BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The earth is a ball or sphere or anything but flat or possibly concave.

Okay well from experiences, if you ever watched a sail boat sale away from a harbor, the last thing you would see would be the tips of the sail, which suggest a curved angle. Also if you notice how water droplets form, they form sphericle, and if you look through a telescope you'd be able to notice the round shape of other planets, as well as the moon, suggesting that all these planets form in sphericle shapes. We also know how vast space is, and in space things just tend to float, there is no direction in space, if the earth was flat we'd fall off. A round earth makes sense as it spins and keeps us grounded. Take a grocery bag put stuff in it and spin it. Notice how everything sticks to the bottom of the bag.
The earth is a ball or sphere or anything but flat or possibly concave.

You can see and make rainbows indoor... I've traveled from the California, to Taiwan, to London, to New York and back to Cali. Space doesn't work as the super vacuum as depicted in cinemas, those are just over exaggerated. It's explained here http://gizmodo.com... As far as the lightbulb, are you serious? If you draw a dot on the lightbulb it will be in the same position wherever you go. And the top of the light bulb looks exactly as the bottom of the light bulb any part in the room. So your anology doesn't explain anything. That's not how glasses work either.... I have poor vision, -2.5 so it's pretty thick with a big curvature, looking through it doesn't make everything seem curve though. If you don't wear glasses you have no right to say what I see through my lens. Our eyes are round and our cornea is round, do we see everything curved? No we don't. As far as eclipse? Sure that random coincidence is possible, because we exist and have life on earth! A random chance such as life existing is also crazily random yet it happened. You think our atmosphere can compared to a fictional movie? We also have a magnetic shield protecting the earth that is created by a molten core spinning around in the center, which is why we aren't all walking around with cancer. You try to use the bible as a source as well. Which is not a valid source. The other reason why I know the earth is a sphere is because I built the damn thing. So why are there so many people that would want to argue other wise? Source - I am God
Socialists living under the oppression of capitalism should avoid paying taxes.

Actually, I'm not sure what possessed me to start this debate. Certainly it wasn't the prospect of an easy win (a task made even harder by having a formidable opponent). I haven't checked, but my impression is that there are more capitalists members of this site than there are militant left-wing agitators! Never mind, though, I'm sure most members will vote on the quality of debate rather than their own personal opinion. My opponent rightly pointed out that preceding the Revolution, the working classes would suffer more than the ruling classes. This, unfortunately, is a necessary evil - it would be for the workers' long-term benefit. The strategy is that the working classes would blame the capitalist government for their impoverishment and help to depose them (let's just hope they don't rumble my plan by reading this debate)! He went on to make speculate that the revolution, for various reasons, would not be successful and that the system of government would be fundamentally flawed. It is undoubtedly true that a socialist regime would face challenges, one cannot forecast "events", but let us not forget where we are right now, under capitalism. The economy is in freefall, unemployment is rocketing, the value of pensions and house prices are plummeting, inflation is soaring and while the tax payer bails out rotten banks, fat cat financiers are feathering their nests will multi-million dollar "golden parachutes". With regard to the point that it is not only the rich that are on the fiddle, but ordinary folk too – I fully concur. Who amongst us can honestly hold their hands up and say they have never tried to cheat the system? That's because nobody feels bad about swindling a government that cracks down hard on the pensioners that do a few odd jobs on the black, yet let the rich salt away fortunes in offshore tax havens. Also, it is true that not everybody will be sensible with their $125,000 windfall – for sure, some will be reckless and blow the lot on having fun (good for the economy) or move abroad (reduces the housing shortage, making homes more affordable for first time buyers) but socialists don't, contrary to the popular misconception, want to dictate how people spend their own money – it should and would be up the individual's own discretion. My opponent is right, of course, when he suggests there would be huge resistance to my plan from the richest 5% who would be worse off, but what are they going to do against the 95%, including all the soldiers and police officers, who are each going to be $125,000 better off? So whether it's to create a fairer society or it's just for the money, I believe my socialist revolution would not only be popular, but also achievable. Thank you.
Socialists living under the oppression of capitalism should avoid paying taxes.

