BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The earth is a big ole ball.

I would like someone who believes the earth is a ball, to prove it. And not by showing me nasatans fish eye lens photography, or image "compilations", not the old "I saw a curve through my curved window of a plane." not by saying I saw a ship sail away and the bottom disappeared first crap, this is due to the fact the we cannot see infinitely, and of course atmosphere. https://youtu.be... We are not on a ball spinning 1000 miles per hour all while holding a few trillions of gallons of water perfectly flat. Inertia is one thing (travelling in a car going 60 miles per hour, you only feel it during accelerating and decelerating) but if you start from the front of a train and travel to the back, it will be less of a struggle than going the other way. Amateurs are starting to do balloon and rocket can launches with surprising results. https://youtu.be... I've watched GPS tracked planes disappear when crossing oceans in the southern hemisphere. Why? Why is Antarctica totally off limits to oil companies, when only a few species of wildlife exist? Those guys would drill through live fetuses if there was enough oil involved, and nobody would stop them! Why wouldn't planes fly nose down instead of perfectly horizontally? If the earth spins at 1,000 miles per hour, and a plane flys with the spin at 500 miles per hour. Would the plane, flying independently of the earth's spin, ever make it to its destination? Wouldn't it be easier for all flights to go against the earth dpin, even if it meant going aound the earth. The flat earth model is round, with Antarctica acting like a boundary holding all the water in. The north pole is in the middle of the disc, and, being magnetic, flying away from this point in any direction will take you south. Flying east to west will take you around the disc. Search for an image of the United nation's symbol/flag, this is a real representation of the earth. Gravity is a lie, you can't have a force pulling that much water against centripical force, and not pull the boat to the center. Remember it's spinning at 1,000 miles per hour. The sun is only a few thousand miles away as is the moon. https://youtu.be... They appear to be the same size because they are. The moon is not reflecting the warm light of the sun, but is its own source of light. Do you trust authority? How many lies are they going to feed you? Just look at NASA's logo. I leave you with the fact that the Bible is a flat earth bible. https://youtu.be...
In Favor of The End of Faith.

To conclude this debate, I will address my opponent's points and then tell you why you shouldn't vote for this nonsense. 1. This misinterpretation was mostly due to his lack of clarification, now that I reread it, I still think that he could have been more articulate in what he was asking for. Nonetheless, this still doesn't answer my question regarding why a person should have to watch an entire video before they can debate Zerosmelt and why he couldn't have just left an argument instead. 2. For the reason mentioned above, I decided to argue against the topic. If you read the top of this page it says, Pro is "in favor" and Con is "against", meaning you are either in favor of the topic, or you are against it. I am against the topic that reads, "In favor of the end of faith". I am against it for the reasons that I have listed in my earlier speeches, these are valid points that my opponent never addresses. 3. Zerosmelt fails to show the rationality behind his degrees of faith, he fails to show how and why it is true, and not just something that he made up. But, even if were to assume that he is telling the truth and the degrees are infact valid, he agrees that his "D" degree DOES qualify as faith and he also agrees that theories fall under the "D" category, thus theory are reliable on faith. MY OPPONENT IS AGAINST ALL THEORIES, I felt as if that needed to be capitalized because at the point in which theories are not respected and put to an "end", every scientific notion would cease to be respectable hence ending all fields of science. My opponent says that he is in favor of the end of faith, he waits until his second round to specify what degrees of faith he is in favor of, he never explicitly stated that he is in favor of ending all faith EXCEPT for "D" degree. This third point also applies to my opponent's desperate attempt at my Newton example, an example that he quite clearly mishandled throughout this debate. Therefore, I strongly urge you to vote CON in this debate. Thank you for your time and consideration, - Protagoras of Abdera
In Favor of The End of Faith.

