BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The earth is a spherical shape.

At this point I will let the observers decide which to believe and leave a few links that I feel best sum up this the pro side of this debate. Calculations for Earth's roundness: http://www.smokescreendesign.com... Symptoms of Pseudoscience vs True Science: http://www.quackwatch.com... Good article for everyone to read: https://cut2thetruth.wordpress.com... Good video for everyone to watch: In the end I felt like no amount effort would be sufficient to satisfy flat earthers so I'll leave it to anyone that votes. Good luck :) and thanks for the debate.
The earth is a spherical shape.

Pro, please provide proof that the earth is not flat. Bop is on pro. Proof must not depend on the first assumption that it is a sphere. Proof must be reprovable with common sense and everyday observations and experimentation recorded anyway. Any media publicly available is useable. Sources can include anything until the opposition proves them unreliable recources, or the claim is false. I hope pro accepts this debate, I feel this is the most important conspiracy. It proves the bible true for one, and shows mankind what these people are capable of, and has been doing for hundreds of years. If pro successfully provides proof, and I am thoroughly convinced, I can finally rest, and I won't get treated like a kook anymore. I can go back to researching the smaller conspiracies. Pro may start round 1. I hope to both provide insight and receive it. Good luck, should you accept.
This House Believes that we should substantially increase governmental funding into asteroid mining.

"Substantially increase government funding."The US federal government will reallocate $10 billion dollars inorder to mine astriods. It costs $2.6 to mine the actuall astriod, but the rest is to figure the cost refining the ore and in case something goes wrong. http://www.space.com... per US law if NASA doesn't use this money it gets taken away. So we wouldn't be wasting any money. The need and why we need it.95% of the world's REM supply belongs to China. http://www.theverge.com... China is starting to crack down on REM exports to the US leading to almost chaos. (http://www.cnas.org...) You may think no big deal, but if it goes any futher it will lead to US crackdown on China and with the US trying to put leverage on the US China will most likely do the same leading to an economic down of the US and then China then the world. Why is this you may ask? It is the fact that the US is entirely reliant on China and the fact that China is also to reliant on the US if one falls they both do.2nd senerio.We all know that REM are what we use in batteries, cell phones, and even military technology. So it is key that the wealth gets spread around. Since China is hoarding them the US could try to force China to give them up. This is very likely to happen since nation's in the past of done this type of thing. Look at Japan when they attack the US due to the US oil emargo on them. This will lead to a possible WW3 and this senerio is likely to happen because once you run out of REMs then you're out. http://www.tilburguniversity.edu... is a war that will hurt many nation and has a potention to go nuclear and the world will likely end due to this episode. (“The Asian Ascent: Opportunity for Peace or Precondition for War?,” International Studies Perspectives, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 36-42) Economic pay back! It's $150 billion per astriod! http://www.astronomysource.com... let's think about the trade of it'll take $2.7 billion to mine while the profit is $150 billion. With this kind of profit the US will be able to finally start to pay off it's debts which will increase trade interest with the US from other nations.
This House Believes that we should substantially increase governmental funding into asteroid mining.

This is a debate in the Debate.org Championship between Stephen_Hawkins. Here is the link for more information http://www.debate.org.... Now before we get to this great debate we must look at a few rules to make sure that we ensure what is going on here.RulesNo trolling.No Forfeiture.Try to keep swearing to a minimum.1st round is acceptance and definitions as seen fit by the debators.DefinitionsAstriod- small body from 480 miles to .5 miles in diameter. http://dictionary.reference.com...Substantially- an ample or conciderable amount. http://dictionary.reference.com...
I might be God

My resolution is that I might be God.Might: Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than "may" [1]May: Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility [2]Possibility: The fact or state of being possible [3]Possible: Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances. [4]So we see that in order for my resolution to be true, there has to be a possibility, even a weak one, that I am God. Looking at the definition of "possible", unless my opponent can present proven facts, laws, or circumstances showing that there is no possibility of me being God, my resolution stands.Good luck, Con.----[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Evolution is the wrong idea

evolution is the theory of how we are created. I think this argument should be about why evolution is the wrong idea. my argument is that evolution is wrong because God created us and I am against what other people think. we get the wrong idea of how we are made and we say what what other people thought. it is wrong to say that we are made from monkeys and that the earth is billions of years old. the bible even solves the question before the argument is raised and I quote "In the beginning God" and that's all you need to know. In the beginning God created us, crafted us, made the earth, and everything else in our universe. but people look to the answer and say that its too simple we need something that makes sense. the problem is the sense is right in front of them and they pass on and keep looking. my argument is that god made us and everything anyone else says is not in my life.
Evolution is the wrong idea

