BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus as a historical figure.

"First off, our calendar was based of the religion of Christianity." Actually, I'm sure you will find our calendar is based off of the Roman calendar, including using the names of roman Caesars and gods for the months.(1) Also, AD means anno Domini or year of our Lord, in Latin, not "after death".(2) Perhaps this is fallacious of me, but I feel it calls into question the amount of research Pro did on this subject. Other than that, I hardly need reply to Pro's argument at all, as it does nothing to show that Jesus actually existed. I'm not sure what else there is to say here. Pro has not created a reasonable argument for the historical existence of Jesus and I wish him good luck in round 2. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://rcg.org...
Jesus as a historical figure.

That is false. Jesus was once an actual human being, and I will prove it to you. First off, our calendar was based of the religion of Christianity. You don't think so? Well, let me teach you a little history lesson. During the French Revolution, a man named Maximilien Robespierre was a complete counter-revolutionary man during this time. As the control freak he was, he had executed the leader of the CPS (Committee of Public Safety), George Danton. As soon as he took control of the CPS, Robespierre had created a significant period time that people know as the Reign of Terror. During the Reign of Terror, a sub-movement was taking place, called the de-Christianization movement. The most significant part about the de-christianization was the Republican Calendar, which contained secular names that represented the four seasons and agricultural ideas. Before this, the names solely came from Christianity. Who knows how long we have had our names for months? Probably a very long time. Also, if you go back more than 2013 years, then you will see that it would have been 1 B.C. (meaning Before Christ), and we are currently living in 2013 A.D. ( After Death, referring to the death of Jesus). I'm pretty sure somebody along time ago would have challenged this time system a long time ago if they had thought otherwise. However, those people didn't. Why? Because they knew that Christianity was a realistic religion. Christianity has to do with Jesus Christ. Therefore, Jesus, at one point, existed on this planet.
Dr. Franklin is a scumbag and should be sent to the gulag

Dr. Franklin raped me on my trip to africa by shoving a soap bar so far up my a** that I was coughing up dandrif for 4 months. Also Dr. Franklin is gay evidenced by him and Bigboonsj obsessions with their -2 micro indian penis's. Plus Dr. Franklin has no solo fortnite wins and thinks indians aren't bad even though their stinky and smell like curry.
Dinosaurs existed.

Biblically, many creatures can be referring to dinosaurs, most notably behemoth whose cedar-like tail fits only the description of the fossil record. Scientifically, not only have we discovered thousands of dinosaur fossils, we have even unintentionally found soft tissues such as hemoglobin and collagen. These examples of dinosaur tissues are preserved within partly or mostly fossilized bones. Historically, people have fought dragons and great serpents for mellenia. From the account of King Arthur and the dragon to the purported mokele mbembe in the Congo jungle, men have reported potential dinosaurs all throughout history. Archaeologically, such artifacts as the Ica stones in Peru and temple carvings in Cambodia demonstrate a knowledge of and coexistence with dinosaurs. Dinosaurs' existence is evident and to deny such is certainly constitutes a failure of rational thought. Dinosaurs once existed and may yet exist and they attest to the power and glory of God. Thank you for tour time and consideration of my case.
Dinosaurs existed.

I have stated my case in round 1, and asked that pro state his case in round 1. Pro has yet to provide any evidence for his side. Pro maintains that dinosaurs existed, and are supported in the story of creation. While I believe the creation story to be true, there seems to be no mention of these fabled beasts. I'm not only interested in the Bible's account of unic... dinosaurs, I would be interested in any scientific evidence mostly, most of our voters are atheists, unable to see past the pseudoscience today's education system offers.
Dinosaurs existed.