Lets keep this brief. 1. There is some confusion about what the purpose of this debate actually was. My opponent believes that the purpose was for him to argue against Sam Harris, offering a rebuttal to all of Harris's arguments. That was NOT the purpose. The purpose was to allow someone to choose whatever argument they wanted from Harris's speech so we could debate the validity of that argument. I'm tremendously sorry if Protagoras didn't understand that, it was either my lack of clarity or his misunderstanding that caused this. I don't think that is unfair. 2 My resolution was clearly stated in R1. When debate.org asks for the topic of the debate they do not ask for a resolution. It is a topic. My description of faith couldn't fit in the topic. So I properly explained what i was in favor of in R1. 3. Protagoras fails to show how my degrees of faith are irrational. They are completely rational and every example my opponent has used falls into the "D" degree. I was not attacking the Theory of gravity. Protagoras: "The only reason why he tested his hypothesis is because he BELIEVED that he was correct, he had FAITH in his hypotheses" Newton's hypo. was that the apple might have "some relationship with the earth" The reason he BELIEVED it was correct was because he OBSERVED it. That observation was a form of evidence. In fact It was the best evidence available. (there was no evidence suggesting otherwise) I hope you can now see how Protagoras's examples do indeed fall into the "D" degree. Just as my faith in my own existence does. I have evidence that I exist; my experiences are a form of evidence. But i can't prove that i exist. So my belief that I exist is faith in the "D" degree. Which is NOT what i was arguing against.
In Favor of The End of Faith.

Typically, I would never do this, but I am so "against" this topic that it frustrates me to simply write this response. Remember: As the contender, I have the right to debate everything that exists within my opponent's opening statement, one of these components is the very notion that it is obligatory for both the voters and me to watch an hour and twenty minutes long video. Thus I argue that it is repulsing that my opponent would assume that someone should argue against him with arguments that he himself did not draft. For that reason I will not watch the video, in interest of time efficiency my opponent MUST offer HIS own arguments, I am debating my opponent, not some stranger from longnow.net. ________ My opponent is asking for us to end faith, through the wording of the topic, I disagree, I am not in favor of the end of faith. I am against the topic namely because if we end all faith, there would never be discovery, invention, inquisition, morality, nor philosophy. Such concepts could never exist, thus creating a society of chaos, a world that is baseless, lacking in morals and virtue, no ethic no peace. A world without faith is tantamount to a culture of violence and utter chaos. With that said I am CON. ________ In explanation of the aforementioned notion, I shall put this in an example. Think about what would've occurred if Isaac Newton did not have faith that gravity existed, he would of never inquired the truth of why the apple fell from the tree, think about the effects that this would make to the science community. The whole point of science is for one to purpose a hypothesis, something in which the scientist would have FAITH in, if they did not have faith in it, it would unreasonable for them to research and test it in order to prove its validity. ________ That is just one example, there any many, I entreat you. Thank you for your time and consideration, - Protagoras of Abdera
In Favor of The End of Faith.

I am in favor of putting an end to the act of believing something is true without using the best evidence/reasoning available. The following speech is by sam harris http://longnow.chubbo.net... I ask my opponent (and anyone voting) to listen to this speech (((thoroughly)))! It's 1 hour and 20 mins long... so my opponent should have the time to spend doing this. I will argue in defense of any proposition put forth by this speech so long as it supports my first statement: "I am in favor of putting an end to the act of believing something is true without using the best evidence/reasoning available." I will let my opponent pick it apart and present their argument first.
Gay Marriage is Morally wrong and should not be Legalized

Thank you for your retort >>"Same sex marriage is not morally wrong and should be legal" To begin with, Let"s look at issues the way they should be looked at; is what a person doing morally right or morally wrong, sinful or not sinful. We"re not supposed to or are we capable of making internal judgement, but we are expected to make external ones. And when two women or two men want to "marry" each other we know, or should know, it"s morally wrong. It"s unnatural. out of place. Statistics show that between ages of 18-44 who reported that they were either homosexual or heterosexual, 96% of men and 94% of women said they were heterosexual, and 1.7% of men and 1.1% of women said they were homosexual or gay. (1) http://www.robgagnon.net... Granting same-sex couples a license to marry will not create true marriage. Neither two men nor two women can become one flesh. Licensing the unnatural does not make it natural. This will be forcing the practices and morals of the "minority" on the "majority" --How in any way is this not harmful to society. We know that they (Homosexual) don"t have a "right" to get married, but an obligation to do what is morally right by not getting married. That obligation is based on a strict moral code that in turn is based on God"s Ten Commandments (in the Bible) Which is also a reliable source for condemning homosexuality wrong. : : : : :Things to think about: : : : : : Homosexuality goes against everything God has created marriage to be. God has created the male and female species for pro creation. He gave the human race marriage between one woman and one man to have a strong healthy family. To lead on the next generation, and the next generation after that. Thank you, i look forward to my opponents next argument.
Gay Marriage is Morally wrong and should not be Legalized