well I though you were smarter than that... the biggest proof evolutionist give is the fossil record. evolutionist say that because the animals are buried in a pattern of smallest to biggest proving that over billions of years the animals evolved into what they are today. but then it doesn't link together with the rest of the theory like why are the fish even at the bottom because the fish has soft skin and it cant possibly be fossilized so fast well the Genesis flood proves that the flood triggered earthquakes and the debris from the earthquakes fossilized the animals quickly and then the next animals were fossilized then the then land animals then reptiles then birds and the smartest of these animals knew something was up and were smart enough to at least try to survive that's why you find the smartest animals at the top. and if we were evolving them you could see that all ready we would be smarter and bigger than we are now but even scientific research proves that we are getting stupider by the years.
Evolution is the wrong idea

Back in the days.... i went on a field trip and actually saw the ape/human fossils.And ,y parents aren't lying. How my parents got into this you ask?? Well my parents say LISTEN to what your teachers say. So i do. "The Great Flood" who knows it might just be a normal flood that happened. And the crabs thing maybe the crabs walked up the mountain not by "The Flood". It's 4 vs. 1/ Parents, Me, teachers, and principals vs. YOU we are obviously not lying if its 4 vs. 1. 4 saying the truth and 1 sayin your "blabberish things".
Evolution is the wrong idea

next time you check if your teachers are lying then while your at it check your facts too, because the last time I checked the ape/human fossils are not found ANYWHERE. the evolutionist cover it up with the "missing links" and still there is no missing link. if you ask me my proof I would 1look at the scars in earth oceans and you could still see the trenches from when the bible says the fountains of the earth opened up 2 the edges of all the continents are lined up with mountains proving that the sea piled up all the magma from the underwater trenches 3 the sea crabs at the top of the mountains hmmm.. how could that be lets check... how about the Genesis flood these are my points for a fact and if you want to hear more just call
Evolution is the wrong idea

the thing is the teachers get payed to teach those "lies". the teachers and your science book come from the WRONG IDEA of the teachers who taught them. the idea of evolution is taught where? only in the public schools the private schools are where you learn the truth and the only book that you should be talking about is the bible. if the idea of evolution is true you would see it in the bible. right? well your little science book doesn't go farther than your country while the bible is still know worldwide.
PROOF that theoretical mathematics and physics are WRONG!!! I separate mathematics into three types:

PROOF that theoretical mathematics and physics are WRONG!!! I separate mathematics into three types: Theomathematics, real-world mathematics, and "theoretical" mathematics. Theomathematics is made up from what God tells us (like Pi = 3). This is the only branch that is without a doubt correct. Real world mathematics is what we deal with on a daily basis. I use this to maximize profits for Christian companies. We use it when we purchase something or count (1+1). Then there is "theoretical" mathematics...this is what the liberal EVILutionists try to force on us. It is a tool of SATAN. However, in the world of homosexual "science," if there is ONE flaw, JUST ONE, then it is proven incorrect. I HAVE FOUND THAT FLAW!! Here it is: If you were to add up all the positive integers (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+...) all the way to infinite, what do you think that would equal? Logically, it just goes to infinite. We would say that it diverges to infinite and this can be shown through a divergence test which is used by those evil "scientists." Well I have a proof that shows that this sum actually equals -1/12. That is crazy! Because those satanists say that it diverges! Well guess what? There "math" also shows that it CONVERGES to -1/12!! A series CANNOT be convergent and divergent!! This is something I have worked on for quite some time. I have knowledge in their "field" so that I could prove them wrong. I have defeated one of SATAN'S TRICKS!!! Now that this is proven wrong, several sciences will collapse as well including physics and chemistry. TRUE CHRISTIANS ALWAYS WIN! SHOUT GLORY!!!! PRAISE THE __________________ And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. 1 Kings 7:23
The current generation Hip-hop industry is detrimental to America's youth.

