BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ice Cream is the best dessert

I hope that we can keep this as civilized as possible, so we don't end up throwing ice cream at each other while screaming obscenities. And for the record, I like ice cream, but it's not my favorite. Don't think I'm a dessert hating monster. :)Main Arguments: In my home nation of the United States, a country that is certainly known for consuming large amounts of sugar, ice cream only ranks #5 on a list of the top 10 most popular desserts. [1] With many ahead, how can this be the best? The fact that there are a seemingly infinite number of desserts, from countless different cultures, ranging from frozen confectioneries to baked goods, can a dish that really only existed in its most currently recognized form and name since the 18th century [2] be seen as superior to all others? Unless regularly attended to, ice cream melts. It is a very temperature-centric dessert, and not good for extended periods of time away from a controlled environment (e. g. freezer). Sources: recipes. howstuffworks. com/food-facts/5-most-popular-desserts-in-america. htm . http://inventors.about.com... (See "First Ice Cream Parlor In America - Origins Of English Name")
Ice Cream is the best dessert

Thank you for your interest. First round is for establishing main arguments. Following arguments will be in support of debater's own argument and a critique of the opposition. Main arguments: The variety of Ice cream flavors and extras gives it the best chance for everyone to enjoy It is typically cheaper than most other deserts that are Ready-To-Eat (RTE) i.e. Cakes, Pies, etc. Many people use Ice Cream in addition to other desserts to make them better
Endangered species

As the instigator of this debate that is their express burden, not mine as the contender. Furthermore my opponent has stated that the purpose of this debate is to fulfill the parameters of a school project. I'm actually pretty upset about this as my opponent is not only trying to cheat on her homework, but she's doing it blatantly. As the only round left in this debate is the final round, I urge readers to vote Pro on the following three principles, 1. My opponent has failed to meet their burden of proof as the instigator. 2. My opponent has attempted to use this website to cheat on her homework 3. If I write anything on topic at this point she will use it to cheat. For all these reasons, I urge a Pro vote.
nothing is 0, information is nothing, and everything is 1

Well, I sincerely apologize for the period of silence. I am aware we are down to the last round so to sum up: 3/0 cannot equal 0 as that would require 0x0 to equal 3 (mathematical falsehood) "Nothing" exists because there is evidence of it all around us (anything you "lack") I. .. don't really think there's anything else to say, bar apologize for my previous typing error where i stated that 3/0=3 would imply that 3=3x0, which should have been 3=0x0.
nothing is 0, information is nothing, and everything is 1

no simply... you can not divide with 0 and 1... as division is separation, so 1 and 0 not separating anything, means nothing is being divided now you bring adding into as if it has any value.. if you give a person a soda 1 at a time, you adding no division is going on.. if I have 3 sodas, and I divide them by myself, I have 3 sodas.............................. you don't even know basic math 3 sodas.............. shared by NO people............ is 3 sodas (3/0=3)
nothing is 0, information is nothing, and everything is 1

I think you're misunderstanding the whole concept of division. If you have three sodas, and one person, you can give that person a soda three times. If you have three sodas and zero people, you can give that non-existent person a soda a near-infinite amount of times, due to the fact that you will never have any less soda. It's not that nothing would happen, you'd just be stuck in an infinite loop of giving soda while never having any less. What you are saying ~ that 3/0=3 ~ would suggest, rearranging the equation, that ~ 3=3x0 ~. Mathematically, it just doesn't work. I implore you to explain to me how on Earth you think that if you have zero baskets each with three cans of soda, then you have three cans of soda. It really doesn't work. If you have zero baskets, each with three cans of soda, then you have no cans of soda. While you are technically correct in saying that zero is information, it is only information as much as one, two, three, or one thousand are information. Like all numbers. That doesn't change the fact that a "zero" quantity definitely exists and is agreed upon by pretty much the entire scientific community, therefore, this particular argument you have put across is invalid. In the way of showing you zero bananas, if you had one banana, and I took that one banana from you, how many bananas do you have left? You do not have one banana. You have zero bananas. Look down into your empty hands. There are zero bananas there. Exactly the same as when I look outside my house and see that I have zero sports cars. In fact, if you think of anything that you do not possess, then look into an empty space, you are effectively being shown zero of whatever that thing is. A new argument for you is this. 3/1=3, this is true, but how can 3/0 also equal 3 when 3/0.5=6? If you take the form a/n = b, where "a" can be any number, when "n" becomes less than 1, "b" increases exponentially. Essentially, as the denominator tends to 0, the answer tends to infinity. What you are suggesting is that once "n" becomes 0, the answer just immediately drops down to the original "a" again. This is completely implausible. Please, feel free to post your counter argument to any of the above. Thank you!
nothing is 0, information is nothing, and everything is 1

