BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Confederate Flag is not racist!

The confederate flag is not racist. It is simply a symbol of the southern pride and hertiage of us Americans. We love the south. Just because I fly my Confederate flags does not mean I want slaves, but that I am proud of my southern heritage. The south is the best! Even people in the North hail the South. It is the greatest feeling to meet someone else who has a lot of confederate flag bumper stickers. It is a beauty to see. I love the Confederate flag.
Global Warming is Bad and Should be Stopped.

"I dont think that webbed feet are normal in humans" Webbed feet are not normal in humans... Yet... "It is predicted that the ice sheets are supposed to change" We know that... "golbal warming will happen 1.5 feet over the next thousand years," That makes no sense... Let's pull up the full quote, shall we? "It is predicted that the ice sheets are supposed to change and golbal warming will happen 1.5 feet over the next thousand years, in a time where neither of us will be alive." Okay, how could "golbal warming" happen 1.5 feet over the next thousand years? I think what you were trying to say was: "It is predicted global warming will change the ice sheets by shrinking them 1.5 feet over the next thousand years." And of course, that really doesn't matter anyway. 1.5 feet isn't bad, and once again, humans are adapting! Okay, let me expand on my idea that humans are adapting: Humans are animals, animals adapt and evolve on their own, mostly without the evolving animal knowing it. "global warming needs to be stopped in out lifetime so that it doesnt transfer the responsibility to our younger generations." First of all, we will figure out a way to fight it, or at least temporarily stop it's effects, we're that smart. Secondly, like I've stated before, humans are adapting and evolving, and they've never stopped. Global warming is just one more thing to adapt to. Prove me wrong...
Global Warming is Bad and Should be Stopped.

First of all, it is a proven fact that material possesions are quite important to the human people. They love their computers, televisions ad fine frech wines. It is human nature. you said "Global warming is a natural process and should be helped and sped up. In fact, humans are already adapting to such things. For example, me and a few of my relatives have two toes on each foot that are webbed. This may be overlooked and classified as unimportant, or it may be the evidence we need to prove that humans are adapting and preparing for the effects of global warming." I dont think that webbed feet are normal in humans, for if it were it would be in the news more frequently and it would not be consider4ed abnormal. It is predicted that the ice sheets are supposed to change and golbal warming will happen 1.5 feet over the next thousand years, in a time where neither of us will be alive. In conclusion, global warming needs to be stopped in out lifetime so that it doesnt transfer the responsibility to our younger generations. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.
Global Warming is Bad and Should be Stopped.

"Say Goodbye to French Wines Say Goodbye to Light and Dry Wines Say Goodbye to..." All those things that you list are material possessions, and are, as such, not as important as other things, like purity and friendship and etc. Global warming is a natural process and should be helped and sped up. In fact, humans are already adapting to such things. For example, me and a few of my relatives have two toes on each foot that are webbed. This may be overlooked and classified as unimportant, or it may be the evidence we need to prove that humans are adapting and preparing for the effects of global warming. "Plants would die," Plants die no matter what, and not all plants would perish anyways. "the environment would collapse," And a new environment would take it's place. The circle of life, my friend, is taking place. "and no, global warming is not a myth." I don't believe it is, and this debate is not about weather global warming is a myth or not.
Global Warming is Bad and Should be Stopped.

I am going to argue the case that global warming has disastrous effects on current society and its people. IT was beneficial at once, but it is no longer good. I would like to show you all of the things we would be without if global warming was not solved: Say Goodbye to French Wines Say Goodbye to Light and Dry Wines Say Goodbye to Pinot Noir Say Goodbye to Baseball Bats Say Goodbye to the Beautiful Alaska Vacation Say Goodbye to Fly Fishing Say Goodbye to Ski Vacations Say Hello to Really Tacky Fake Ski Vacations Say Goodbye to Ski Competitions Say Goodbye to That Snorkeling Vacation Say Goodbye to Your Pretty Lawn Say Goodbye to Mixed Nuts, French fries, guacamole and cod. These are all the things we would be without if global warming wasnt solved. Plants would die, the environment would collapse, and no, global warming is not a myth. Information from: http://www.americanprogress.org... Thank you and I await your rebuttal.
This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote.

1. This suggestion is more reasonable, but still suffers from impossible flaws: a. Users can still use different computers - this is not expensive, since I outlined two common scenarios in which multiple computers already bought for other purposes could be co-opted. b. Users can simply use dynamic IP addresses [1] which alters their IP address every time they log in, giving them unlimited votes. 2. There is an option for users without a listed carrier to contact customers support for the carrier to be added and them confirmed. [2] This is not an issue. 3. With account verification, users are unlikely to be able to create more than a few account even when borrowing mobiles (which are more personal items). These accounts can be identified quite easily from checking the vote tab and account. This is impossible with anonymous voting. [1] http://en.wiktionary.org... [2] http://www.debate.org...
This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote.

1.It will be effective if it prevents computer users from voting twice for just a certain topic. They then can vote again for another topic. Yes, two members might be using the same computer and both might want to vote for a certain topic but such case is less common than not having a provider listed and less disadvantageous. >members using the same computer with an intent to vote on the same topic in the system I proposed a. is rare b. won't render the other users from voting for other topics >members not having access to providers listed by the site in a system requiring verification a. is very common especially outside the U.S. b. will render them unable to vote for all topics 2. Having identity verification is easier to be worked around, so it must be replaced. Having different sim cards or friends to lend you a phone is easier, less costly than having different computers. Providers from some countries aren't listed and might not agree to be included.
This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote.

