BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That God is real

This is a debate about the existence of God. The burden of proof in on PRO, who claims "that God is real" (as per the debate title). I do not claim to know that no deities exist. All I'm saying is: we have no good reason to think that they do exist. Therefore, we shouldn't believe in them. The whole "Lucy" issue is irrelevant. For all I care, this debate can proceed under the pretense that evolution is false. Even if evolution is false, we still have no compelling reason to believe in God.
America is the best and most powerful nation in the world

Definitions: Best: of the highest quality, excellence, or standing [1] Most: in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: to win the most votes. [2] Powerful: having or exerting great power or force. [3] Note: I'm not exactly sure if the motion is the status quo, but I will debate it as if it was. 1. The Best? I shall prove today that America is not a "high quality" country. Last year, Americans generated nearly 390 million tons of trash, consequently, in the last year over 100 landfills closed. Landfills are packed full. Within the next half century the approximately 2,216 landfills that exist today will reach full capacity. [4] According to my definition of "best", this clearly does not meet the requirements. Let me continue. The world health organization rated the nations with the best health care for their people... France was number 1, Italy Second... United States... 37th place. So let's think for a second.. that means that: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Morocco, Cyprus, and Costa Rica, countries we all feel superior to, take better care of their people better than the great big United States does. [5] 2. Most Powerful? While I do admit that currently America is the most powerful country in the world in militaristic terms. But in others America is far behind. Economy: America is the WORLD LEADER in debt. In fact our debt adds up to $56,900,000,000,000. That's 98% of our GDP. We have the most powerful military in the world, but when it comes to our economy? We're pretty low. [6] Using the Roman Empire as an example, their economy collapsed, then the Empire collapsed. Enough Said. I will bring up more points later but I await my opponent's points. 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://dictionary.reference.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com.... http://findarticles.com... 5. http://www.photius.com... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
0.999999999999999(etc.) can be proven to have the same value as the value of 1.

If you really want me to prove you I will... You proved that 1=a which is actually true but in a certain which is when you assign letters to numbers such as 1=a 2=b 3=c all the way until you get to 26=z. So yes you would be right in proving that 1=a but sadly this debate is that 1=.9999999 etc. Since I have rebutt your point and have made all of mine the con side has won this debate. Thank you,
0.999999999999999(etc.) can be proven to have the same value as the value of 1.

Here is your response. Before I prove you wrong, all of the following mathematics have been proven to work EVERY SINGLE TIME, and there are no 'exceptions'. Let 0.999999999(etc.) = a 10 (0.9999999(etc.)) = 10 (a) 9.99999999(etc.) = 10a -a from both sides of the equation (or 0.999999999(etc.)) 9 = 9a --------- 1 = a There you go. Prove me wrong, I dare you!
0.999999999999999(etc.) can be proven to have the same value as the value of 1.

It is not true because if we wanted to say 1 we would have said one not .999999999999 and so on. Also why would some people say that a penny is worth .999999999999999 etc. cents instead of one cent. Therefor .999 can not be the same as 1 otherwise people would say that . (I will now use .9 instead to make it easier) Thank You,
0.999999999999999(etc.) can be proven to have the same value as the value of 1.

Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. Prove that it is not true. (sorry, I had to fill up the 100 spaces)
Metal music is better than classical music

Classical music is better because it is purer. Metal is a hybrid genre of other styles, but classical music practically birthed all other music. In classical music more attention was placed upon the actual music itself. It was the notes themselves that told the story, as contrasted with metal and any other popular genre where the story is laid out in lyric. Take Wagners Ride of the Valkyries as an example. You can perceive the struggle for triumphalism through the music alone. You can see that the music is expressing a persistent effort that is defeated in some measures only to rise again and again until the final victorious crescendo. You can feel quite clearly the emotions and dynamics that are being played out through the music, more clearly than in any other style. It engages the listener and ignites and invites the imagination. It is more interactive in that, rather than having your own emotions and feelings expressed to yourself in words, as in metal, you have to follow the abstract storyline that classical music offers and piece it together in your own head. It helps you build concepts in your head and the effort is all yours, stimulated by classical music. It is the difference between hearing and listening. Metal is also limited somewhat. By its nature, it has put itself in its own box whereas classical music can be anything from sinister to whimsical, dark and serious to light and playful, adult like or childlike. It can be divine and invoke gods and devils, it is more powerful and uplifting, and more tender and gentle than metal can probably ever be. The spectrum contrast between classical and metal is a no contest. The metal spectrum fits easily inside the classical spectrum which is as limitless as music itself. Not to mention that a lot of metal musicians borrow heavily from classical styles. Surely a nod to the overarching, inexhaustive source of musical ideas that spring from the classical fountain. Vote me!
Metal music is better than classical music

