BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The world is flat.

Happy to see you don't hate me! :)The reason the horizon does not curve is because it is a circle. The horizon is connected to itself. The curve in the horizon is not visible from the perspective of a human unless they are in space. Next, the reasons that airplanes move are: 1: Gravity. If airplanes didn't move, they'd fall back to the Earth and crash and.... well, that's not something we want.2: Speed. Can you imagine how long it would take, considering how slow the Earth spins? Sure, 1000 miles per hour sounds fast, but not when you look at the facts. The Earth is also 7917 miles in diameter. We, in our minds, put this into the idea that if we were spinning at 1000 miles per hour. But wait! You're not 7917 miles in diameter! It's not the same thing.3: Latitude. The Earth doesn't spin erratically. Only in one direction. How would you travel in the other directions without moving?I understand this is a difficult position for you to argue, considering your opinion, so props for trying (and doing) so well. I actually got stuck for a second there!
The world is flat.

Thank You!! That literally made my day! There are very few who would have responded like that, and I thank you very much for it!! The main claim I will take is how Earth would be if it was spinning, and how it would appear if the Earth was spherical. First, if the Earth were round, then the horizon would curve. No matter how high you go, there is not even a slight curve. If you look at a picture from online, horizons are either flat or extremely curved, through a fish-eye lens. If the Earth spun, the theoretically, airplanes could just fly into the air and wait for their destination to reach them. That is my first claim. :) Good luck with the remaining rounds!
The world is flat.

In response, I would like to briefly state that as I look back I realize how rude I was. That is not normally something that I would say. (Maybe I was having a rough day?) I'd just like to sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended why my remarks. (:Now, to the debate!My main argument is gravity, which cannot be disproved. Gravity is a force we witness in everyday life and makes sense that if the world was flat, gravity would pull it into a sphere. Also, being flat, the Earth's gravity would be off. Since the center of gravity would be the north pole, Antarctica's gravity would be sideways. Why? Gravity pulls you back to the north pole (the center of gravity)This should be enough evidence, so I'm done my argument for now.Important: I would like to propose that we now are going to be allowed to post new arguments in round four, because of the little mix-up (sorry again).To summarize, through the evidence I have shown, be it resolved "The world is flat" must fall.
The world is flat.

OK, how's this. You just wasted a chance to prove you point. Is that reading? Anyway, it is important to see both sides of an argument, so I will from here on out be claiming that the earth is flat, even though I do not agree. I will try to be fair, and not post and opening argument here, because then I would have an advantage. Let's do next round is opening, and last is counterclaim and summing up. If you do not mind, please keep the rude comments to the comment section, (as i see you already have put one there.) Hope this "satisfies" you, as it is now your turn.
feminism is meaningless

As we all know feminism is the belief that women should be equal to men and that implies that they are not equal right now. Feminism was a brilliant movement and it succeeded but third wave feminists mainly consist of white females who want to feel discriminated against And not part of the "white male" group. Now I understand that people are discriminated against, the Muslim community, black people, hispanics, and other minority groups. Now let's address this I am a white male. Ok and I am in my eyes progressive I don't identify with republicans nearly at all. But feminism is based on lies. For example, the wage gap is a myth I'm sure anyone with any iq points can understand why if not I don't want to explain the whole thing so please if you are not already aware, stop reading this and research it. This is not it though, plenty of feminists can accept this and there main problem is this rape culture that is associated with white males specifically. Rape is a terrible crime I think we can all agree but many of the facts about it are over exaggerated and misrepresented. Feminists also create this kind of culture that no matter how you look you're beautiful, yet if a male is short they make fun of them, call them ugly, etc. but if a girl is fat and we won't date them because of it then we are "terrible" and if a guy is short, feminists won't date them. Let me remind you that you can control your weight but not your height, so that's a valid feminist concept. Stop telling everyone that they're beautiful, they're not. Okay some people are ugly, welcome to genetics. I don't want to hear that it's easier to be a male then a female in society (obviously I don't mean overall because I understand you have issues guys don't have to deal with) it's an invalid argument. Any feminists looking at this, please debate me
God's supposed murders are often actually deserved executions

