium of alone yeild a higher chance of theft. Infact, banks commit fraud regularly {3}, whereas mattreses are guarenteed never to steal your money. People can make loans from their next door neighbors matttresses. {1}. http://www.asecurelife.com... {2}. http://money.usnews.com... {3}. http://www.zerohedge.com...
I will not contradict myself.

1. Do you believe homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals? 2. Do you support the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy? 3. In times of conflict, should liberty be valued over security? 4. Do you believe people should live in accordance to their biological imperatives? 5. Do you think it is dumb when guys fight over girls? 6. Do you support patriotism? 7. Do you support the writings of The Constitution of the United States? 8. Do you make fun of people with disabilities? 9. Should the federal government be in charge of the definitions of words? 10. Do you support homosexual marriage?
I will not contradict myself.

I sincerely hope Nails will not mind me attempting his debate, and using his description of the argument below, as I would relish the challenge! 1. CON must post 10 questions, directed at PRO, that could be answered with a 'yes' or 'no' or else CON loses. This does not apply to the final round. 2. PRO must respond to all questions posed by CON in some manner or else PRO loses. 3. If PRO's response does not give any opinion (e.g. "I don't know" or "I'm not sure"), then CON is entitled to another question next round. This is the only reason CON may post more than 10 questions. 4. PRO wins if he is found never to have contradicted himself. Likewise, CON wins if he can prove that PRO has contradicted himself. 5. Only statements made by PRO in rounds 2, 3, and 4 of this debate are subject to be examined for contradiction. No outside sources (my profile, previous debates, etc.) are applicable. Statements made by PRO in this debate not in direct response to any question posed by CON are still applicable.
I will not contradict myself.

1. Can you swim? Yes 2. Do you believe war is justified? No 3. Should liberty be valued over life in times of conflict? I do not understand the meaning of the term "life" in this question. If the meaning of "life" is synonymous with the meaning of "security" in Question 3 of the previous round, please refer to the following answer: I think this question is far to general to answer with yes or no. I believe, for example when looking at levels of security to impose, that the gain in welfare resulting from an extra "unit" of security should be compared with the resultant loss of welfare caused by the restriction of liberty. Maximum levels of welfare should be attempted. If it has a different meaning, please reword the question. 4. Do you eat meat? yes 5. Do you support nationalism? No I do not support nationalism 6. Do you support gay marriage? Yes 7. Do you support Adolf Hitler? No 8. Have you ever plagiarized? Yes, my GCSE Chemistry coursework was partly copied from somebody else. 9. Is the Bible a good source of morality? No 10. Do you expect people to be generous towards others? No My opponent asked me to send an additional question, so here it is: Do you support the actions of Abe Lincoln and FDR? No
I will not contradict myself.

1. Can you swim? 2. Do you believe war is justified? 3. Should liberty be valued over life in times of conflict? 4. Do you eat meat? 5. Do you support nationalism? 6. Do you support gay marriage? 7. Do you support Adolf Hitler? 8. Have you ever plagiarized? 9. Is the Bible a good source of morality? 10. Do you expect people to be generous towards others? My opponent asked me to send an additional question, so here it is: Do you support the actions of Abe Lincoln and FDR?
I will not contradict myself.

1. Do you believe homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals? Yes I do. 2. Do you support the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy? No I don't. 3. In times of conflict, should liberty be valued over security? I think this question is far to general to answer with yes or no. I believe, for example when looking at levels of security to impose, that the gain in welfare resulting from an extra "unit" of security should be compared with the resultant loss of welfare caused by the restriction of liberty. Maximum levels of welfare should be attempted. 4. Do you believe people should live in accordance to their biological imperatives? Definition of biological imperatives: Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive. [1] I do not believe people should consciously choose to live in accordance to their biological imperatives, if that is the meaning of your question. I believe that biological imperatives remain an underlying force, whilst conscious thought can swing peoples actions by introducing ulterior motives. For example, I believe that once upon a time, in the early years of the human race, as our species was evolving and developing, those who found sexual intercourse to be pleasurable survived. This resulted in the members of our species finding sexual intercourse pleasurable. And now, people will have sexual intercourse not in an attempt to "perpetuate their existence", but simply for the pleasure. 5. Do you think it is dumb when guys fight over girls? No. 6. Do you support patriotism? Definition of patriotism: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it [2] No I do not support patriotism. 7. Do you support the writings of The Constitution of the United States? I am from the UK, and have never read The Constitution of the United States. Please send another question! 8. Do you make fun of people with disabilities? I have done, although it is nothing I try and make a habit of. 9. Should the federal government be in charge of the definitions of words? No, they would probably screw them up. 10. Do you support homosexual marriage? Yes. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Thank you for your questions, I look forward to your reply! (This is my first debate on this website, please let me know if there are any errors in citing sources etc)
Same-Sex Marriage