The topic of this debate is "Metal music is better than classical music." I would like to start off with some definitions for clarification. "Metal music" will be defined, in this discussion, exclusively as Japanese metal (because it's the type I listen to :P). This includes the music produced by visual kei bands such as Versailles, Matenrou Opera, D'espairsray, Exist Trace, as well as the music produced by other metal bands such as Blood Stain Child. "Classical music" will be defined as music from the following four periods: Baroque, Classical, Romantic, and Contemporary (which is defined as compositions by composers still living after 1950, with the exception of Bartok who passed away 1945). If an opponent accepts this challenge, then he/she will be presenting arguments to show why classical music is better than metal music. He/she may start off the debate in this round, or he/she will simply accept the challenge and I will begin in round 2. The opponent may also include his/her own definitions or add on to mine, but may not make changes that completely reverse the definitions that I have put in place.
THIS IS IMPORTANT ! Please read for safety

I honestly didn't expect you to respond. But I'll examine your arguments are prove you're wrong."but now that you're here, let's talk about the tomato farms in northern china. These farms are special. They belong to a farmer called old man bob. I am arguing for fat mans sake."Okay. What about bob?"Bob watipee is the new superman. He managed to save 14,000 tomato fields from extinction. Because of bob, the population of tomatoes have grown by 53%."Good for him."But there is a problem. PEOPLE ARE NOT BUYING HIS TOMATOES!!! They are only $15 each like I can only buy 30 lollipops with that money!"If 1 tomato is $15, then he doesn't deserve to sell those tomatoes. That's called overpricing."It's so cheap!! Poor old man bob is starving out there!? He is refusing to eat his tomatoes because he needs money. He need some profit."If he sells $15 tomatos expecting to buy some donuts or something, then he's a horrible salesperson. Just lower the price to like $3 for 1 tomato or something. No customers? Set the price to a low price." 99% of you might have found this article a little strange and abandoned it but for those of you who stayed I'm a proud kim k."Yay for me."The reason why you all decided to press on this debate is because you wanted to know if it was normal to worship potatoes."Answer: It's not normal to worship vegetation. Though it's also weird to worship video game characters..."In my opinion, I would love to follow the great gods of potoassitis but I'm afraid I would have to put down my own religion. If you are wondering who I worship ,what my religion is called & when it was made well I'm going to tell you right now."Worship Arceus. He's fighting the Yo-kai, so support would be nice."By the time you have gotten to this part of my writing you have probably thought I was a joke, but I do, in fact worship the great jellius babius in English you would call him " the great jelly baby". This religion is called jellius babius worshipus and in English it would be called "jelly baby worship" I do know that all of you are wondering who and when was this religion founded, well let me tell you in my perspective"At least it's not Believerism, which worships an unnamed god who goes by "papa", with genies making people sin."Once apon a time there was a young hobo. She decided to become a hobo."Haha."She thought that if she was an explorer she could create a very rare jelly baby ( stating that she loved jelly and babies) the jelly baby was a very common thing to find in this part of America. She loved an adventure."Is this Dora the Explorer? It's a good cartoon.Alright. Space is limited. But I suggest you worship Arceus. He fights invisible Yo-kai, which make us act crazy. And it's nice to see a fellow fan of the cartoon series.
THIS IS IMPORTANT ! Please read for safety