I will be arguing that the God of the Bible isn't a murderer as some people say, but sometimes acts as an executioner. God= the God of the jews in the Bible Murderer= someone who kills someone outside of protecting someone, war, or someone who deserves to die (Hitler, Mussolini, Bin Laden, McVeigh, etc.) Executioner= Someone who kills someone who commited a crime deserving the death penalty, such as murder. Please vote. I want to improve my debating ability, and I can't do that if you don't tell me what I did wrong. Round 1= Acceptance. Round 2= Arguments Round 3= Rebuttals Round 4= Closing arguments.
God's supposed murders are often actually deserved executions

To the jury:I believe I have given the adequate scriptural evidence and responses to Pro, to prove God is guilty of multiple cases of murder.If God is the source of morality than either humanity has it all ethics wrong and we should take our "little ones and dashes them against the rock!", or the god of the bible is just a huge jerk. (and well probably doesn't exist anyhow, THANK GOD!!!) I would have been interested in what Pro's rebuttals would have been and thank him for the debate! It was a fun and interesting topic and I hope voters feel the same!~I rest my case!
God's supposed murders are often actually deserved executions

As much as I wish I could refute your arguments, it's time for closing statements. I don't think God is guilty of murder because my conscience tells me murder is wrong and God made my conscience. The sixth commandment does not say you shall not KILL, but it says you shall not MURDER. There's a difference. The Two Witnesses in Revelation kill many people and yet never murder anyone. One last source. http://www.khouse.org...
God's supposed murders are often actually deserved executions

That's ok. The only reason I added please add 10 was so I didn't have to run out of characters. There is a very fascinating story about why Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt. As for the animals, there were many animals that died in the Flood. However, they probably committed the violence men were committing as well. Nadab and Abihu committed a more grievous sin than the surface implies. They actually tried to enter the Holy of Holies, an act punishable by death. They knew better. Now, as for the two captains and their 100 men, they acted like God was powerless to protect Elisha. As for Onan, he insulted his family greatly by only caring about whether they would be his. This was a terrible deed back then. Now the Israelites were complainers. God punished them to teach us to be thankful. As for Uzzah, I'm not denying he had good intentions. However, God was very specific about how to transport this ark. David knew and followed God's law, so he should have known that God commanded a small fee from older people who served in the military for the pay of the priests. However, he didn't make the people pay, and God warned a plague would come if they didn't do this. As for Jeroboam's son, God gave his son an illness so Jeroboam I (there was a second Jeroboam) would ask a prophet if his son would recover. God gave him news that, because he caused Israel to be apostates, his entire family would be destroyed. As for these youths, baldness was considered a curse. Even though Elisha was a prophet, given the rights of a firstborn from the famous Elijah, these youths thought, "This guy's bald, so he's cursed." Baldness was a bigger deal in Israel than today, but these youths were old enough to know better. David's son is a pretty tragic story. I agree it doesn't sound fair. However, God knew that pagans would consider him powerless if he didn't punish David. As for Israelites, they might think they could commit adultery or murder unpunished if the king did. Now the lions were sent among the pagans because God wanted them to come to repentance. That's why they asked for a priest, so they could know what Yahweh commanded of them. It's sad about the first-borns, but this web site shows God killed fewer people than Pharaoh (who considered himself descended from the Egyptian god Ra), and only to pierce Pharaoh's heart. http://christianthinktank.com... http://www.rationalchristianity.net... http://lavistachurchofchrist.org... http://www.oocities.org... http://www.jesusisthelight.net... http://carm.org... http://guzik.biblecommenter.com... http://ebible.org... http://www.chabad.org... http://www.rationalchristianity.net... http://www.blueletterbible.org... http://www.gotquestions.org... http://www.zianet.com...
God's supposed murders are often actually deserved executions