Dinosaurs were an elaborate hoax, put on by early evolutionists. Dinosaur bones are actually bones from many different animals, with the missing bones made from plaster and the like. When you go to a museum, you're not even looking at what was originally found! All dino bones were "found" by people specifically looking for said bones, with many generally lumped into one area. This suggests planting these bones "Finding" a dino bone is a very lucrative business with a t-rex bone selling for $12 million dollars. People dig all the time. Miners, farmers, basement builders, etc. People explore all the time. Native Americans didn't find anything. No one knew dinosaurs existed until the late 1800's when someone theorized them, then after some fossilized teeth were found, an entire dinosaur was confirmed! Pro must state his case for why he believes that dinosaurs existed in round one. No semantics please. Arguments and rebuttals continue to R3, after which no new evidence may be presented. R5 is for final arguments, rebuttals and conlusions. Any sources may be used until they are found to be false info. In 1990, "Sue" was found on a casual stroll. By a fossil hunter for a failing museum. Where did the rest of the fossils of all the dinos go? There were thousands of these monstrous beasts, but were not tripping over their remains? Evolution is a lie, atheists are so gullible!
Hate Speech Should Be Made Illegal in America

In a recent forum, the concept of hate speech was discussed briefly, and it seems that we have differing opinions on the matter. For that reason, I would like to challenge twocupcakes to a debate on the resolution that "Hate Speech Should Be Made Illegal in America. " Burden of proof will be shared. My opponent will have to show that hate speech should be made illegal, and I will have to show that it should not be illegal. Rules:First round acceptanceNo new arguments in the last round8000 Character Limit72 Hours to Post ArgumentA forfeited round by one side will result in a 7 point gain for the opposing side. DefinitionsHate Speech: any speech which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
On Balance Protectionism is a Good Trade Policy

Only One PointI really only have 1 point worth addressing in this round, so here it is:OUTSOURCINGSo, here it is. Let us look at things from the perspective of a businessman. From his viewpoint, the main world concern is money. So he will do nearly whatever he can to save money. Now consider this. You must pay someone the minimum wage in the US. Currently, that is $7.25[1]. So, let us pretend we are manufacturing a $100 product. We can pay someone $10 an hour in the US, whereas (1 of many examples) we can pay someone less than a dollar in China[2]. This means the man can send the product there and return it home tariff free, fueling that country economy. For that reason, China is currently doing astronomically well in terms of GDP growth. How do we fix this?Tariffs.1st, not only have free trade deals (the opposite of protectionism) been shown to fail (TPP), but tariffs are a key and essential part of the protectionist concept.Place a tariff slightly above the minimum wage on the businessman and they will switch. Why? They save money. No matter how minuscule that amount is, it is still quite prevalent. With that switch, the business executives are fueling American jobs and not China's or somebody else's. Instead of outsourcing to other countries, protectionism allows for a grand expansion of the national economy by encouraging development of local products.Thank you- as those were just my opening arguments, I will argue in more depth next round.Bibliography1- https://www.dol.gov... 2- https://en.wikipedia.org...
On Balance Protectionism is a Good Trade Policy

Resolution:ON BALANCE, PROTECIONISM IS A GOOD TRADE POLICYThis debate discusses the topic of the protectionism. Pro argues it is beneficial, while con argues it is detrimental.Burden of ProofBOP is shared but falls mostly on me.StructureRound 1- AcceptanceRound 2- Opening ArgumentsRound 3- Rebutalls/ More ArgumentsRound 4- Rebutalls/ Closing ArgumentsDefinitionsProtectionism- the economic policy of restraining trade between states (countries) through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations.Tariff- a tax imposed on exports or importsQuota- a given limit to an amount of things to be exported or importedSubsidy- a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive. Thank you to anyone who accepts, and good luck.
South Park is the best television show ever.

