BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Number Zero is the Most Dangerous Threat to the Numbers World

FINAL ROUND.My opponent cites a very good example, the well known events of The Infinity Wars.However, the important thing that must be noted is that the zero created the infinity!! The Zeroes are the mighty creators, the mighty one and only God, they MAKE INFINITIES!! Do Infinities make zeroes? They can't. On the other hand zeroes make infinity! They are a higher level of terror than those infinities. In addition, the solution was actually quite easy. Our government merely made a good infinity then put a negative sign next to it. Both of these infinities are still battling it out to this day, but as seen here the although the infinity is powerful as one, it cannot spread and destroy us like the horrible Zero virus.Now, to finish the story (just for fun)....We waited and waited in the dark for years and years on, and it was year 3,325, 800 years after the Zeroes had conquered us, that we finally found our solution. We had found the mighty Professor Pi after so many years of search, and he had spent half this time inventing a machine that would hopefully finally get rid of the zeroes. Professor Pi sought out the God Calculus to help us. Calculus asked us if Algebra helped us, and we said no. We did try a secret sabotage on the zeroes as an experiment, it worked out but unfortunately it wasted a load of X's and the numbers in the equation. Calculus nodded in agreement and helped us with a simpler equation with the Spell of Critical Point: This could be easily simplified to...f(x,y) = 0 Much better thanX+7=0X=-7(As a side note, the X's were largely lacking at those ancient times, so we had limited supplies)And so we surprised the army of zeroes. They were too confused. They multipled to the equation but nothing happened. They tried to divide to infinity but unfortunately they were met with the maxima and minima limit.We had won the war, but unlike the Infinity Wars, which we only needed ONE GOOD ZERO, a division sign, and a negative one along with a multiplicational sign...we had required the help of God Calculus to defeat the Zeroes. And to today, The Zero King still hides somewhere, waiting for his revenge.....:DVote me
Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed

*Please forgive me for any grammatical or spelling errors, as this was written on my phone, and debate. irg us not very mobile friendly. Because of this, and I'm incredibly sorry, but I can not write a constructive, so would it be possible that pro could start first. I'll be able to fully debate after this round. * I agree with the rules set in place. I'd like to add that standard rules apply with for example no new arguments in closing and such. I fully expect my opponent to defend the historicity of the the character depicted in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles and Revelation, with most of the emphasis likely being upon the gospels and Epistles. With this comes the expectation of a defense of the historicity of his miracles among the likes of walking upon water, raising the dead, transfiguring water into wine, and such. To narrow it down to one, any discussion of the historcity of Christ must include at the very least the resurrection, otherwise Christianity in it of itself is dead. As the Apostle Paul explains "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. " (I Corinthians 15:14-15). This still avoids the debate of divinity and messiahship of which my opponent wishes to save for another day. Otherwise, we're debating over whether a Galliean carpenter exists who was named Yeshua bin Josef, which frankly is an impossible discussion for both me and my opponent as neither of us could use any of the New Testament nor corroborating documents as they would be based upon the the divine miracle worker and not a plain Jesus. If either the historcity of Jesus as a character or the ressurection and cruxifiction are not sufficiently proved to the point of certainty, as the resolution states, it's safe to say that the motion has been negated. As under elementary rules of logic, positive claims require positive evidence, and that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed for the very same reason. As my opponent is affirming, he should make it clear exactly what his arguments are and how it proves Jesus' historicity. I would prefer a free debate in any subject matter related to the resolution, but if my opponent wants to avoid certain topics for simplicity's sake (i. e. avoiding Socratic wisdom and questioning whether anything exists), I'd be fine with that within fair measure.
Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed

Hello all. I would like to debate the topic of the historical existence of Jesus Christ. I understand in the academic world the historicity of Christ is not called into question, except maybe by a few obscure scholars on the fringe. However, the existence of Christ is something that is frequently called into question in the web. Since this is an online forum for debate, I figured I shall dive right into the topic. There are a few rules though. 1. No videos I simply don't have the desire to watch videos pertaining to my opponents argument. Simply state the case in the box. 2. You must sincerely doubt the existence of Christ. Although I do believe there is a time and place for "playing" the other side, I would, for this particular debate be more interested in debating someone who is of the genuine position that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. Also, keep in mind, this particular debate is just in regards to Christ's existence. His Deity and Messiahship I will save for future debates. Round one will be my opponent's opportunity to state why they believe Jesus of Nazareth did not exist, my response will be a rebuttal and a positive case for His existence. My opponent will then have a chance to rebut, so on and so forth. As always, have fun and be polite. -Doulous Christou Iesous
The Beatles are the best band there will ever be.