Hello, Giraffe lover. I find God slaughter many people with little to no justification.The Flood of Noah:In the flood it may seem like god is punishing man for their crimes.But what was the flood? The entire planet was flooded covering every mountain, no?God didn't just kill "bad people" he killed all aquatic life and all terrestrial life that wasn't on the ark. What did the millions of innocent animals living in the ocean and on land do to deserve to have their homes destroyed and lose their lives? God could have easily avoided that seeing he is all powerful.And no, they could of not have survived, a phenomenal shift in water mass would have changed the salinity, pressure, temperature, etc of the water killing all the aquatic life, because obviously life is adapted to different environments.They may not be human, but that doesn't mean this isn't senseless slaughter.Genesis 19:26-Lot's wife dies for the crime of looking back at God's fiery wrath, god punishes her by making her a pillar of salt. Genesis 38:9-10Onan is killed by God for "spilling his seed"... Exactly why does not impregnating your dead brothers wife merit execution? It doesn't, that is murder.Exodus 12:29 Egypt's first born were killed by god. What was the "crime"? Simply being firstborn when God decided to show his wrath.Leviticus 10:1-3Nadab and Abihu are burnt to death by God for offering "strange fire" before him... What? God must really not like offerings he finds "strange"...Numbers 11:31-35Some Israelites where hungry and decided to eat some quails, so God smites them with a deadly plague... God really likes quails huh?Numbers 21:4-9God smites Israelites with a plague for complaining about bread...2 Samuel 6:6-7God smites Uzzah for putting forth his hand to the ark, and taking hold of it to prevent if from shaking. Never touch God's ark...2 Samuel 12:14-18David's baby is killed by God for something DAVID was responsible for? Justice?2 Samuel 24:13God kills 70,000 Israelites for no apparent reason.2 Kings 1:9-12God sends down a fire from heaven and kills captains and their fifty men sent by a king a couple times for asking prophet Elijah to "come down" later they are even pleading (but still killed).1 Kings 14:10-18God kills a child to save them... from... his own wrath...2 Kings 2:23-24God sends 2 she bears to maul 42 youths... for what? Committing the horrendous crime of mocking Elisha's bald head...2 Kings 17:25-26God kills some foreigners with lions simply because they did not worship him. Okay...How can any of these be justified and seen as anything other than senseless killing? That's is what I am wondering...
God's supposed murders are often actually deserved executions

Hello, Yuiri. The Bible describes the actions of many of the people God supposedly murdered. One example: The Flood of Noah. This was a global flood that caused the Grand Canyon. However, the Bible says the Earth was filled with bloodshed and only Noah was righteous. Would anyone want to live in that society? http://www.ldolphin.org... Please post up to ten instances of judgement and I'll try to refute every single one.
The God of Abraham Does Not Exist

Con has broken the rule set for round one by giving an argument. My list of rules stated that round one was for acceptance only. Round two is the first round for arguments. Con has lost the point for conduct. Due to the fact that Con has already presented an argument, I will use round two to respond to his claims.First Con states that "if god doesn't exist and considering the conservation of mass how would the big bang even take place?"He then follows up by claiming "I'm not saying in the absence of knowledge to play the god card."This is a contradiction because Con first questions how the Big Bang could have happened without God, and then follows by claiming that he is not using a god of the gaps argument. Con asserts that "god can't be proven nor disproved until we die."He soon contradicts himself by stating that "we'll never know."Will we never know? Or will we find out when we die? I shall disregard Con's statement about emotions as it makes no sense. Possibly due to a typo.I'm going to return to Con's first sentence. "Considering the conservation of mass how would the big bang even take place?"Humans don't know... Yet. 3,000 years ago science couldn't have told us how the tide works, nor could it tell us the chemical composition of the Sun. 20,000 years ago, nobody knew the weight of the earth or the size of the moon. We've made so much progress since the dawn of civilization, we can't assume that just because we don't know something yet that we'll never know it. Georges Lemaître first suggested the Big Bang theory in the 1920s [1]. That is less than 100 years ago. We'll have plenty of time to learn new things about the origin of the universe. In march of 2014, Harvard astronomers found the first direct evidence of cosmic inflation right after the Big Bang. [2]."I'm saying we'll never know."Never is a word I seldom use. Con's entire argument is based off of this idea that we'll never know. However, how can we know that we'll never know? By introducing this argument Con has created a paradox that I expect him to get himself out of. Good luck to Con. [1] http://science.nationalgeographic.com...[2] http://gizmodo.com...;
The God of Abraham Does Not Exist

