BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Earth is spherical and the Flat Earth hypothesis is false

It is a widely accepted fact that the Earth, and all planetary objects are spherical (even though they may not be perfect spheres), and yet Flat Earth believers insist that the Earth is a flat cuboid travelling through space with a Sun and moon with a diameter of 32 km above it and provides absolutely no evidence for their ridiculous claims while disregarding the countless amounts of evidence we have for a spherical Earth as government lies. Flat Earth believers simply reject evidence such as photographs taken from satellites and the ISS and do not believe gravity exists. The burden of proof is on them to provide even a sliver of evidence that the Earth is flat other than mere claims and conjecture. My opponent has to provide evidence as to why the Earth is flat that is enough to make anyone a skeptic on the spherical shape of the Earth. They can try to back up their claims and prove photographic evidence as false. This debate is open to any legitimate Flat Earth believers.
Men should prefer gays to lesbians

I will use this round to first refute my opponent's last round arguments, then I will offer a few voting issues- The Kinsey Six analysis my opponent propagates as being so important isn't really important at all; his clarification offered at the beginning of the second round is not binding in the least. On the other hand I have shown that there is an express difference between true sexuality and expressed sexuality. Absolutes and 0s and 6s may not exist at all since the kinsey scale takes into consideration emotional and mental attraction aside from just physical attraction. As for the liberated society argument, that's an assumption unto itself; beyond that one may choose to pursue a relationship with a gender outside their usual attraction because of the aforementioned mental and emotional attraction. Despite the fact that my opponent makes attraction out to be purely physical, there is an important emotional and mental bond that is also present. My opponent never even tries to respond to this but calls it 'bullsh! t' and disregards it. So then what are the voters you ask? Drops, and conduct basically. My opponent drops every single one of my arguments and takes to insult me instead.
Men should prefer gays to lesbians

I made it very clear early on in this debate that we are only discussing sixes on the Kinsey scale. My opponent refutes my round four debate by saying not many people are 6, well that really is irrelevant to the theoretical theory that a scale 6 gay should be less preferable to a man then a scale 6 lesbian. "sexuality isn't as black black and white a gay and straight. " Right. .. And this proves what? We are only discussing gays and lesbians, not whether they chose to be it. "Straight people can decide they'd like to pursue a relationship with their own gender, and gays and lesbians could decide they'd like to pursue a relationship with another gender. " What reason, in a society as liberated of conservative bullsh! t as the 21st century one, would a person have to engage in a relationship with someone they have zero attraction to? None. WE are only discussing sixes on Kinsey scale, a gay is gay, a Kinsey scale one is a form of bisexual, I said this before. My opponent refuted nothing. He attempts to twist the entire debate by semantic abuse saying a "gay isn't truly gay" and a "lesbian isn't truly lesbian" this refutes a different resolution. MY resolution was purely that between gays and lesbians men should prefer gays. ..
Men should prefer gays to lesbians

Humans simply are not as carnal as my opponent makes them out to be, and they make decisions based on more than just who they want to have sex with. By preferring a specific set of people for such a shallow reason as gender, we make them out to be second class citizens and categorically discriminate against them. Also the argument that since lesbians are actually woman who know what women like and desire still stands; because there are very very few people who are absolute 6's on the Kinsey Scale, it isn't unheard of for a man to hook up with a self-proclaimed lesbian -- it also isn't unheard of for a gay man to hook up with a women. Our society, in an attempt to make homosexuality more aesthetically pleasing to those who disagree with it, have tried to make it seem as though those who are homosexual cannot help it, and while it's true you can't really change who you're interested in immediately sexuality isn't as black black and white a gay and straight. Straight people can decide they'd like to pursue a relationship with their own gender, and gays and lesbians could decide they'd like to pursue a relationship with another gender.
Men should prefer gays to lesbians

Tell me this: IF someone takes potential prey away from a predator what does it do to them? Makes them angry, especially if the thing is a prey itself that means TWO have gone out of bounds.If someone takes potential competition away it is likable ESPECIALLY if it is potential competition itself.Lesbians might know more about being a woman but gays thrash them in knowledge of what makes a man hot or not. Also gays are usually feminine-minded and understand the female brain better than lesbians who usually are very masculine-minded in the sense that they think more about systems than people, which is a male trait.
Men should prefer gays to lesbians