This is true that most people know who the beatles are, but that is not the topic of this debate. This is about the best, most desireable band which in the end is totally subjective, so I could say any band was the best. We are not debating about the influence of the beatles, this is about talent and success. The beatles were not the best band ever, because they had less talent than a lot of their fellow British bands like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and the rolling stones.
The Beatles are the best band there will ever be.

Yet If I interrogated a random bloke off the street he would no the Beatles even if he did not k ow the beach boys or the who. The bands of the 70s were a continuation of the movement began by the Beatles; they popularised that style of experimentation. The Who really are just era riders, in any time but the 60s they would have flopped. And musically the 60s were defined by the Beatles, the Beach Boys would have run out of stuff to write but then pet sounds; inspired by Rubber Soal.
The Beatles are the best band there will ever be.

Definition "Best" Most desirable The Beatles are not the best band ever. They were a glorified boy band, and for a while their music didn't mean anything because they were just doing it for money and fame. And they didn't even do it that well because they were getting ripped off by their manager and they only earned .25% of a penny for each record sold. Also if they were the best group ever then they would not have broken up so soon. Lastly the word best makes it subjective. 500 characters?
Animal and Human Cloning

Genetic diseases will always come up, even cloning could go wrong, and the results are not definite. In addition to the idea of a disease that clones cannot fight against, that would result with multiple people killed because their genetic makeup was the same. Non-clones at least have the advantage to defend themselves in different ways, which will lead humanity to the cure. Clones would only repeat the process of them being taken over by the disease. As for the job opportunities, it"s true it gives people work, but what about boycotts or riots? According to debatewise, religious groups such as Catholicism and Judaism believe the process of cloning is "playing God." In their beliefs such things are blasphemous. The discrimination from these people will cause riots, which in turn, leads to political/social problems. This will be due to the questioning of ethics and what should be legal or not. Leon R. Kass believes failure to produce scientific reasons against technology doesn"t mean we should deny our instinct of what is right. The miracle of life use to be described as special as well as unique and cloning takes away the beautiful, individual qualities nature processes us with. In a world where being your own person is always advertised it is slowly being taken away.
Animal and Human Cloning

Clones will be expensive at first, yes. But the use of clones will open up many more job opportunities. The cost of the ability to make clones is outweighed by the technological advancements that will come out of the clones. Clones will provide humanity ways to counteract many genetic disorders that kill thousands each day. If we were to not use clones, the genetic diseases that devastate families every day will continue to take their toll.
Animal and Human Cloning

Twins are natural because humans don"t have any manipulation over it, intentionally making something identical to something else is manipulation and unnatural. Making perfect humans is what will become of cloning as Dr. Dan Brock suggests. As for the protection of diseases, there is always risk of an infection that clones could not defend, thus killing them because they are genetically the same they wouldn"t be able to repel differently in comparison to non-clones. Plus society has to put in perspective the cost of all these genetic experiments, according to Matthew Herper. Egg donors are paid between 3,000 to 5,000 dollars. One experiment took 71 eggs. Also according to Peter Mombaerts, a scientist, he did an experiment that cost 2,000 dollars just on mice, if it were done on humans it would cost 2 million dollars. Dolly the sheep was estimated to cost 5,000,000 British pounds.
Animal and Human Cloning

You say that cloning what was once natural goes against nature, but then suggest the manipulation of our genes to make the perfect humans as an alternative? Cloning, although the DNA of the clone is not naturat, comes from a point in time when the base of the cloning was natural. According to the cloning fact sheet, the use of cloning is the most effective way to perfect DNA splicing, the most effective form of eugenics. Without cloning, the eugenics you suggested would take many years longer to complete. All forms of media in the world are based off of something else, why not do that with humans? Rather than hampering the evolutionary processes, making clones that are free from diseases that may have killed the individual that the clone was based on shows an evolutionary step.
Animal and Human Cloning

Although we are taught to be freethinking individuals, cloning counteracts that thought. Which is why some clones carry the burden to be exactly like someone else. Due to cloning genetic diversity is at risk as well as the capacity mankind has to adapt. Evolution is not allowed to follow its natural footsteps according to health guidance. Dr. Dan Brock suggest eugenics, manipulation of characteristics, is a new trend. This concept is said to resemble that of what the Nazis did to the race of Aryan Superhumans in the thought of eliminating the "undesired'" traits as well as people according to debatewise. Also in offering the option for desired traits the cost will only allow the wealthier class to have what society may think as "perfect offspring" causing social and political issues. Cloning also brings the risk of overpopulation because now single people would be able to have more children without needing a partner.
Animal and Human Cloning