"South Park is the best television show ever." My opponent has just said mostly opinions. He has not proven it is the best among every single TV show out there.Let's compare South Park to Breaking Bad.Breaking Bad (http://www.imdb.com...)Rated a 9.5/10, not to mention has won 2 Golden Globes, 114 wins and 191 nominations.South Park (http://www.imdb.com...)Rated a 8.9/10, 6 wins and 30 nominations.Because my opponent believes it is "the best television show ever." I looked up the top voted TV shows for the best TV show list. (http://www.imdb.com...)1. Breaking BadIf you keep go to page 2, you see South Park.53. South ParkThank you.
There is rational evidence for God

Complexity of life The existence of life shows that there must have been a very clever Designer at work. Living things are extremely complex with numerous design features. Atheists acknowledge that things look designed[note 1] and evolution is their attempt to explain this apparent design without a designer. Living things also contain enormous quantities of genetic information. Information can only come from an intelligent being. That this design and information needs an intelligent being as its source is recognised by some atheists who try to explain it by suggesting that perhaps life on Earth was designed by aliens. However, this only removes the problem another step, and fails to answer the question of who designed the aliens.
Animal Rights

Full Resolution: Animals should have rightsI am Con, which means that my opponent is Pro. Rules1. No forfeiting2. No trolling3. There will be 10 judges to vote on the debate.4. Pro starts arguing in round 1, and waives the final round5. No kritiks or semantics6. Definitons are not arguable7. Comment if wanting to accept.8. No following the rules= loss.JudgesJudges so far1. Hayd2. ballpit3. lannan4. WhineyMagiciann55.6.7.8.9.10.I will ask 10 people to vote on the debate. If somone says no, there will be a replacement, and anyone that PMs me will be a judge.Structure1. Rules Definiton/ Arguments2. Arguments/ Rebuttals3. Rebuttals/ Defense4. Defense/ Conclusion, Why I won this debate, rebuttals to defense5. Conclusion, Why I won this debate, rebuttals to defense/ WaiveDefinitions1. Animal: any organism of the Kingdom Animalia including humans, not insects, sponges, you get what I mean, those animals like plankton.2. Rights: Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology. Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture,[2] and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived."[1] Comment if wanting to accept.Sourceshttps://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.debate.org...
Lars Ulrich vs. Napster

For this debate, the Pro endorces "Metallica" drummer Lars Ulrich's stance in the US lawsuit against Hank Berry, Shawn Fanning and the Napster community. I, as Con, do not. I am free to endorse the status quo (at the time) or a counter-plan (in this case, counter-law-suit) against Lars Ulrich, who the Pro represents. At the time of this debate, we are to assume that all results of said lawsuit are nonexistant, as are any other relevant items that branched from Napster or the suit today. Limewire does not exist. BitTorrent does not exist. Et cetera. I don't want to bind this debate up with stupid rules or definitions, just PLEASE be logical and avoid the semantical argumentation. NOTE THIS NOW: IF YOU PLAN ON MAKING SEMANTICAL EXTRA-TOPICAL ARGUMENTS, DO NOT ACCEPT THIS DEBATE, OR YOU WILL TO FORFEIT IN-ROUND. Basically, use common sense. I want to have fun as well as give the DDO community a good show. Though this might not be an LD debate, I allow the Affirmative to create and present its constructive arguments, where I will therein follow with my NC and attack the AC.
Hitler was in the closet.

My opponent has asked an irrevelant question. He still has not based his hypothesis on any empirical evidence or even a sound argument. I'm still trying to correlate art, Jews, & kiddie porn with someone being falsely accused of being inside a residential closet. Pro has still not provided an establishing evidentiary case nor refute my debunking evidentiary argument.*Anyhow, history tells us countless people witnessed Hitler in 1923 going to jail[1] but never into a closet. Though some historians say he was given a divine vision of a future phenomon that was likely the catalyst to his delusional behavior as he had drawn up military plans to invade Lady Gaga's closet.[2]*- Initial argument extended for proper rebuttal.[1]- http://www.history.com...[2]- Hitler Plans to Invade Lady Gaga's Closet. http://www.youtube.com...I ask my opponent to please show us the closet Adolf Hitler stepped into, sat in, slept in, jerked off in, hung his coat in, etc.
Hitler was in the closet.