1. Introduction- It would appear that my opponent has chosen to frame his rebuttals in an alternative framework than a typical line-by-line. I do not wish to make this debate unclear and I want for the voters to follow the round easily as possible; to this end I will adopt my opponent's structure as of his last rebuttal and point out crucial drops at the end. 2. Rebuttal- Concerning the Kinsey scale analysis, My opponent seems to have ignored the fact that individuals who are an absolute 6 or 0 are very rare as most people are at least a 1 or a 5 What this means first and foremost is that most people who identify as being 'gay' are usually predominantly gay and incidentally straight as opposed to being exclusively gay. Furthermore the nurture versus nature debate[5] has shown that while each individual has inborn characteristics about them that make them naturally want to gravitate to certain things, nurture still has a very strong effect on human sexuality. Or in clearer terms; Nature is the biggest influence but nurture can have a big effect. [5] . http://allpsych.com... A classical example of this would be Dr. Robert Heath's[6] experiment where he hooked electrodes to the brain of a homosexual man to incite a pleasure response when experiencing heterosexual stimuli. The homosexual man eventually slept with a female prostitute. [6] . http://www.wireheading.com... Concerning the two provided pictures, The woman in Artifact A is 91 year old author Helen Thomas This is a picture of her in 1932: . http://www.familyoldphotos.com... The man in artifact B, is from an article talking about ugly Irishmen: . http://www.familyoldphotos.com... The point is that providing a picture over the internet is neither an accurate estimation of one's looks nor is it proof that anyone wouldn't find a person attractive. It's just shallow and mean. Here's a picture of Katy Perry: . http://ia.media-imdb.com... Here's another: . http://i.telegraph.co.uk... Here's anoth. .. oh goodness: . http://girltalk247.files.wordpress.com... An unpleasant picture of someone is not proof of, well anything. Especially not that men should prefer Gays to Lesbians. Furthermore my opponent logic following these pictures is non-sequitar to the pictures in the first place. 3. Drops- My opponent drops quite a few arguments in the previous speech, I won't try to cover them all because that would be a waste time; instead I'll focus on the more important drops. First: Equality, I speak on how preferring one group over the other because of their sexuality harms equality. This went unrefuted Second: Friendship, I speak on how Gay men are more likely to build a friendship with some-one who can relate to their problems. This went unrefuted. Third: Relatability, I speak on how a lesbian is going to know what a woman wants more than a gay man.
Men should prefer gays to lesbians

I would like to use the Kinsey scale to re-iterate all of my contentions.For this debate we shall say this:Gay = man that is a 6 (exclusively homosexual)Lesbian = woman that is a 6 (exclusively homosexual)Bisexual Man = Man that can range from 1-5 on scaleHeterosexual Man = Man that is 0 (exclusively heterosexual) on scale Now I want to genuinely ask you something. I do not know what you find attractive or unattractive but I would like you to observe the woman and man I am about to post links to (I am unable to post pictures directly into debate even if I paste form albums).Both are what I think anyone attracted to either women or men would find extremely repulsive (hence ugly) and want to use this to explain why no matter how emotionally attracted one gets to an individual, engaging in a sexually fulfilling relationship of any kind would be rather impossible, unless one was forced to close their eyes and picture a more attracted sex partner while having the sex.Artefact A: http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com...Artefact B: http://cdn.belfasttelegraph.co.uk...Now I didn't post anyone with ghastly diseases but what I'm trying to propose is that no matter how much you loved either of them, you wouldn't have sex with them, and if you did you would have to probably close your eyes at many intervals to enjoy it.Similarly any lesbian or gay (both 6 on the Kinsey scale) would never ever have consensual sex with a member of the opposite gender and be able to even remotely enjoy it. They see the opposite gender as you see those two artefacts, they are OKAY but not-at-all sexually attractive in the slightest.This is why I am trying to explain that lesbians 'steal women' away from heterosexual men (0 on Kinsey scale) and gays 'reduce competition' for them.So yes, I think I have successfully countered all rebuttals.
The Earth is flat.

Hi. Today I am here to debate if the Earth is flat or no. I think it is. RULES:1. Please no swearing. This is a Christian server2. Use actual arguments. 3. No trolling. 4. No Ad-hominems. ~I have a special qualification for you to join my debate. You must be a scientist working at NASA so you can have the level of expertise that I, And many others like me, Have. If you aren't a scientist working at NASA, I am so sorry, But you may not accept this challenge.
Barry Bonds belongs in the hall of fame, even if he used steroids near the end of his career.

Again why should cheaters be honered as a representation of how great the sport is. In my opinion the Hall of Fame shouldn't be all about stats. Did the player bring positive thiongs to the sport? Was he a good role model? Was he the kind of person that Baseball should be proud of? those all need to be a yes, and for bond sadly, the answers to those questions are no.
Barry Bonds belongs in the hall of fame, even if he used steroids near the end of his career.