Just because a clone is a genetic copy of an organism"s DNA does not mean the clone will become an exact replica of the original organism. The way a person looks and acts is not completely based on the DNA they are given. And as for the "need to follow in their footsteps" part, we are taught to be freethinking people, and to use our free will to live our lives the way we see fit. According to the Cloning Fact Sheet, cloning can occur in nature, and Identical Twins are considered a form, although not perfect, of cloning. Cloned animals are able to provide a higher amount of food in our world, where the effects of population growth are rendering our food supplies worthless. These cloned organisms are also able to help better our understanding of medicine and disease.
Animal and Human Cloning

Though cloning has the possibility to advance in medicine and offer more transplants, not all clones come out the way they are intended to. There is also the discrimination one could face against the many individuals that are indifferent towards the process. As children we are brought up to believe cloning or copying is wrong, whether it be on the playground when someone tells you not to be a copycat or writing an essay and reminding yourself plagiarism is wrong. So it is no surprise that human clones or a person"s body part that is a clone would feel as though they were a negative addition, though that may not be true, some organizations in society feel this way. There is also the fact, clones are a mirror image of something or someone that already was, which can lead to physiological distress because they feel they need to follow in their footsteps according to West Virginia University. Feeling the tension of the press and the pressure of having to meet the expectations is crucial to their mental state of stress. Also, the University of Utah explains how clones can have the defect of "large offspring syndrome" this means their organs can be larger than most causing problems to breathing and blood flow. As for any type of cloning; humans, animals, single organs, health guidance explains how genes that are already forty years of age put into someone younger is suspected to affect life expectancy. The reprogramming of the nucleus of the somatic cell can also lead to cancer as stated by debatewise.
Animal and Human Cloning

Cloning animals and humans may have an unethical aspect to them, but the pros for the use of clones in our society far outweigh the cons. Cloning organs, rather than organisms, will allow for the perfection of the ability to clone without the loss of many innocent animals" lives. The cloning of organs from a man in need of a transplant will give the person an organ that perfectly matches their body, both in genetics and because the organ is a near-exact copy from the original. Simon Smith, the writer of humancloning.org, states that cloning will give scientists a way to break through the barriers of some "incurable" diseases, like cancer, through the study of cell differentiation. Along with the ability to experiment on diseases, scientists will be able to study how the genes of one person react in multiple environments through the same life cycle. Through this method of experimentation, scientists can discover what is caused through nature and what is hardwired into genetics.
Animal and Human Cloning

The dictionary definition of cloning is an "organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived." Many people agree this is unethical due to the plain idea of it going against human nature. Through these disputes, laws about the allowance of cloning vary among countries, according to health guidance, with the controversy of cloning and the legal side and people's ideas of ethics society is at risk of riots. One experiment that made this dispute a phenomena would be the famous Dolly the Sheep produced by Ian Wilmut. However, with one successful clone 277 other sheep that had deformities or died quickly after the experiment stood right before Dolly as said by the 101realstory. According to the University of Utah the success rate for cloning animals is 0.1-3%, to put that in perspective out of 999 individuals, only 29 did not end in failure. Ethics can be defined as moral principles, killing innocent creatures is one the majority can agree is not right.
obama should be impeached

My opponent FFs and I have nothing to refute. In this instance, there really isn't really any argument for me to post. People have many different arguments on why President Obama should be impeached, and I don't want to put any of these into my opponent's mouth. He claims to have "many reasons" why President Obama should be impeached, and I'd like to hear what they are, so that I can refute them. Until then, I will yield the floor, so to speak, to my opponent.
The earth is flat.

Okay so I notice that you may have made another contradiction. So, you said in your first response, "the government is trying to hide something from us," and then you also say that it is in the United Nation's flag. This means that the government clearly isn't trying to hide anything from us if they put it on a flag that is seen all over the world. Also, I know why the flag has that symbol. In the Bible, there is a depiction of an Earth with a forcefield type thing (similar to the Antarctica wall). Continuing, there is no "Antarctica wall" on the flag. Challenge: What is the government trying to hide from us? "Also if you ever go to Antarctica the government doesn't let you go too far in because they're hiding the Antarctica." People live and have travelled fully around Antarctica. I don't mean to be rude to flat earthers, but I'm pretty sure that they made up the fact that they were, "turned away" from Antarctica because they wanted to push the flat-earth agenda. Just my opinion. Thanks!
The earth is flat.