The thought that any type of media is detrimental to any group is ultimately a way to push down a new type of media or a new interpretation of media by a group that does not see the inherent value of it. This would be the same as me saying i believe we should ban Prince or Ban movies. Sure people can say that these things have damaged a generation, but there is no way to prove this as this is an unfounded comment. Media effects each person differently, and the only way that the media will effect someone negatively is if the person already has those types of negative thoughts in their head. These Medias or types of Genres are not to blame for anything that a person does, and the fact that many people use these types of arguments to excuse their own actions. This comment is the same as saying a violent video-game caused a school shooting. I personally know someone who has played Violent games and listened to Eminem and other similar music since he was 5 and he was still top of his grade and more morally correct than many of the people i meat today. Hip-Hop is ultimately not a problem for any age demographic.
God would not incarnate himself

Round 1 - Opening Arguments Only (No rebuttals) Round 2 - Rebuttals Only Round 3 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 4 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 5 - Closing Arguments and Closing Statements (One round can be FF if there is not enough time but try your best to avoid it) Hebrew Bible (tanakh "old" testament) only must be use to prove you argument. This is to see if the New Testament is really inspired or if it contradicts the Hebrew Bible.
God would not incarnate himself

The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God." "You have said so," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. (Matthew 16: 27, 28) Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place"" (Mark 13:26-30) Do not seek a wife. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away." (1 Corinthians 7:27,29-31) I think it's clear that Jesus was supposed to come back in the first century. I know from the churches ive been to and Bibles ive read that he will come back. Blessed are those who believe without seeing. Jesus is not G-d as per the Hebrew scriptures. G-d would not come an be a man.
God would not incarnate himself

"Well i cant argue with the bible" Which Bible? The Jewish Bible , The Christian Bible ((old new testament), the Mormon Bible (old new testament book of mormons) The New Testament can be true only if it does not contradict the "old" testament. I have shown why I believe it does. Thus, if G-d would not incarnate himself and HE is not a liar nor a man then we can be sure that Jesus was not G-d, and we can be sure that we should throw the non (new) testament in the garbage... It is my belief that the only inspire word of G-d is found in the Hebrew Bible for that reason and thus because the new testament is totally in opposition to the Hebrew Bible, we should no consider it as inspired.
God would not incarnate himself

God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Number 23:19 In other words, G-d is not a want, so he does not lie. The purpose of that is not to show that G-d is not a man, but to show that because he is not a man, he does not lie. Let's now look at Deuteronomy 4 Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them fade from your heart as long as you live. So, this is specific for those at Mount Horeb (Sinai). G-d said to not forget what their eyes saw! And what did their eyes saw? Remember the day you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb, when he said to me, "Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children. " 11 You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. 12 Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. So the people at Sinai saw No form, no body, only a form. You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt. Here He repeats it twice. The people who stood at the feet of the mountain saw no form. Thus G-d said be care not to worship And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. Here we have the word "host". This specific word includes people. .. . https://www.blueletterbible.org... So, Because G-d does not lie and the people of Israel were ask not to worship anything they have not see at mount Horeb, thus G-d would not decide to become a man. If not, he would have lied to His People, the children of Israel.
be it resolved that the national debt be repudiated

How much money exactly do you think Pakistan has been lending out exactly? Con's claims are exactly the sort of hyperbolic nonsense that surrounds this discussion. We better do what he says or nothing short of nuclear wear and the death of humanity will result! Wow! It is exactly this sort of brazen hysteria which surrounds this issue. Instead of a reasoned debate we get "bow down to our side, OR THE ENTIRE WORLD WILL BE ENGULFED IN A NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST". Such outrageous assertions make one question whether anything Con says in their entire argument is true. Russia and Pakistan don't even own the debt, so I have no idea why they would do a nuclear first strike (because not repaying your debt will make you a pariah, but apparently no one cares if you just launch nuclear first strikes at people..... right) Of course there are countless nations which have repudiated or are repudiating their debt through non payment in the third world. None of them have been nuked, or invaded, or even threatened. Even the media, hysterical as they are on this issue, has never gone to the length of arguing that it could possibly result in nuclear war, because they understand how absurd this argument would sound to an informed observer. Of course people benefit from inflation, other wise it would not occur. The very first thing you need to ask yourself when you do an analysis of something is 'qui bono'? Inflation benefits debtors at the expense of creditors because the debtors get to pay back creditors with money that is worth less. The political class, those who are most intimately connected with the state, for example bureaucrats, politicians, companies that specialize in procurement, they all get the money first and can spend it at it's original pre-inflation value. Taxes are terrible for the economy but this is of secondary importance. They are immoral. When you advocate that the debt not be repudiated, you are advocating that people be taxed. It is far more immoral to tax people who had nothing to do with the spending of the money, in order to repay it, than it is to simply repudiate the debt. Con has completely failed to make an argument, aside from their nonsensical claims about nuclear first strike and the world ending. (some further reading material on this subject) http://mises.org... http://fff.org...
Voting should be compulsory.