I also believe that Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall despite breaking rules, so using him as a comparison doesn't strengthen your argument much. Barry Bonds should not be viewed only as a cheater (if he did cheat at all.) There should be an honest study to see what he would have done without being enhanced by steroids, and if those numbers show Hall of Fame caliber, then he should be accepted. If not, he should be denied.
Barry Bonds belongs in the hall of fame, even if he used steroids near the end of his career.

Actually he shouldn't. Pete Rose was also one of the greatest players to ever play the game. But he broke the rules. Rules are there to prohibit someone from breaking it. Breaking the rules has consequences and for barry bonds the consequence is that his stats are accepted but he doesn't belong in the hall of fame. Why are there rules to the game if it doesn't matter if any body follows them? sure bonds should be in the hall with his stats before he took steroids but if i cheated on a test and get kicked out of school i can't just come back to that school because i did well before i cheated.
Barry Bonds belongs in the hall of fame, even if he used steroids near the end of his career.

Barry Bonds is a once in a lifetime kind of player. His combination of speed and power and in his earlier years, defense, makes him an obvious hall of fame candidate. He is the only 500-500 player, meaning he has more than 500 home runs and 500 stolen bases. Heck, he's even the only 400-400 player. That achievement alone puts him in the hall of fame right away. There is no doubting this. Let's say 200 of his home runs came from steroids, and that is probably a high estimate. If Barry had 562 home runs, he'd still be among elite company. Yes, cheating is wrong, and steroids are bad, but Bonds is unquestionably a Hall of Fame player. The same cannot be said for Mark McGwire, whose sole appeal came from his home runs in the late 1990s. McGwire had no speed and was mediocre defensively. To contrast this Bonds has won many Gold Gloves and has stolen more than 500 bases. Bonds is not some marginal hitter that got boosted to Hall status with the infusion of illicit (or semi-legal) drugs. He is an already excellent player who perhaps became the home run king through the use of steroids. There is no question that Barry Bonds is a Hall of Famer. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand just how good he was.
WIFE vs HUSBAND ROUND 2!!!!!!!!!!!!

I told you a million times I was a priest, but no, you always ignore me. My long lost sister I met 5 years ago, she was shot in abs. I tried to save her, but she died. You said that you weren't sure if my kid was mine, so how are you so sure he is mine? Here is my deal, since the Maury show for us is in two day for the child, I will go too. If the child is mine, I will stay and be committed to you. If he is not mine, I will leave forever, move, and be a successful man.
WIFE vs HUSBAND ROUND 2!!!!!!!!!!!!

Huh? you didnt tell me you was a priest, so now you spilling secrets, fine,.... im actually your long lost biological sister, this is why i said i want to keep our kid close to home, he is deformed and i need him to be safe and near family. We will both be lonely if people find out about this. Look this is screwed beyond repair. Just say it yes or no. are you moving, im tired of breaking my next trying to stop you.
WIFE vs HUSBAND ROUND 2!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol you know what this is getting nowhere and fast, i gave you my ultimatums, you have your ex, and i have my sons, go ahead and get your new job, when you find yourself lonely in bed, dont come back to me. I just won the lottery yesterday, so i will do what i want now. I give you one last chance to make your decision, what do you do? You either be my pet on a leash, or be your Ex's Pet on a leash, or you choose to believe that God is an uncaused Cause, the choice is yours
WIFE vs HUSBAND ROUND 2!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is that all you have is accusatory statements? You have nothing to say about the part when you keep bring up your ex, what is her knockers bigger? is looks all that matter to you? you stuck on accusing well how you stop ignoring your wifes needs. You signed up for this, if you wasnt ready for a commitment, its a little too late for me to be informed. you were doing good for a little while, listening, now your going back to your old ways like when i was on the toilet and i need toilet paper and you went out to go boiling instead, lucky your tomy hilfiger shirt was close by i was sure to make use of it. I think thats the same shirt you gave to your ex, you lied and told her the brown stains was soil from one her favorite coutries you visited and so you didnt want to wash it off because she could keep it for sentimental value, It had sentiments alright, not ones she was expecting. Had you been there for me, you would know it was on the news, someone slipped something in my drink and that was how the first born came about, despite the worldwide clues you were too drunk to notice, so what are you going to do whatever choice you make your the once thats going to have to live with that choice, not me
WIFE vs HUSBAND ROUND 2!!!!!!!!!!!!