1) This revolution begins by hurting the people it seeks to help (and will continue to afterwards as well). You are going to try to break the NHS, the Education system, all the infrastucture the poor rely upon. The "upper classes" will of course be immune to this and many will flee before the revolution proper. The educated and professional classes will move to NZ, AU, Ca, US etc. 2) No political party can win an election without vast amounts of cash because there is so little difference between the parties. Go out into the street and see how many people can tell you half a dozen differences in policy. Hardly anyone can here. 3) No, current politicians are not the people suggesting revolution. 4) Here I was trying to point out that Britain is already in a relatively good position and that it's easier to wreck than improve. Nationalising privately-held utilities delivers them into control by people who get paid however poorly the utilities perform. Think of Russia in the 1980s and 1990s. 5) Have a talk with people in the pub (when they're properly pissed [drunk]). An amazing number of people are on some kind of fiddle. The rich just tend to do it with spare cash. 6) You believe that dishing out $125,000USD-odd to each person will be an irresistable attraction to revolution. This is just fraught with problems. Let's asks a fundamental question... What makes the people in a country work? The desire for people to better their lives through the accumulation of wealth. Certainly if you stop paying people, most work comes to a rapid halt. Once people consider themselves to be wealthy they spend the money (sometimes even beforehand) - so as to benefit from it. After you've taken all the money from the rich (in some cases hard-working, careful savers), I expect: - people will attempt to buy property that was formerly out of reach result: property prices increase dramatically. - vast numbers of people would try to go on holiday simultaneously (Spain will certainly support this revolution) result: vast numbers of services shut down, much wealth goes to Europe and abroad. Why bother working? You could move to India, and with half a million and a little care, you could live like aristos for the rest of your lives! - people will attempt to buy various goods they always wanted result: the goods become vastly more expensive. Overall result: rampant inflation, terrible balance of payments and loss of workers from many essential areas... i.e. a country in a state of collapse with few skilled people left to try to fix it. Quite frankly, anyone with a family and an ounce of sense would emigrate immediately to escape the disaster that would follow. Just how you would get the money out of the rich is equally fraught with problems - and that's if they're willing to comply! Perhaps some more about this next round. The point I'm driving at is this; the revolution is highly unlikely to happen, but even if it did, it would leave the country far worse off. Therefore don't do it. Therefore socialists should pay taxes and try to improve the country some other way!
Cats can be taught spiritual truths

I believe cats are naturally spiritual truths, and it is wrong to keep our religious life "cat-free." We should share our beliefs with our cats, even if it appears they are not interested or have better things to do. Here is my position: 1. Cats can understand spiritual concepts like forgiveness, meditation, veganism and Christian metalcore. 2. Cats, though unable to speak in complete sentences, have a highly developed sense of hearing and can understand mutliple languages, like Tagalog and even Dutch. 3. If cats were more spiritually developed, they would be easier to manage, be more well-behaved and perhaps even shed less! 3, pt. 2. Most religions teach that we reincarnate back into animals, and even if they do not teach that, then they still teach that animals will be in heaven. And how can an animal get to heaven if it doesn't learn spiritual truths? They do all the things we do except work for a living. If positions 1-3 are accurate, then we have a sound basis for teaching our cat the ways of the soul. But even if one of them is true, my position is still correct. The opponent must prove that all three are total garbage to defeat me, and they must do it without ad hominems attacks against me, my character, or the crimes of my ancestors against just about everybody. I look forwarded to a spirited debate where we can all learn and enjoy life to the fullest extent of the law.
Jesus was a conservative.

"He helped the poor without one government program. "Liberals can do that. "He healed the sick without a government health care system. "Liberals can do that. "He feed the hungry without food stamps. "Liberals can do that. "He was killed by a liberal court. "No, he was killed by a ultra-conservative extremist court. Exactly the opposite. Why Jesus was not conservativeContention 1: He was against the conservative priestsSeveral times throughout the Bible he preached against the conservative priests.
Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

This is the National Forensic Society Lincoln-Douglas debate resolution for the national tournament for 2012-2013. I prefer that this debate be done according to the conventions of NFL Lincoln-Douglas (this is how I will do it), but this is not essential. I am willing to debate any logical, fair negation of the topic. Please respond to accept. Also, this is my first time on Debate.org
Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