Sorry, my sister just corrected me and said it was phillipenes to l.a. So soZ for that but other then that have you seen the symbol for United Nations, it looks a little like the earth surrounded by an Antarctic wall coincidence I think not. Also if you ever go to Antarctica the government doesn't let you go too far in because they're hiding the Antarctic wall Yeah so, I don't have much more stuff so I'm saving it for part 3
The earth is flat.

Okay, So I'm not really sure what you are wanting to debate. In the second paragraph, you were talking about the moon landing. But in the third paragraph you were talking about flat earth. You wrote the motion of this debate, "The earth is flat," so I'm just gonna respond to that part of it. So, you brought up this one flight that went from Bali to Los Angeles, but I just looked up, "flights from Bali to Los Angeles," and there were more than 5 flights going there alone. Flights: Bali--> LA: 1. China Southern 2. China Airlines 3. EVA Air 4. Cathay Pacific 5. Hong Kong Airlines All of these flights go from Bali to Los Angeles without making a stop. So yes, that one time when they stopped in Alaska is weird, but it's and outlier. That doesn't happen that much, or at all, so I don't think that the theory of, "the government is hiding something," is true. Not every flight going from Bali to Los Angeles results in a woman's water breaking, and a stop. So I don't think that you evidence is very strong. Good Job Thanks
The earth is flat.

I believe the earth is flat because have you ever poured water onto a ball and then poured water onto a plate, which one does the water stay on. duh okay but to be serious, you are probably saying "but it cant be flat we saw it on the moon landing and the Tesla car that space X launched into space" but if you look into it there was proof that the moon landing was fake like the flag that they planted on the moon and the video during the Tesla rocket launch had a part during its orbit when the background turned black as if the background was just green screen so you can scratch them of your proof that its not real and now focus on my proof that it is real. there was a 19 hour flight that went from Bali to Los Angeles and a woman's water broke mid flight so they had to make an emergency landing in Alaska which made zero sense because from where the plane was it was the same distance to Los Angeles as it was Alaska so it was almost like the government was trying to hide something. I hope you enjoyed reading this good luck opposition. BTW I'm surprised that this was over 1000 characters.
Is abortion moral

I believe that abortion is wrong because it violates the rights of the fetus. To intentionally kill an innocent being out of convenience is wrong. While women should have control over their own bodies, the truth is that no one has complete bodily autonomy. A person cannot walk around nude or block a fire exit during an emergency because "its their body". In addition, the fetus isn't a part of the woman, it is its own person, with a unique set of organs, limbs, and DNA. The fetus simply is growing inside of the woman, not like a parasite, but in the womb, the way they are biologically designed to. Just like sex is designed to create a child, a uterus is designed to provide a place for it to grow. While a woman may choose to engage in sexual activity, she cannot choose the outcome of it. We can choose our actions, but not the results of our actions. I think, though, that we agree that no woman should be forced to CONCEIVE, as that is wrong. But if a woman is raped, rather than responding to violence with more violence, we should work to help the woman get through such a traumatising experience rather than acting like it didn't happen. Finally, I'd like to point out that the overwhelming majority of abortions are due to convenience rather than necessity. In fact, only 1% of abortions are for rape or incest. Abortion is wrong, and it shouldn't be allowed under any circumstance.
This following statement is, at some point in time, false: The Earth sky is yellow.

"My opponent's argument hinges on the fact that sunlight is everywhere on Earth, as these are where the particles of color come from." Particles of color? Lol, I'll leave it be. Anywho.. I contend that light does indeed reach all areas on Earth. Has my opponent completely forgotten that our sun is not the only star above the sky? At all points in the sky there is always light coming in from all directions due to the massive amount of stars in the universe. My opponent's only argument is negated. Then I may even go further to ask; Does a yellow object actually change color once placed in a dark room? Of course not, that's ridiculous. An object's color lies in it's structure of particles so that light would reflect in a certain way if introduced. Darkness does not change it's nature. Does color cease to exist if everyone goes blind? No. A yellow object remains yellow in a dark room. I agree that is extremely debatable. But it actually doesn't even matter. Because light always hits the Earth anyway.