So if god doesn't exist and considering the conservation of mass how would the big bang even take place?Now I'm not saying in the absence of knowledge to play the god card, yet to propose the fact that god can't be proven nor disproved until we die. Also saying that god can not be seen, felt,smelled, or heard disproves him isn't an argument. I can feel emotions, does that mean they aren't real? Sum up, I'm saying we'll never know.
Your choice on the topic

I'm going to make an assumption that my opponent chose topic #1, "Con is a pillow" due to the fact that most of his case mentioned pillowsThat being said...P1: A Sentient Being Wrote this ArgumentP2: A Pillow is not SentientC1: A Pillow could not have Written this ArgumentW1: Con is not a pillowP1: A Sentient Being Wrote this ArgumentMerriam-Webster defines sentient as 1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings> 2: aware 3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling Seeing as whoever wrote this argument was responsive to a sense impression of touch (at least), the person who wrote this argument was sentient. On top of that, I am obviously aware of my surroundings, seeing as I am able to type this argument in a fashion which requires literacy and comprehension, as well as motor skills to type something of this length. P2: A Pillow is not SentientSeeing as a pillow has no nervous system, skeletal system, or internal organs, it cannot be sentient. This is because to be sentient an object must have some sense of "awareness" (definition 2), which is created by a nervous system, which a pillow does not haveC1: A Pillow could not have Written this ArgumentSeeing as P1 is correct and P2 is true, then this statement must be trueW1: Because a Pillow could not have written this argument, I cannot be a pillow, thus Pro has lostRebuttals: "Con probably goes to Youtube and writes in the comments "As a human being...."(I have no source for this but think about if you were a pillow, you would probably write something like that.) Remember voters, he is completely anonymous. That means he can cover up the fact that he is a pillow."Seeing as a Pillow is not sentient, nor does it have a working musculoskeletal system, a Pillow could not write anything on youtube. I also fail to see how a pillow would enjoy anything on Youtube... Pillows have no eyes, it would be rather unentertaining for a pillow (assuming it is sentient) to go on a website for videos. "On the internet, you can be completely anonymous and get away with doing something or in this case, being something." While true, it is still impossible for me to be a pillow, seeing as a pillow cannot type.
Your choice on the topic

Thank you for participating with me in this debate. I want to start off with the fact that you don't know who's(what's) behind that computer screen. On the internet, you can be completely anonymous and get away with doing something or in this case, being something. I want to ask my fellow voters, do you really think that pillow would say he is not a pillow on the internet? Con probably goes to Youtube and writes in the comments "As a human being...."(I have no source for this but think about if you were a pillow, you would probably write something like that.) Remember voters, he is completely anonymous. That means he can cover up the fact that he is a pillow. Let's say Con isn't a pillow, he probably wouldn't post this argument if he was human. Pillows are sensitive to the fact that they are pillows. They want evidence to confirm that they are indeed a pillow, so they call people like me to give evidence on why Con is a pillow. In conclusion, Con is most definitely a pillow who is pretending to be human because of anonymity of the internet. Thank you.
Your choice on the topic

Topic List... Please accept in the comments section #1: Con is a pillow #2: Con is a flashlight #3: Con is a doorknob #4: Con is a desk So your choices are that you (pro) will have to prove that I (con) am either: a pillow, a flashlight, a doorknob, or a desk. Because you have the burden of proof to show I am the object you picked, it will be up to you to offer the voters proof BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that "I am a pillow/flashlight/doorknob/desk" Like I said, please accept one of the topics in the comments, thank you and good luck.
Percy Jackson v.