The topic at hand is that we should not legalize gay marriage. (1) traditional Marriage in its sense, is defined as a bonding between one man and one woman. Not marrying in the same-sex. (2) Same-Sex marriage is morally wrong. (1) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... round 1 counts as accepting the argument and making your opening statements
All students should be forced to take a financial literacy cource in high school

I'm sorry to see my opponent forfeit his third round argument, so I'll leave you with this thought... Is it really necessary to change the current curriculum, hire new staff and create vast numbers of new study material, all of which will be paid for by taxpayers, when all the information and financial help students may need is so readily available online. Students can easily find it as and when they require it. Thank you.
All students should be forced to take a financial literacy cource in high school

Ok. But you didn't respond to my questions, which I will repeat - 1. Would students take a test after the course? 2. What exactly would the course teach? 3. Would every school in the country have to hire extra staff? I still, maintain that overall, your idea is great. But perhaps you're aiming too young. Perhaps adding more to an existing financial college course would be the way to go. Or as I suggested, some after school class. I'm sorry that I can't make a stronger argument, but as I said, it's a really great idea you've had and I doubt that anyone could really find any major flaws in it.
All students should be forced to take a financial literacy cource in high school

By "forced" I mean that it becomes a graduation requirement. I do mean this in response to the financial crisis, which would possibly be over by the time of implementation. However, if you look at American history, the American people have a cycle of making the same mistakes over and over again. They keep running into issues with credit. If you begin teaching each generation to not make these mistakes, perhaps the cycle will be cut off. These would be a classes to teach students how to make budgets, and wise financial decisions. Would it not be more useful to teach students these skills instead of something they will never use ever again, such as British literature or for some students advanced math?
All students should be forced to take a financial literacy cource in high school

Firstly, I'd like to question the phrasing of the title of my opponent's challenge. By "forced", I can only assume (and hope) that you mean "add to the curriculum". I would also like to add that even though I think this is actually a fantastic idea, my general argument will rest on the problems that would surely arise when attempting to implement it. The problem with this is that I feel, and I'm sure lots more people would agree with me, that the current curriculum is already bursting at the seams. Is there really enough room to add extra elements to it, without neglecting other areas? If not adding to the curriculum, the only other option is to delete some already existing area of it and supplement it with this one. If that's your idea, which is fair, what subject should be deleted? Also, can you please just imagine how much red tape and bureaucracy would be caused by such proposition? I can only imagine that you have initiated this debate in response to current global financial crisis (?), which in all likelihood will prove to be temporary. So I have to ask, isn't possible that by the time your Financial Literacy Course made it into the curriculum, the situation may have been resolved? Another problem arises in the potential commercial interest this sort of teaching would create. Would schools use certain financial institutions as examples? Would those institutions then, in a sense, sponsor the schools? I really think that considering how much public backlash is targeted towards banks these days, this would provoke a huge public outcry against the school system, which is something no one wants to see. I would appreciate it if you would respond to this. I would also like to ask the following - Would students be required to take a test after the course? What exactly would the course teach? Would every school in the country have to hire extra staff to teach it? By all means, schools could offer some additional support to teenagers who are eager to find out more, but I really think that adjusting the current curriculum is the wrong way to go.
Most Important Battles Challenge (2)

The Story of the Spanish ArmadaYear: 1588 Fleets: British Fleet (Lord Howard Effingham and Sir Francis Drake) vs. Spanish Fleet (Duke of Medina Sidonia) The BattleAt this battle, a fleet of smaller British ships commanded by Lord Howard Effingham and Sir Francis Drake successfully defeated a larger Spanish fleet commanded by the Duke of Medina Sidonia. The Spanish had packed their ships into tight formations and the British with their faster and smaller ships were able to defeat the Spanish ships. Eventually this led to a devastating retreat for the Spanish. Had they won a lot would change for Britain.If the Spanish Had Won?They would have likely landed troops to invade Britain, changing history forever. The Spanish may very well take over Britain and change many things in it including religion, culture, and language. Colonization in the Americas would also dramatically change.http://www.youtube.com...;
Most Important Battles Challenge (2)