The world is a cruel place. A place so cruel that you fell for my click bait title. Or did you? but now that you're here, let's talk about the tomato farms in northern china. These farms are special. They belong to a farmer called old man bob. I am arguing for fat mans sake. Bob watipee is the new superman. He managed to save 14,000 tomato fields from extinction. Because of bob, the population of tomatoes have grown by 53%. But there is a problem. PEOPLE ARE NOT BUYING HIS TOMATOES!!! They are only $15 each like I can only buy 30 lollipops with that money! It's so cheap!! Poor old man bob is starving out there!? He is refusing to eat his tomatoes because he needs money. He need some profit. 99% of you might have found this article a little strange and abandoned it but for those of you who stayed I'm a proud kim k. The reason why you all decided to press on this debate is because you wanted to know if it was normal to worship potatoes. In my opinion, I would love to follow the great gods of potoassitis but I'm afraid I would have to put down my own religion. If you are wondering who I worship ,what my religion is called & when it was made well I'm going to tell you right now. By the time you have gotten to this part of my writing you have probably thought I was a joke, but I do, in fact worship the great jellius babius in English you would call him " the great jelly baby". This religion is called jellius babius worshipus and in English it would be called "jelly baby worship" I do know that all of you are wondering who and when was this religion founded, well let me tell you in my perspective Once apon a time there was a young hobo. She decided to become a hobo. She thought that if she was an explorer she could create a very rare jelly baby ( stating that she loved jelly and babies) the jelly baby was a very common thing to find in this part of America. She loved an adventure. She ran and ran and ran until she tripped over something so squishy. IT WAS THE JELLY BABY! She picked it up an ran to her house to make a shrine. The shrine was beautiful. It had fire burning everywhere, sharks and cacti. She placed the baby in the fire and it began to laugh. So hard that milk that it probably drank from years ago came out her belly button. She started to float and dance in a inappropriate manner. This, the girl thought was magnificent. So graceful. "I'll call you jellius babius" she told jellius babius. For those readers who are thinking " WHEN THOUGH? WHEN WAS ALL THIS HAPPENING!" It happened on may the fourth. That's right. But what year? The year all of this happened was 1499. And yes, the jellius babuis worshipus is that old. Older than Christianity. Amazing right? so please vote YES if you fully support my religion and Tomatoes and potatoes. Vote NO if you think this is brilliant, amazing , fantastic, and heart touching. To be honest, I got a little emotional when I got to the potato part. It reminds me of my childhood. 1 vote equals respect!!!!!!
Health care is NOT a right!

I would contend that free healthcare is a privilege that all citizens of any civilised country have a right to access and, therefore, your argument represents something of a false dichotomy. Similarly, the same principle can be extended to education, national security, policing, public highways and the many other services the nation provides for all members of society, regardless of the individual's ability to pay, either directly or indirectly through their taxes. In a modern democracy, everybody has the right to a free vote, yet in less enlightened times it was considered a privilege that should only be extended to senior clerics and the landed gentry.
Health care is NOT a right!

"Education is favorable to liberty. Freedom can only exist in a society of knowledge. Without learning men are incapable of knowing their rights. And where learning is confined to a few people, liberty can neither be equal nor universal" -Benjamin Rush 1786 Based on this quotation it is abundantly clear to me that it is important for every single American to know what their rights are so that they can protect their freedom and their personal liberties as Americans. Part of being able to decipher what your rights is knowing by definition what a right is and knowing there is a HUGE difference between rights and privileges. This is ware I see is great deal of misunderstanding in this country. I often hear people ranting about how they have the right to do certain things. You have heard these people, "I have the right to do this!", "I have the right to do that!", "You don't have the right..." you get the picture. One of the biggest arguments that I hear especially in the 08 election is, "I have the right to health care." or "Everyone has the right or should have the right to free health care." Only one problem with this statement... Are you ready for it?HEALTH CARE IS NOT A RIGHT! It is a privilege! In this debate I wish to correct my opponents wrongful misunderstanding and explain to my readers the difference between rights and privileges so that in turn they can protect their rights and in doing protect and preserve our liberties for us and our children. NOTE: This IS NOT a debate on weather or not socialized medicine or nationalised health care is a good thing or not! This is a debate only on deciphering weather it is a right or a privilege. So if you think you are going to accept this debate do not ramble on about how "Wonderful it is" or how we should all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. I will not waist my time with another one of those debates. I have already debated if it is or isn't a good idea for this country. This debate is different. Your job should you accept is to prove to me and the voters that health care IS A RIGHT!
Health care is NOT a right!

Thanks for your most interesting comments and also for your generous footnote. I would like to reply by clarifying what I meant by "false dichotomy" - simply that a privilege can also be a right. For example, we are privileged to live in democratic countries where we have the right to free speech. At the risk of getting further bogged down in semantics, you rightly state that the United States is a republic (a constitutional federal republic to be exact), however, I would like to point out that the US government, nevertheless, self-identifies itself as democratic (with a small "d", you will have noted). That said, I will not presume to disagree with you on the nature of the US Constitution, you have the advantage on me as I am British, not American, and I duly concede this element of the debate to you. Furthermore, I also concur that "rights" and "privileges" in the context of property or land are completely separate and that everything in life has to be paid for, one way or another. To illustrate this point, you wrote: "How would you like it if someone walked into your business and demanded goods or service for free?" Of course, I wouldn't like it and I'd ‘phone the police! However, I'd be very upset if, when I called 911, I was asked to supply my credit card details in order to facilitate their attendance! You continued: ""My question to you would be, WHO is paying the d(octo)r?" Your only answer could be that the government pays for it. Which leads me to my last question, "Where is the government getting the money from?" Well I am so glad you asked, let me just tell you... Someone else!" Of course, the taxpayer pays. However, in a civilised society the government (on behalf of the population) may decide that it would be very desirable if those who are unable to contribute financially through their taxes, nevertheless, should have the right to take full advantage of basic public services, provided they stay on the correct side of the law, naturally. An extreme example of what I mean might be a disabled baby abandoned on the steps of a hospital. That child will be a huge drain on public resources but most people would agree that it still has the right to be treated – I don't mean to be obtuse, but if no charity or member of the public offered to pay, the hospital managers should not be allowed to instruct the doctors to kick it into the shrubbery and leave it to die. In conclusion, free access to healthcare may be a "privilege" but it is also a "right". I look forward to hearing your further opinions on the matter!
Euthanasia should be legal