Actually, the Kantian imperative is more of a way of life or philosophical concept, not a law that can be enforced. The two laws I stated, are enforceable. And I believe that you twist my words sir, the legislative, judicial, or executive branches do not do anything to stop immoral people. Police officer, or in my case peace officers, do. And to your other statement, a peace corp I mentioned earlier wouldn't really have a monopoly on power because they are not commanded by another body. Police are controlled by politicians who can make them act as they please, but the peace corp I mentioned will only answer to the law of the land. They will not have the authority to make and enforce their own laws because by doing so they will be breaking both of the mentioned laws. Any one man who wanted to gain a monopoly on power would have to bribe every peace officer to follow him because he will be thwarted if he tries to. Similar to how one man cannot illegally gain control of an entire police department without being arrested. You claim that an oppressive government can maintain civilisation. Civilisation as defined by who? The government? And at what cost? What freedoms will be sacrificed, what rights will withheld, privacies destroyed all for the sake of the "greater good", by a government that feels it is "all powerful"? Doesn't sound like a pleasant living environment now does it? In my suggested society, all rights, freedoms and privacies are guaranteed unless you infringe on someone else. Just because there's no man in front of a teleprompter, doesn't mean society collapses. That's also one of the jobs of the peace corp. I also failed to mention earlier that if you break those laws, you are placed outside the protection of those laws, which is how the peace corp can exist without being seen as infringing on the people. You also claim that an oppressive government can deal with external threats. Please be a little more specific. Do you mean things like military invasion and hostile fanatics? The only reason they would have to threaten us is because we infringed on them. We infringed on the Middle east in the cold war which is why they bombed us on 9/11. If we treated them according to the 2 laws mentioned, they wouldn't be so hostile to us. Same applies to military invasion. Don't encroach on others and they won't encroach on us. Let's say hypothetically that we were invaded anyway, in America, we have such a high number of armed citizens, with a dense population of ex-military/LE, and with the right to keep military hardware(under the two laws, until they lose those rights) and such a high number of tactical trainers involved, we could amount to a very frightening welcoming party to any invader. But that would never need to happen if we stayed out of other people's business. With that I will give two reasons to vote Con: An oppressive government dictates your lifestyle according to it's beliefs. An oppressive government will encroach on others all for the sake of it's interests, which will cause hostility towards it.
Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

I affirm that that oppressive government is more desirable than no government. I will begin with a point-by-point refutation of my opponent's argument. First, I propose that only one law is needed for society, as opposed to my opponent's two (the right of contract and that of property). This law is the Kantian categorical imperative. If you act by this law in it's most basic formulation (roughly the golden rule) you will have all my opponent says and more. Thus, I concede the point that morality and rights can exist in absence of government. However, I disagree with my opponent that these can be enforced in the lawless state of nature. The problem is getting people to stay honest. Even in the US, which few rational people would consider an oppressive government, there are gross violations of the law. There are people who rape, murder, steal from, and generally wrong innocent people. You don't need to have a majority of immoral people to have frightening implications. Even though I disagree that good people will not need the government, it is even more evident that bad people need the government to keep them in check. This is clear, and my opponent senses so as well so he provides a second option: the peace officer corps. My opponent offers a lot of attributes of the corps. My opponent doesn't provide any evidence for how this is even possible, however: A peace officer corp would fulfill a role similar to that of a police officer, but the peace officer corp answers to only the two laws I mentioned. They do not answer to a political power and they cannot be wielded by one who wants to assume power. Why? Because you said so? The fact is when a group has a monopoly on legitimate power, there has to be internal and external checks. Otherwise, absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is nothing stopping the police corps from abusing power, or from abused power from standing up to the corps. With that, I will sparsely outline two reasons why you should vote pro: An oppressive government can deal with external threats. An oppressive government can maintain civilization where as anarchy will tend not to.
Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