The person who is the husband is a female, who played a male two years ago in a play. How dare you bang with another man, if you loved me, then you would not of went with him to bed. We could live in a huge mansion, and you could be mayor, as you always said you wanted. I am only doing this for you. I love you and don't want to We are just making ends meet as is. Please, move with me.
Resolved: There is an afterlife

"http://dictionary.reference.com...... http://www.experiencefestival.com...... http://www.soul.com...... These sites provide more than enough evidence, to prove the existence of a 'soul'." Two dictionary reference lists and a blog doth not evidence make. "My final (only) point I'd like to bring up, is music. Without inspiration or 'soul', the music would have no feeling. The music would be bland at best, non-existent at worst. Without a soul, people would cease to have purpose." Actually without the brain such music would have no meaning (our obvious death from such a thing aside :D). Additionally humans are apparently not the sole animals to appreciate nor create such a thing. http://www.newscientist.com... "Throughout the years, medical science has proved that it is not always accurate or even correct. Just because medical science has researched it, doesn't mean that that is the truth." Nor does it prove your assertion one whit. Nor is it possible to study what is non existent. :) "If there wasn't an afterlife, why are you here?" I assume "why dont I just kill myself to end the horror of it all". As explained prior my own life is its purpose, my rewards come during where I am not classified as dead. :D "What is the purpose of your being here? Everything has a purpose." Teleological fallacy. Most things just are. :) "There is a life after this one." Finally the resolution. One you have failed utterly to prove. Equivocating on soul and afterlife doesn't help either. :) My claim of the impossibility of such, remains. "If you doubt it, go pray to whatever God you believe in." Which would be difficult considering my nature of being an atheist. :)
Resolved: There is an afterlife

. http://dictionary.reference.com... . http://www.experiencefestival.com... . http://www.soul.com... These sites provide more than enough evidence, to prove the existence of a 'soul'. My final point I'd like to bring up, is music. Without inspiration or 'soul', the music would have no feeling. The music would be bland at best, non-existent at worst. Without a soul, people would cease to have purpose. Throughout the years, medical science has proved that it is not always accurate or even correct. Just because medical science has researched it, doesn't mean that that is the truth. If there wasn't an afterlife, why are you here? What is the purpose of your being here? Everything has a purpose. There is a life after this one. If you doubt it, go pray to whatever God you believe in.
Resolved: There is an afterlife

"First off, using big words does not mean you're smart. Second, I'd like to point out to my opponent and voters that if no one could understand your argument, no one would be able to decipher or even debate on it." An Ad Hominem is not a rebuttal. The argument is simply this. Those processes that we as humans engage in life - perception and consciousness are biologically derived - in this case the brain. The brain requires life. With no life we cannot engage in any process. "Ok, now that we are past that, I'd like to bring up the existence of a 'soul'. Everyone has a soul." Without a soul, our mortal bodies would cease to function." ipse dixit Please be providing evidences of such a thing. Last I checked medical science contains nothing about a soul for the human body to exist healthily. :) Are you arguing all living things contain a soul? Am I sending a mosquito to mosquito afterlife with a snap of my wrist? "They would have no purpose. They need a reason to live." Having a soul and thereby having a purpose is a non sequitur. Also irrelevant to the resolution at hand. A persons foremost action is to live which requires the volitional choice to that end over death. My purpose is the realisation and pusuit of the best form to achieve that end. My life is its own purpose, my happiness the goal and reward from the actions I choose to that end.
Resolved: There is an afterlife

First off, using big words does not mean you're smart. Second, I'd like to point out to my opponent and voters that if no one could understand your argument, no one would be able to decipher or even debate on it. Ok, now that we are past that, I'd like to bring up the existence of a 'soul'. Everyone has a soul. Without a soul, our mortal bodies would cease to function. They would have no purpose. They need a reason to live. Please read these sources for more information. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The Arts needs to be established as important for ever child of any age for public/private schools!

Resolved: The Arts need to be established as important for every child of any age for public/private schools! 1. Pro will argue first in ever round and Con will argue second in every round 2. Be respectful in your arguments, never putting down the other debater for what/how they say something 3. Do your best and make your point Now for my argument: The Arts are important for every child. They help kids with their social skills such as with Theatre or expressing their feelings better like a lot of people do through Art. Not being exposed to the Arts drags you down a lot in the world and in a sense cripples you. Yeah, schools do teach Arts based classes like Theatre and Art, but its not stressed enough like it should be. I myself have been in Theatre for 4 years now and I can see how much it has improved my people skills and my social skills in general. I now have a job as a cashier that I KNOW if I had never taken Theatre or been exposed to any kind of Art I would never have had due to the fact that I would still be extraordinarily shy! The Arts help kids a lot and schools don't seem to be taking them seriously! This needs to change for the good of all children!
The Arts needs to be established as important for ever child of any age for public/private schools!

I do apologize for the use of Rap music in my argument as a negative. Another debate i am in has changed that view. I also now see that there are plenty of forms of art out there other than school. Music is listened to every day, inspiring and influencing, museums that carry artwork inspire and influence. I would like to forfeit as both with Cons argument and a new perspective from recent debates have made me change my mind about many things.