3 sodas divided by 0 people is 3 sodas 0 doesn't go into 3 any times, that's why you still have 3, nothing happened, 0 is information, and an imaginary man cant drink a real soda, matter is the opposite of information, and only now is matter, while the future and past is information it is simple when you know what 0 is, you can never show me 0 bananas, because it can only exist in your imagination, so 0 is information dividing with 0 is the same as dividing with 1, because you can not divide something by itself, and you can not divide something by nothing
nothing is 0, information is nothing, and everything is 1

For my counter-argument, I'm going to go back to the really basic mathematics which I learned at the beginning of Primary School (I'm British - basically 1st grade, I think). Division is, in essence, how many times does this go into that. For example: 4/2 (Four divided by two) How many times does two go into four? Twice. So, that wasn't so hard. When you get down to stuff like 0, it admittedly does get a little more tricky. Let's take your example: 3/0 (Three divided by zero) How many times does zero go into three? Well, it's most certainly not 3. 3/1 (three divided by one) is three. One goes into three three times. Simple maths. When you divide anything by 0 you don't get a value. A calculator will return something like "Error", "Math Error", or suchlike. It's not infinity, as many people will want to say, as infinity isn't actually a number, it's a concept, so you can't really use it in the same terms as we use other numbers, including irrational numbers like pi or route 2. It doesn't work within the human brain at all. With regards to this, we define (where "n" = any value) n/0 as - oddly enough - undefined. How many times does zero go into three? The human mind cannot do this equation very well. It doesn't work with our logic. If I asked you, "How many jugs filled with 1 liter of water can you pour into a 3 liter jug?", you'd say "3" (unless you were terrible at maths). However, if I asked, "How many empty jugs can you pour into a 3 liter jug?", you would probably say something along the lines of either, "You can't pour anything because there's nothing there!", or "You could go on forever because the jug would never fill up.". The latter is probably the most correct, so let's go with that for now. I know I said earlier that it wasn't infinity, but heck, nobody has any idea at all, so I'm not explaining any more than what we actually do know. Let's just go with undefined, and leave it at that. If you work on an atomic level, the jug's technically always full anyway; and we are the jug; and the table the jug is sitting on... and everything else in the universe. Makes a whole lot more sense than 3/0 = 3 anyway.
The Conservative Bible Project is good for America

I'm going to copy and paste what I wrote in R1, which Pro has so conveniently ignored: A nation by definition cannot believe in a religion. Instead, the people living in the religion may by a majority believe in the same or a similar faith, i. e. the U. S. A. having mostly Christian residents. However, the fact that Christians make up a majority of this nation's population in no way makes the U. S. A. identifiable with Christianity. First, there is a separation of Church and State meaning religion does not dictate our laws, and in fact, we have laws ensuring or encouraging the opposite. Second, the U. SA. is essentially a democratic nation. As such, our government is set up as to protect the rights of the minority. So, just because the U. S. is dominated by Christians really means nothing in terms of the nation as a whole, since we do not always make decisions in favor of a majority just because it is a majority opinion (fallacy in the gallery). The word "God" in the pledge of allegiance (which not everybody has to say or does say) is irrelevant, and the money we use comes from the Federal Reserve - a PRIVATE BANK - not the government. Moreover, who founded the colonies here hundreds of years ago has no bearing on the state of our nation today. We also slaughtered tons of Native Americans back then: Does that define our country? No. I've stated and proven numerous times how and why this country is not a Christian nation (none of which Pro has refuted), so Pro's lone contention has been negated.
The Conservative Bible Project is good for America

How is America not fundamentally Christian? Our Pledge of Allegiance states that we are "One Nation Under God", on it currency it says "In God We Trust" and if anything we need a more biblicaly correct constitution. Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn to be a colony for the Quakers, Maryland was for the Catholics and was founded by Lord Baltimore, and Massachusetts was founded by Puritans for the Puritans. America is a Christian Nation.
The Conservative Bible Project is good for America