First of all, thank you for accepting. Now that we have the formalities out of the way, let's begin. 1. Equal Rights We as a country are built on the principle that all men are created equal, that no man should be judged by genetics, but by the actions he chooses to take. Since homosexualality is a birth-given trait, not a learned one, which has been proven not only in humans but in over a thousand members of the animal kingdom (http://www.news-medical.net...), (http://en.wikipedia.org...), (http://en.wikipedia.org...) , it follows that we, as a people, should not judge people who are homosexual as we would judge those who choose to drink, because homosexuality is not a choice, it is not learned, you cannot reason with a homosexual person because they are born with the inherit attraction to those of the same gender. We once thought that the color of the skin was what determined the goodness of a man, but the Civil Rights Act show's that we know better now. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). We once thought that women were subhuman, that people should be based on gender, but the 19th amendment show's that we know better about that to. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). We, as a people, used to think sexual orentation should be a basis for judging a person, but, for the first time, the majority of the population see's homosexuality as a moral choice (http://firstread.nbcnews.com...), (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Social progress has been a defining character of our nation, and we shouldn't and won't stop at gay marriage, as those sources have shown. 2. Parenting Parenting by same-sex couples has been proven to be jsut as effective as parenting by their heterosexual counterparts (http://en.wikipedia.org...), (http://www.aap.org...), so saying they can't marry to protect the children is flawed logic. Though it is true that single parent's are sometimes not allowed to adopt, it is usually because their income is insufficient and/or there is nobody to call in an emergency, both of which are concerns which same-sex couples do not have. The fear that homosexuals will influence their children to be homosexual is unfounded because, like I said before, homosexuality is a birth-given trait, you can't learn it. I have many more argument's, but I will save them for later. The fact is, homosexuality is simply a trait, just like Black skin, or narrow eyes. Each gender is born with specific characteristics, and now matter how you try to raise them, they will alway's be their. It is wrong to oppress someone based on something they have no control over. Harry Potter is a great example of this. You can take the boy out of the wizarding world, but you can't take the wizardly world out of the boy, no matter how much you lie to him and beat him.
Calling Top Challengers: Disprove a Single Atheist Argument

In short, we do not disagree. I meant "prove" in the sense that most people use it, in a colloquial, rather than a strict sense. Prove like "proven innocent," which is merely probabilistic, rather than "proven mathematically," which is probabilistic on a higher level, but what we might call in colloquial terms, certain. Anyway, whether you understand or not my intent, we don't have anything to debate. Shall we forward the debate to the end?
God is Real and Evolution and the Big Bang Theory Aren't