As your resolution states: "Hitler was in the closet." Pro has failed to provide evidence of Hitler being in a closet. It is a noted fact, the Furher "went to meet army leaders in cities like Rostow and Smolensk. Hitler visited Finland only once. Secret tapes were made of this event in the coach of the Finnish leader Mannerheim. Hitler was in Latvia just once, to meet the leaders of Heeresgruppe Nord. Memel was a city where Hitler went by boat. He also held a speech in this city, that belongs to Lithuania today. Maribor used to be an Austrian place, but today it’s part of Slovenia. Hitler was there in 1941 to see a damaged bridge. He also seems to have been in Switerland once. In Ukraine he had his FHQ Wehrwolf and he went there a view times to meet with several army leaders."[1]1- http://www.hitlerpages.com...There are other tidbits of evidence Hitler went to other places, like Argentine. [2] http://www.youtube.com...The closest my opponent can get to his resolution is if we accept a fictionalized rendition of history.Cupboard is a British term for closet. Here is a version of Hitler, from Dr. Who:[3]:http://www.youtube.com...Keep in mind this is a fictionalized version of a Hitler--not Adolf himself.My opponent will fail to uphold his burden of satisfying his resolution & establishing the most convinving argument if he cannot produce evidence of Adolf Hitler in a closet.
"Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of allegiance.

"Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of allegiance. Text of the pledge: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Please comment if you are interested in debating this topic. 72hrs/6,000 Characters/Select Winner/4 roundsRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Present caseRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Overiew of debate/closing statement (No new arguements)
God Can Gain Knowledge While Being Omniscient

ArgumentIf an omniscient being knows everything there is to know already (which is true by definition), then he cannot gain knowledge by definition, because to gain knowledge presupposes that there was something not known before. This is the common reason given for why an omniscient being cannot gain knowledge. Prima facie, it seems pretty reasonable. I mean if the set of "everything there is to know" is already filled, then there is no room for new knowledge. So, what is the problem with that line of reasoning? Well, the problem is that if the set of "everything there is to know" constantly changing (by gaining members to the set and losing members to the set), then God can gain knowledge every second while still being omniscient, as the set of "everything there is to know" is gaining to a new member every second. Here is an example:Lets say that at 7:00pm, God knows everything there is to know. He knows exactly what I am going to do at 8:00pm (we will say, watch The Big Bang Theory for the first time). So, at 700pm, God knows that 8:00pm, I will be watching The Big Bang Theory. However, what God doesn't know at 7:00pm is that "NOW, I am watching The Big Bang Theory". God cannot know that, because that would be false (I won't be watching The Big Bang Theory till 8:00pm). A being can only be omniscient if the knowledge is logically possible (it is impossible to know that NOW you are doing something at 8:00pm, if it is really 7:00pm now). However, when 8:00pm comes around, God gains knowledge. He gains the knowledge that I am NOW watching The Big Bang Theory. So, at both 7:00pm, and 8:00pm, God knew everything there was to know, even though he gained knowledge at 8:00pm! Therefore, it is possible for a being to be omniscient at all times, while gaining knowledge at all times. ConclusionSo, an omniscient being can gain knowledge, as long as the set of "everything there is to know" can gains members. Every moment, the set of "everything there is to know" gains a member, because what is happening "now" is always changing.
God Can Gain Knowledge While Being Omniscient

The burden of proof will be shared. I will be arguing that there is no explicit contradiction in God gaining knowledge while still being omniscient by definition, like some may think. My opponent will argue it is a contradiction for God to gain knowledge if he is omniscient, because if God knows all there is to know already, then he cannot know more. God For this debate, God is just "an omniscient being". Any other attributes you believe God (omnipotence, perfection, omnibenevolence ect. ) has no relavence to this debate. This debate is essentially about whether its possible or not for a being to be omniscient, as defined, and gain knowledge.
you have no fear of spiders after round 1.