Rebuttal: 1. America is fundamentally a Christian nation; many of it's laws and citizens are Christian. False. I've already explained in R1 how and why America cannot be a Christian nation. Pro has not refuted this. Moreover, just because a majority of citizens might be Christian does not make this a Christian nation literally or even legally. Plus, Pro has yet to cite one Christian law. 2. Our laws stem from Christianity. False. Our law stems from the philosophies of men like John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Perhaps more appropriately, the Ancient Greeks. 3. The majority of Americans are Conservative. False. According to Pro's own cited source, 56% of Americans consider themselves to be moderate or liberal. 4. The majority of U.S. Presidents have been Conservative. So? That is irrelevant to this debat. Conclusion: Pro is a delusional individual if he believes that America is a Christian nation. I've already proven why it isn't and can not be. I've also dismantled all of Pro's arguments trying to claim otherwise. As such, Pro's only reason to affirm the resolution is false and therefore cannot be upheld. Pro has not refuted any of my arguments as to why this project would be either bad or neutral in terms of this country, making my negation legitimate and clear.
The Conservative Bible Project is good for America

America is a fundamentally christian nation, many of its law and founding documents ad a majority of its citizens are christian. When the Pilgrims first arrived in America and set up the colony of Plymouth (modern day Massachusetts) they governed it by rule of God. And as more and more colonies began to spring forth they had many different laws, but they shared one thing in common, their laws stemmed from Christianity. Now when the decision was made to form a strong central government and to write a constitution they bundled the very best laws of each state and applied them federally. How can America not be a christian nation even though the majority of its founding laws stem from christian beliefs? As well as the laws that were derived from Christian belief, more than 3/4ths of the United States population is Christian[1]. America is also a fundamentally conservative country as well. In recent polls it is shown that a huge majority of Americans are either conservative or very conservative.[2] Not to mention the fact that the majority of the presidents in the later half of the 20th century and the 21st have been Republicans. Almost all of the founders of the New England states were fundamentalist Christians and as stated early many of our modern day laws originate in the laws of the early colonies which were derived from christian beliefs In closing the Conservative Bible Project will be good for America because it strengthens our core conservative and christian values. Sources: [1] http://www.gallup.com... [2] http://www.gallup.com...
If You're Old Enough to Join the Army, You're Old Enough to Vote

Hello miserlou. I believe that the purpose of this debate and subject we are debating has been muddled. We initially debated if you should be allowed to vote if you are old enough to go to war. I said that there are different requirements and we got into picking apart each others responses until we had nothing left and we were quite off topic. I know bring us back to the topic, and although your debates are long and repetitive, mine state something in short time. I am not criticising you, only this debate. I am saying that next time try to stick to the debate and lets not criticize personal remarks, like when you quoted my beginning statement about this being a weak argument. I appreciate your "gung-ho" debating and very involved responses, but i am a straightforward kinda debater and i like to get right to the point. The point is, there are different requirements and they cant be classified even in the same category. Thank you for this debate and I hope to debate you again.
If You're Old Enough to Join the Army, You're Old Enough to Vote

Hello, miserlou, I believe that this debate is a little weak, but it is still quite interesting. You said "But there are people who believe otherwise and so I wanted to debate it. The argument isn't invalid, it just means that (presumably) the majority already agrees with me. I am arguing a principal." The argument is invalid, considering the fact that the age is the same. I also would like to know who (this is only applicable to people over 18) doesn't know that the age is the same? where does that common misconception come into play? you also said (about me) "You say that the current qualifications for voting are only being 18 and a U.S. citizen. Qualifications for the army are numerous and intense." I agree with that, and I agreed with that in my previous statement. you are only reiterating what I just said. The qualifications are different. That is the key word. They don't fall into the same category at all. I also want to bring up a very important point about the people that join the military. There are 1000's of men that fight in the army that are not of american descent or from America. They get brought in from other parts of the world to fight for America. Should they be allowed to vote? Should they have a say? they are not american citizens and they most likely have not lived in the U.S. for 14 years or more. They would need to apply for dual citizenship. This is where the fine line gets drawn.
If You're Old Enough to Join the Army, You're Old Enough to Vote

"Currently I beleive that the age to go to war is the same as the age to vote, so your age argument is therefore invalid." I know. But there are people who believe otherwise and so I wanted to debate it. The argument isn't invalid, it just means that (presumably) the majority already agrees with me. I am arguing a principal. "And I do agree that a draft would be a bad idea, and i will agree with you (and expand more about that) in the next round." Thanks, I await the expansion "To join the army, you have to passa number of tests, qualificiations, and things that most people couldnt go through. It takes a tough person to go through military training." Exactly, and if someone is capable of that then they are capable of voting. You say that the current qualifications for voting are only being 18 and a U.S. citizen. Qualifications for the army are numerous and intense. And even though most soldiers will just be following orders, in a war situation chances are that they'll have to at some point be thinking for themselves if something doesn't go according to plan. And if we judge someone capable of going into battle; killing but also being moral, using discretion and doing such an important job right, then I would say that they're capable of picking out someone to vote for. This may not make them the ideal voter necessarily, but very few people are ideal voters. Of course there will always be some exceptions, but as this is the general rule it would be unfair to say that someone is old enough to join the army and not old enough to vote.
If You're Old Enough to Join the Army, You're Old Enough to Vote