My opponent didn"t post an argument for round 2, so I want to add a statistic for my last round and then I"ll summarize all my arguments and elaborate them. My opponent said there should be no reason why we should legalize any kind of suicide, and I said if a person wants to leave this earth he or she will always find a way, so why not legalize euthanasia which is painless. I want to add that in the Netherlands euthanasia is legal. In 1991 they made an examination, and in 86 percent of those who received euthanasia, their life only shortened by a maximum of a week. Those 86 percent had an unbearable agony and just wanted to end their pain immediately. No matter what those persons would die within a week, so why not end their pain immediately if you could? Now I"ll summarize all my arguments and I classify the benefits in two classes for why we should legalize euthanasia. In the one class I"ve the benefits for the one who wants to leave this world and in the other class I"ve the benefits for the dependents and the society. The benefits for those who want to leave this world are that they get a more painless death than otherwise. No one wants to go through a painful death, so why do we let a lot of people go through an unbearable death? Furthermore I think it"s every person"s right to make their own choices, so why do we not let them choose themselves? -Don"t get me wrong, I"m not saying everyone should be able to receive euthanasia! In my opinion a person who already has contracted an incurable disease should for sure be able to receive euthanasia so he or she doesn"t have to go through a painful death. The benefits for the dependents and the society are when euthanasia is legalized fewer commits suicide. No dependents wants to find there husband or a good friend dead in their house, so if euthanasia gets legalized we spare them from this. Furthermore some people who want to commit suicide sometimes crash in a car on purpose and in those cases it can affect other drivers. Maybe a collision happens and maybe innocent people die. This is terrible and no one should die at the expense of others. Furthermore you can see it from an economic point of view. The society will save money if euthanasia is legalized because they don"t have to drive to car accidents and afterwards clean it up. The crashes will also make tailbacks. I wish euthanasia gets legalized so fewer commit suicide and more can leave this world in peace and without pain.
Euthanasia should be legal

If a person really wants to leave this earth, no matter why, he or she will always find a way. Some attempt suicide and others travel to another country for receiving euthanasia. If the person attempts suicide it could happen in a forest or in the person"s apartment, and at one time someone finds the person. This person who finds the maybe now dead person gets a terrible memory for life. No one wants to find a dead or unconscious person. In fact lesser people attempt suicide when euthanasia is legalized. Isn"t this a good thing? When fewer attempt suicide, fewer find dead persons who had committed suicide and fewer get a painful death. So if you only have the choice between letting a person attempt suicide or receive euthanasia what would you choose?
Euthanasia should be legal

I"m pro euthanasia because I think everyone deserves to die happy and without a lot of pain. If a person for example is diagnosed with cancer and has pain, and the person won"t have even more pain, I find it totally acceptable if they want euthanasia. Furthermore why should a human not be able to choose whether he or she have to die if an incurable disease already is contracted? It should be every human"s right.
Facebook should have dislike button.

Dislike or like in face book show what is ourselves in virtual world. It is not you face book it is about disliking someone account. When we have a like button in face book it can improve our confident in a society or overcome our social anxiety. People, social anxiety is not a good thing. Social anxiety is about yourself in a community or in a cossets people are freaking out in front of their community and they will do everything to avoid going infarct. Recent fact shows that social anxiety can kill people.but when we have a dislike button, we can improve asylum. When someone dislike us, we know we have problem in our personality. Its is natural for us to bal liked in a community or society. So we will naturally will improve ourselves. So this sow that disliking is beneficial. disliking button also help to born a positive virtual community. When we can correct or reshape someone behaviour for without having a quarrel.