Being a former Percy Jackson fanboy when I was younger, I have a fairly good understanding of his abilities. As of right now, I do not have enough time to do an actual debate due to exams, but I haven't debated for a while and feel the need to. So I figured, I will do a lighter debate, one not as serious, but still challenging. So I figured I would test myself, with a Percy Jackson v. So, if you are reading this and wanted to see my last debate about Percy Jackson heat off, hopefully you can do that here,The rules are simply. Anyone can accept, and the first round is an acceptance round, where you must state who your character is. The aim of this debate is to prove that your character can beat mine. Now, the challenger obviously has the advantage, knowing who my character is, therefore there are some terms about who can be picked. The person you pick, must be:I) The main protagonist of an action/adventure book series.II) Not an immortal or incapable of death/pain.III) Selected from the end of the latest book of the series or book.IV) Fully/Half Human. That should be about it. Please, don't choose Harry Potter, but if you must, then fine, and for a challenge of yourself, don't find loopholes and choose someone completely overpowered, but once again, if you must. You ruin it for everyone. Rules are simple:I) Usual DDO conduct.II) No plagiarism.III) Characters must follow the aforesaid character rules.IV) First round is acceptance.V) Fourth round is conclusion/summation. No rebuttal will take place.Failure to comply will result in an instant loss, I urge the voters, but I hope for a challenging, yet light-hearted debate. Thanks!
hindi should be the national official language

hindi is a language that joins community to community , people to people and states to states. i am clearly in the favour of taking up with hindi as this language is being continued from the time of maharana pratap to akbar and then to the time of FATHER OF THE NATION MOHAN DAS KARAMCHAND GHANDHI. if an indian is in the favour of making english as an official language rather than hindi then that person has no righ to called as INDIAN or a resident of INDIA.i belive in true statesmanship......... and i think most of th people would change their thinking when they really think about it.... what i mean to say is that Hindi can be read , studied and spoken from kashmir to kannyakumari and from maharashtra to arunachal pradesh . OK now the people who think that hindi cannot be the official language of INDIA , why do you say so ? can somebody tell me why are they against declaring hindi as their official language , i will tell you . they do so because their respect and status in the society is more important that the future of the country. this true that most of the indians who are succeeding in life beacuse of their knowledge of literature in english , but has anybody thought of excceding in life through hindi . still if you belive that english should be in the place of hindi , then you dont have a right to be called an indian .
Social Media has A Bad Impact on Our Lives Today

The Pro was not able to adequately provide strength to her argument that Social Media has a Bad Impact in our lives Today. The sources the Pro cited also provided habits to curb the impact social media could negatively have. The Pro also completely ignored any argument or rebuttal of substance I presented. When you can't connect the direct causality to the impact I am not sure what more of an argument I can make on the subject. I will conclude with my opening statement because it still applies and was not refuted:Social media is not a cause for abbreviated terminology, the attention span of teens, and how people communicate effectively. Social media has enriched our lives, connected us on a level unlike society has ever been in past generations, and through the wide-spread use of the internet has taught so many aspects of what many once considered unattainable due to a worldwide connectivity of facts, opinions, and innovated ideas.
Social Media has A Bad Impact on Our Lives Today

The Pro, within the debate, slowly becoming self-aware and answering her own rhetoric:The Pro: (Round 3)"Teens spend too much time on the computer..."The Pro: (Round 4)"I cannot see anyone dumb enough to know how to use a computer but not know how to turn off security settings."Furthermore, Facebook has comprehensive settings to avoid your pessimism. And I will admit, this may be a shallow question, but Does the Pros' parent's monitor the time you spend outdoors vs the time you spend on the computer?The Pro, and others must recognize, you do have free choice and the ability to change the outcome even if your naive and unaware as to how to change settings.