Hello. I am glad to debate you on this, though i feel that some points of ours are of the same opinion. I agree that if you go to war, you have to be intelligent but i believe that it is not right to generalize voting with going to war. They are two completely different things. When you sign up to go to war, you are going to war under the command of others, especially if you are not a high ranking person. If you vote, you are making a decision all on your own, and you are voting to put someone in charge of the military. They alos nee dcompletely different qualifications. To join the army, you have to passa number of tests, qualificiations, and things that most people couldnt go through. It takes a tough person to go through military training. There is also an age requirement for going to war, as there is one for voting. However there are no Qualifications for voting, besides being a U.S. citizen of 18 years of age. Currently I beleive that the age to go to war is the same as the age to vote, so your age argument is therefore invalid. And I do agree that a draft would be a bad idea, and i will agree with you (and expand more about that) in the next round.
If You're Old Enough to Join the Army, You're Old Enough to Vote

I got into an argument about this with someone and thought I'd debate it here. Before 1970, the age in the U.S. when people were allowed to vote was 21, but 18 was the age when people could join the army, and get drafted. This caused quite a stir in the midst of Vietnam and the voting age was lowered by the 26th Amendment. I agree with this. If someone is able to join the army, particularly to fight in a war which requires a level of intelligence and maturity, then they are certainly capable of voting and making other adult decisions. Likewise, in the case of a draft, it is unfair to force people to fight for something they had absolutely no say in. I will expand my argument next round.
Schools should need a warrant to search Lockers

My summary and conclusion are that it is unconstitutional for a random search and seizure. The lockers are the effects of the students, and as such are subject to the same laws as a house. The tenent must give permission, or the landlord must. However this must only occur if a danger is lurking. If such danger were to be, then the school has reasonable and probable cause, a reason to search, if a warrant is provided. The only way for my oponent to win anything by now is if he posts all his arguments in this round. This will cost him conduct, but he may win the rest. In any event, if my oponent can post, he has not been able due to a glitch, he may win. If he does argue, please give him a fair evaluation.
Mock Presidential Election

I am pleased to be able to run, fellow citizens, for the position of President of the United States of America. I believe this country to be a land of near infinite opportunity but one of equally infinite oppression and inequality. I pledge to bring a fair and balanced economic system that still rewards intuitive thinking and careful planning, but no so that it snowballs to an abundance of wealth inequality that plagues our country"s economic state. To do this i would like to increase Govt. help to those in need. I would promote the new ideas of science and technology and integrate their importance in our schools and public programs. I strongly believe that the future is in these things and we are lagging behind in. On social issues, I find that the Govt. has no place in these matters as long as those do not affect the health or wellbeing of the citizens. I am an agnostic, but I do support religious freedom and liberty, but the Govt. will have no connection to any specific religion as to promote the freedom of each religion. I will curb the relations in the Middle East and seek to promote peace. I will seek to slightly downsize the military to promote a global peace effort. I hope I have convinced you of my competence as a leader. Thank you for your time.
Mock Presidential Election

I can be even more of a skumbag than you.This is what I support: -Minimum Wage of $400,000 per hour. -Raise taxes across the board and have a 100% flat tax. -Equitably distribute income to all Americans. -Open the borders! -Have socialized medicine-Have socialized education up to PhDs and MDs-Amend the pledge of allegiance to say "One Nation, Under Bob Turner, Invincible, with Liberty and Deference to Him." -Withdraw from every single overseas base -Legalize all drugs -I am not a dictator
The rich should be taxed heavier

I typed it into Google, and what do you know: his entire opening piece is plagiarized from a TED talk give by Nick Hanauer. The text can be found here: . http://delong.typepad.com...;PRO has provided not a single original argument of himself, so I ask that our judges immediately award me conduct points. From that point, I am willing to continue this debate should PRO agree to provide his own arguments, without stealing other's words, and to cite his sources.
The rich should be taxed heavier

It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Contemplate this one: If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down. This idea is an article of faith for Republicans and seldom challenged by Democrats. It has indubitably shaped much of the economic landscape since the Industrial Revolution was instigated. But sometimes the ideas that we certainly consider as true, are dead wrong; for thousands of years, humans believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe. This notion has later on proven to be completely erroneous. Needless to say, an astronomer who still believes that it is true would do some terrible astronomy. Likewise, a policy maker who believes that the rich are job creators and thus should not be taxed appropriately will do equally terrible policy.