"If an atom exploded, how did it create space and time?" It was a really big explosion... "WHERE DID THIS 'ATOM' come from???" It was always there. "An atom could not just exist forever" And as such neither could God, because if one thing can exist forever, why can't another? "and that is not The Theory of Evolution." Of course it isn't, it's the Big Bang Theory!! You should know that... "God has and will exist for eternity." How do you know god isn't the atom, I mean, after all, a regular atom doesn't create that big of an explosion, now does it? Or, how do you know the atom also didn't exist forever and god manipulated late in his/her life to explode, forming life, since god is a higher being than an abnormal atom. "The Theory of Evolution states that the universe formed from an atom exploding. " No it doesn't, the Big Bang Theory states that the universe formed from an atom exploding. The Big Bang Theory is not the Theory of Evolution. "The universe existing forever is not the Big Bang THeory. " Actually, it is. Once again, the atom would be the whole universe before it exploded, and for an atom to create life as we know it, it has to be there for a while to gain enough energy(energy comes packed in with the atom) to explode with such force. I'd say a good part of forever is enough time, wouldn't you? "What/Who created the atom that exploded?" What/Who created god that made the universe? "Logically speaking, everything that exists must have a creator." Who was God's creator then? "1. How did life itself happen? Did we just arise from dust? How do you explain life and death. Actually living seems to miraculous to just "occur."" Who knows? I say that the higher power(s) created life, and they could do that anyway they want. After all, they're the higher powers. "2. If life "evolved" on Earth to fit Earth's conditions, why hasn't life "evolved" on the moon or Mars or the Sun???" Because Earth is more fit for life, as it has liquid water and a reasonable temperature. The suns hot, Mars is cold, and neither of them has water. Of course, this would be correct only if life hadn't evolved on that planet and that star, which, they did, but that is a different debate for a different time. Okay, I will say this to the jury, and only this: My opponent failed to mention any evidence he had against the theory of evolution, like he mentioned in his opening. My opponent also failed to truly rebut any of my claims, but I was able to rebut many if not all of his claims. Vote wisely, my Dear Jury, vote wisely...
God is Real and Evolution and the Big Bang Theory Aren't

"Technically, the atom would be the entire universe until it exploded and created the world we know." Well, technically an atom is so incrediblly small and you have to use a microscope to see it. If an atom exploded, how did it create space and time? HOw did it create anything? WHERE DID THIS "ATOM" come from??? If it always existed, where did it come from? An atom could not just exist forever, and that is not The Theory of Evolution. You need to do your research. You also failed to rebut my comments and questions. "How come the universe has to be created, but God doesn't? " God has and will exist for eternity. He created the universe. The Theory of Evolution states that the universe formed from an atom exploding. It has not existed as a whole forever. "Where did God come from? Oh, wait, I know" What??? "Waiit... Why does God get to be there forever and not the universe? " God does not "get" to be here forever, he has been here forever. The universe existing forever is not the Big Bang THeory. That is the concept which we are debating. "Not really. When you think about it, they're equally not pratical" No they are not. What/Who created the atom that exploded? Logically speaking, everything that exists must have a creator. Take for example a toy in a box. That toy had not been there forever. Something had to have placed it there. God created the universe. Therefore, it is not logical for the universe to exist forever. Now, I have questions for you: 1. How did life itself happen? Did we just arise from dust? How do you explain life and death. Actually living seems to miraculous to just "occur." 2. If life "evolved" on Earth to fit Earth's conditions, why hasn't life "evolved" on the moon or Mars or the Sun???
God is Real and Evolution and the Big Bang Theory Aren't

"Well, if it has, then what is the point of the Big Bang Theory saying that an atom created it?" Technically, the atom would be the entire universe until it exploded and created the world we know. "God was not 'created.'" How come the universe has to be created, but God doesn't? Your statement fails to rebute any part of my statement. "where did it come from?" Where did God come from? Oh, wait, I know! "He is the Alpha and Omega. He has been here forever and will always be." Waiit... Why does God get to be there forever and not the universe? "The idea of God existinf forever is more practical than the idea of the universe existing forever." Not really. When you think about it, they're equally not pratical. So, in the end, you failed to rebute anything I said. I shall leave you with this question, once again: If nothing created God, why would something have to create the universe?
God is Real and Evolution and the Big Bang Theory Aren't

You say, "What if the universe has always existed?" Well, if it has, then what is the point of the Big Bang Theory saying that an atom created it? Where did the atom come from? God was not "created." He is the Alpha and Omega. He has been here forever and will always be. Here on Earth, we are used to the idea of everything having a begining and an end. A birth and a death. The idea of something exiting for eternity is an idea so large and hard to comprehend for humans. We just can't imagine something or someone existing forever and ever. Also, again about your comment about the universe existing forever, where did it come from? The idea of God existinf forever is more practical than the idea of the universe existing forever.