I personally believe that it is better to have no government than an oppressive one. When I say no government, in America, by the definition provided, I mean no congress, no supreme court and no president and cabinet ect, Instead I hold a belief in which all men are held to the same two laws. 1) Do all you have agreed to do and 2) Do not encroach on others or their property. I believe that these 2 laws are the only two laws necessary for society. Any other law drafted is an encroachment on your personal freedom. Now one may ask, how do you ensure that society does not fall apart with no government? Well, I have two theories to answer that question. My first is, how many of you act in the norm of society simply because it's right, and not because a law tells you to, and how many people act out of the norm of society even though a law says not to? Good people will act decently with no law to tell them to do so and some people will not even though there are laws that say not to. My second theory, for those not appeased by my first theory, is a peace officer corp. A peace officer corp would fulfil a role similar to that of a police officer, but the peace officer corp answers to only the two laws I mentioned. They do not answer to a political power and they cannot be wielded by one who wants to assume power. By these terms they avoid the pre-defined definition of "Government". Thank you. Floor is your's pro.
Forks are superior to spoons

I will now open with mine, and maybe some rebuttals -Forks are visually more appealing than spoons That's an opinion, not exactly a fact -Forks are more useful than spoons I would like to disagree with this fact. While it is less optimal to eat many foods with spoons, it is still possible. In the forks case, there are some foods that you simply cannot eat with a forks (i. e yogurt, soup, ect) Spoons can also be used to cut with the sides, like a fork, and are more useful when it comes to cooking things, like stirring. There are also replacements in the world for forks, like chopsticks, but there are no replacements for spoons. Spoons are universal, and forks are not. I look forward to your next arguement
Forks are superior to spoons

I will be arguing for the fact that Forks are superior to Spoons - in style and use - and my opponent will be arguing the same, but for Spoons. - Forks are visually more appealing than Spoons. The symmetrical 3-point design is useful, but yet aesthetically pleasing, The human eye finds symmetry most appealing in all designs - this is evidenced by famous fashion trends. - Forks are more useful than Spoons. To review the primary uses of the Fork: Forks: (1) Can be used to cut; the sharp sides provide its user with a quick and easy way of slicing up his food. (2) Better to stab, rather than hold. The three points again trump the Soon's design in regards to easy eating.
Forks are superior to spoons

- Forks are visually more appealing than spoons It is a collective opinion. Refer to my earlier proof - symmetry abounds in architecture, fashion, art, and every other field of design because most people find it visually appealing. - Forks are more useful than spoons There may be some foods that can only be eaten with spoons, but the foods you have listed (yogurt, soup) can be consumed without the use of utensils. This is inapplicable for foods typically consumed by forks (chicken, steak, salad, etc. ) In any case, the number of foods that can be easily eaten by use of a fork outnumbers the amount that can be eaten by a spoon. - Spoons can also be used to cut with the sides. .. I think my opponent and I can agree that a fork's straight edges are considerably easier to cut with. - . .. are more useful when it comes to cooking things. .. Although I agree with you on this point, it is rare that one uses a moderately sized spoon to cook. The "spoons" you speak of are much larger than the spoon one usually eats with, and is thus unqualified for our debate. - There are also replacements in the world for forks, like chopsticks. .. China has made attempts to discontinue the use of chopsticks because of the immense amount of trees that were required to produce them. The "replacements" for forks you refer to are practically all disagreeable, in both practical and efficiency-of-production senses. I would like to include another point, but my opponent may have the option to ignore it for its intention is to be humorous. - Forks are considerably more effective in combat If an intruder entered one's house while he was cooking, a fork would serve as a much more formidable and dangerous weapon than a spoon.
Should homosexuals be allowed in the military

Well, as my opponent has forfeited his round, I would like to just state that I do not believe homosexuals should be allowed in the military as it would cause severe problems with the current structure of the military. I leave it up to my opponent to refute my claims. After which I will provide evidence to my claim. However, as my opponent has not even logged in within 5 days, I will leave my claims open for refuting by my opponent, until then I have no need to provide any more information.
Should homosexuals be allowed in the military

I'm not sure of the plan for this debate as far as structure goes, but I will begin with a short statement. I do not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to be openly gay in the military as it leads to issues regarding sexual harassment, potential relationship conflicts, and other issues that affect human beings that cause us to already separate men and women in the military. It is not a matter of lack of patriotism, it is a matter of code of conduct and not stating that all homosexuals are going to break the CoC but there is greater risk through allowing them in. I'll leave that as my opening statements and allow you to make your first arguments in the second round.