The night is dark and full of terrors and spiders are clearly one of them. Especially the big and icy ones from A Song of Ice and Fire. And what about the giant ones from the Hyrule and Middle Earth Universes? The sane man fears them it seems because he can't help but fearing them. If there was an anti-spider gun in the future I think that people would buy it, if it killed the big ones. Now if there was a drug that helped to make you less afraid of the miniature spiders...well that would be a different story then.
Iron Man can beat Hulk!!!!

None of Iron man's weapons would have any effect on the Hulk, he's well know to be incredibly durable and able to take hits; "[1]The Hulk is resistant to most forms of injury or damage. The extent varies between interpretations, but he has withstood the equivalent of solar temperatures, nuclear explosions, and planet-shattering impacts. " If even Galactus, the guy who eats planets, couldn't hurt the Hulk[2] then Iron Man's lasers and other various weapons aren't going to do a thing. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://hulkcollection.wordpress.com... Furthermore the very possibility that Tony Stark would have to resort to using more than one Iron Man suit does well to prove my points; that he's just a rich guy in a metal suit. Iron Man couldn't do anything to even harm the hulk, whereas the Hulk could easily destroy any number of Tony Stark's Iron Man suits.
Iron Man can beat Hulk!!!!

But Iron Man can just fly high above in the air and then use 1 of his 200+ weapons to just destroy hulk, and if you don't know Iron Man has a special feature called the laser beam which is charged every 5 minutes. He can keep Hulk busy and then cut him off with his laser, and his laser is such that anything that comes in it's way gets destroyed. What if Iron Man's one suit gets damaged. He can just bring any of its suits and he has a ton of them. reference: . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_armor Hulk cannot fly that is a huge negative point for hulk so Iron Man can use his brain and stay in the air and just blow off hulk because as you know Iron Man is very very very intelligent. Hulk has no way he could defeat Iron Man.
Iron Man can beat Hulk!!!!

There is no way that Iron man would beat hulk, he may have a state-of-the-art suit, but that's about it. The Hulk on the other hand is an absolute monster; he's completely competent to tear an entire city block down and beat any hero in the marvel universe! That is however, not my burden in this debate. My burden is to refute Pro's argument that Iron Man can beat the Hulk. I do not have to show that the Hulk could beat Iron Man; it is permissible for me to do so but it is not required. I offer the following arguments- First, I contend that my opponent has not provided sufficient proof to warrant that Iron Man could beat the Hulk. Tony Stark may be a brilliant playboy billionaire, but as a hero all he has is a metal suit; his powers are completely dependent upon his suit, if the suit is damaged then he's basically useless. Hulk could easily damage Iron Man's suit while he's in the air by throwing a car or tree or something at him and then boom! Iron man is dead. Second, the Hulk is a monster of strength and perseverance. He could easily outlast Iron Man in a fight and destroy him when is guard is down; on the other hand Tony Stark is just a rich guy in a suit. None of Iron Man's weapons could even harm Hulk, Iron Man would exhaust all of his weapons and end up being beaten -- that or he'd have to fly away in which case the Hulk still wins. There are plenty of other arguments I could cover, but as for now this will be sufficient.
Iron Man can beat Hulk!!!!

Iron Man can beat Hulk in a few seconds. Hulk is just a monster and cannot even fly, whereas Iron Man and his 40+ armored suits can beat him. Hulk is no match for him. If Hulk tries to punch him Iron Man will fly and just blow him with the amassed missile. Iron Man has so many weapons and if he uses even one of them he could easily blow off Hulk.
Nuclear Power VS. Solar Power

My opponent makes the argument that a whopping 5-megawatts can be stored in molten salt, however this is the amount of energy that new York city uses in less than 30 seconds, so this is not a feasible idea My opponent then cites technology that is not commercially available as of January 2013, a clear violation of the terms of this debate. In conclusion, I have dismantled my opponent’s entire case, and every one of my points have gone un-rebutted. I have used more sources, and more reliable sources (Most of my opponent’s sources link to the live-strong home page). I urge the voters to vote pro on this debate (2)! Sources: 1. http://engineering.mit.edu... 2. The rest of this debate