The sample isn't selected though, the people who want to vote do, and the people who don't want to vote don't. Currently, nobody is saying "you cannot vote if _."Your real argument is it might not be very detrimental to the general public's idea as to who a good president/whatever would be. That's like saying "legalize all guns, not THAT many more people will die."The main thing that motivates people to vote is if they're given the option. I can tell you if someone says it's mandatory to do something that I don't want to do, I won't want to do it. But if they can present good arguments as to why I should, I would be more inclined to.A "forced demographic" is not a variable anymore.Well, thanks for a good debate! Enjoy the rest of your stay!
Voting should be compulsory.

The goal of an election is to choose the democratically most preferred candidate. Different election types measure preference differently and with varying accuracy but having only a smaller sample of the population vote, and especially by having the sample selected with many biases, leads to unnecessary inaccuracies. This is a fundamental of statistics. If donkey voting can throw off 6% of the result, how much of an effect can having a voter turnout of less than 60% cause? Compulsory voting has other democratic benefits, too, including motivating public interest in political and societal affairs, requiring the government to make sure every person has a chance to vote and motivating politicians to be concerned for every demographic equally.
Voting should be compulsory.

The amount of donkey votes in non-mandatory (or compulsory) situations are very low compared to a system that requires you to vote by law.I just did twenty minutes of research trying to find anything that says the amount of donkey votes or informal votes in America and Canada, and nothing showed up. In fact, more negativity showed up regarding donkey/informal votes in Australia when I typed in "informal (and then donkey) votes in America." About 6% of votes were informal in Australia [1] last year, and with nothing coming up regarding informal or donkey votes in America, it's safe to assume that the amount of informal or donkey votes is relatively low there.[1] http://electionwatch.edu.au...
Voting should be compulsory.

I live in Australia where voting has always been compulsory. I guess the term "voting" is used loosely since all that is required is to get your name marked off a polling station or to send in a potentially empty postal vote. Because of this (and other "get-outs"), people who do not feel inclined to vote may still avoid doing so without falsely skewing results or receiving a (rather mild) fine. However, I do concede that some donkey voting occurs. I argue that the amount that it occurs is negligible compared to the great majority of thoughtful voters. Furthermore, donkey voting occurs anyway in voluntary voting since the strong incentives for people to vote include the social incentive of merely being seen to vote.
Voting should be compulsory.

I accept, thanks for bringing up a new topic!I don't want my opening round to be very long, so I will bring up one point and let you present your opening arguments.Forcing people to vote (assuming if you don't, you are punished in some kind of way) is both immoral and can lead to donkey votes. The majority people who don't want to vote will vote to get it over with and not put any thought into it, giving the candidate an unfair advantage or disadvantage based really on luck, with no actual thought going into the vote. More candidates will be elected due to luck rather than what the general public really wants.Thanks, looking forward to a good argument!
Voting should be compulsory.

Voting in local, state and national elections should be compulsory for all who are eligible to vote because it is the best way to judge the will of the people and achieve the fairest or most democratic outcome. Leaving voting up to the most motivated or the most able will only skew the results and give a false perspective on the wishes of the electorate. Voluntary voting also leads to dirty tactics for candidates and campaigners including, for example, legislating rules that would unfairly affect poorer people as suggested in certain states of the USA in their last federal election. The second best method would be to randomly select voters, however this can still lead to skewed results especially in smaller electorates.
No Contact Rule after break-up

I support the SAACWAHBYD rule. This essentially stands for "Sex At Any Cost With Adult Humans Before You Die"Following this rule, everyone ends up happier, sexier and hornier, better for species survival.Also, on a more serious note, who the hell are you to say that both parties should not have the free will to choose whether or not to bang the daylights out of each other rocking the bed on which they laid crying over the break up only one hour beforehand. There is no set time to not get back together, don't be naive, don't be ignorant, just be arrogant and sexy... like me...