The Battle of GettysburgYear: 1863Armies: USA (George Meade) vs CSA (Robert E Lee)The BattleConfederate armies of the revolting Confederate States of America had wandered into the town of Gettysburg looking for shoes and other supplies when they just happened to run into the Union armies of the US who were fortified just outside of the town. The Battle lasted three days where the Confederates pushed the Union Army out of Gettysburg, but it was the third day that is the most memorable day of the battle. The Union Army had taken up defensive positions around Cemetery Hill and the Confederate armies gave it all they had leading to one of the most legendary battles of all time. What ensued was the bloodiest battle ever fought in the Civl War, and a bloodbath that took the lives of more American soldiers then any other battle in history. The amount of blood spilled caused corn grown in the fields they fought to grow three feet higher than normal, and it led to one of the most Iconic speeches ever made in history, the Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln. The victory turned the tide of the Civil War into the favor of the Union, and soon they began to rout the South until Lee himself signed the surrender in an Appomattox courthouse 2 years later. Had the South won?Most people dont know that Gettysburg Virginia lies no more than 75 miles NORTH of Washington DC. Had the confederate armies won then they could have taken the Union capital city, the city of Baltimore, and then go on to possibly capture Philadelphia. Had the south won it would have further fueled the growing settlement for peace by the people in the North which means that had the South won at Gettysburg, the Confederate States of America would still exist to this day.http://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles Challenge (2)

The Battle of SalamisYear: 480 BCFleets: Greek City-States (Eurybiades + Themistocles) vs. Achaemenid Empire (Xerxes I) The BattleAt this battle, a fleet from the Greek City-States commanded by Eurybiades and Themistocles fought off the Islamic Achaemenid Empire fleet (Persia) commanded by Xerxes I. The Persian fleet was much more larger than the Greek fleet (some say it was 1,000 Persian ships vs. 378 Greek ships). When the Persian ships entered the Straits of Salamis in cramped conditions, they were easily defeated by the Greeks. Some say if they won it would have change a lot.Had the Persians won?They would have likely changed history by defeating the Greeks here. As it would have effect Greek progress in civilization and thus change progress in the western world.http://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles Challenge (2)

Battle of SaratogaYear: 1777Armies: American (Horatio Gates + Benedict Arnold) vs Great Britain (John Burgoyne) The BattleDuring the Revolutionary War, the American rebels were pleading for foreign allies to join the fight against the British rather then face the wrath of British oppression on their own. However, many of those allies (predominantly Spain and France) were unsure that the Americans were capable of fighting well enough to defeat the British, because the American armies were defeated time and time again and were forced to revert to Guerilla warfare. Leading up to that time the British ruled the world and had stamped out all rebellions prior to the American Revolution, and unless the Americans won a key battle soon, the American Revolution would be seen as nothing more then an unorganized and ill-fated rebellion. The Battle of Saratoga though was monumental because even though it was fought with less than 20,000 men total, the American victory there was the statement to the world which said that the American rebels were indeed capable of beating the British should they receive aid. The American rebels had crippled the northern operations of the British and made it impossible for the British to retake the former northern colonies (Everything North of Virginia), and it convinced the French to join the fight against the British. France provided aid, guns, munitions, and most importantly a navy, that would allow the American rebels to drive the British forces under Cornwallis all the way to Yorktown and eventually end the Revolutionary War with an American victoryHad they wonHad the British won, Frances aid would never have come. Many of the battles fought by the Americans led to defeat after defeat and Saratoga was their one glorious victory they needed to justify their struggle to the world. Had they lost, America would have lost that justification, French aid would have never come, and the 13 rebelling colonies would eventually be returned to the 13 British colonies that they were prior to the Revolutionary War. http://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles Challenge (2)

Battle of ToursYear: 732Armies: The Franks (Charles Martel) vs. Umayyad Caliphate (Abdul Rahman) The BattleFor many years, Islamic forces in the Umayyad Caliphate (or the Moors) were expanding all over the Middle East and North Africa. Now it was time to conquer Europe. One of the most key battles in which the Caliphate tried to take Europe was a battle between them and the Franks led by Charles Martel. Martel had a total of 20,000 troops. The Caliphate army led by Abdul Rahman could have been as small as 30,000, but as high as 300,000. It was vastly larger than the Frank army. However, against all the odds, Martel and the Franks held off the Caliphate. It was at this battle that Charles Martel may have earned his nickname, "Charles The Hammer."Had Rahman won?If Rahman won, chances are they won have taken over Europe. Many people credit Martel as the savior of Europe.http://www.youtube.com...