Pro suggests we replace account verification with preventing the same computers voting twice for a period of time, however; 1. For such a feature to be effective, it would have to prevent people from voting for a very long time. If the person could simply come back and vote once per day it would still be ineffective. It would therefore have to prevent users from voting for about a week, which is ridiculous and still wouldn't be completely effective. 2. It could easily be worked around - for instance, school children could alternate between different school computers to vote, or if the household they lived in had multiple computers they could simply use all of them to vote. Most cell providers are already implemented in the registration system. The only problem is with the amount of numbers you can type in the box, which seems like a simple feature to fix. Almost everyone who uses the internet has a mobile, and if not they are sure to have a friend who does.
This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote.

Con said that "the correct course of action to fix a buggy but useful feature. .. is to fix it. " I disagree on this because it is also possible to replace it with a more useful feature (like not allowing users of the same computers to vote twice for a period of time) if it will be easier or more advantageous to do so than fixing it. Replacing it will be both easier and more advantageous. (1)It might be hard for the administrators of this site to "fix the bug that prevents people from various countries [from] confirming their identity" since they must include, not only the major cellphone providers, but also the minor ones that might not even be known to the administrators. (2)Some site members might not have access to mobile phones. All who are willing to debate must be given the chance to debate no matter what resources they have.
This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote.

Instead of discontinuing the identity confirmation feature entirely, the moderators should simply fix the bug that prevents people from various countries confirming their identity. The correct course of action to fix a buggy but useful feature isn't to get rid of it, but to fix it. Stopping users from having to confirm their identity would result in mass votebombing, which was a huge problem on this site in the past. With no means of control over multiple accounts, users could create debates, create large amount of accounts and vote up themselves such that legitimate vote would be all but pointless. Debate become nothing but votebombing wars, instead of intellectual exercises where the members of the site select the winner. Pro's suggestion, far from improving the site, would likely destroy it.
This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote.

This site must not require users to first confirm their identity before they may vote because (1) that decreases the number of people who would vote for a debate and (2) it would make voting inaccessible to some countries and to those who do not have mobile phones (if people with computers but without a phone do exist). Making users confirm identity will 1. be of disadvantage to people of certain countries and who has limited access to technology. 2. make the votes somewhat incomplete and thus somewhat unreliable.
Jesus the Christ is Probaby the Result of Creative Writing.

The point that I was trying to make was that the sources that actually mention Jesus were part of the New Testament, the one you call creative writing. Also, I find your arguments rather inconsistent. --"Birth of Jesus - Isa 7:14 & 9:6 Birth in Bethlehem - Mic 5:2 Egypt - Hos 11:1 Return to Nazareth - Jud 13:5 John the Baptist - Isa 14:30 & 2 Kin 2:8 & Mal 3 Temptation of Jesus - Psa 91:11-12, Deu 6:13 & Deu 6:16 Preaching in Galilee - Isa 9:1 Heals the Sick - Isa 53 Sermon on the Mount - Exo 19 Calming the Storm - Psa 107:28-29 More Healing - Isa 35:5-6 Commissioning of the 12 - Jos 4:1-2 & Mic 7:6 Transfiguration - Exo 34:29, Dan 12:2-4, Isa 40:3 Jesus Predicts His Death: Jonah 1:17, Psa 22 Entry into Jeresulam: Zec 9:9 & Psa 118:26 Fig Tree - Hos 9 Jesus Clears the temple - Zec 14:21, Neh 13:4-9, & Hos 9:15 Judas' Betrayal - Amo 2 Last Supper - Psa 41:9 Cup of suffering - Zec 12:2 & Psa 16:5 Crucifixion - Isa 53, Psa 22, Psa 69, Amo 2, Amo 8 Death - Eze 37, Isa 53, Psa 22, Psa 69 Resurrection - Isa 26:19, Eze 37, Dan 12:2-4" this is part of your earlier argument, where you used OT sources: http://www.masterstech-home.com... Now, you say: "This is simply incorrect - I am trying to discredit the Bible as an account of Jesus the CHRIST. I accept that there may have been a Jesus the Nazorean, but the resolution is concerning the creative writing employed by the authors of the gospel to transform this ordinary man into the Messiah. The facts of Jesus the Nazorean being able to read and write are completely immaterial to the notion of whether or not he is the Christ." Hmm..well, to me, resurrection doesn't sound like a normal-man type of thing. How many people do you know who have been resurrected? Personally, I can't name one. You also include Calming the Storm, Healing the Sick, Jesus' Prediction of his own Death, etc. Again, this makes him out to seem rather magical, for lack of a better word. Here's a nice little column on the transition from Calming the Sea in the Psalms (OT) to Calming the Seas in the New Testament: http://psalterium.wordpress.com... Here is a site that really does a good job of explaining the connections between the OT and the NT. It is comparing the similarities, and comes to the conclusion that Jesus was Yahweh, to the writers of the NT. The details are the same. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that it was NOT creative writing. The same magical events had happened, to make Jesus/Yahweh the Messiah and the majority of texts from that time refer to one of the two. Jesus was considered Yahweh by those, who, if not exactly at the time of Jesus, were close enough to formulate better estimates than I. http://www.forananswer.org... Thank you
AMD is a better choice for home PC's and laptops than intel

Here, I would like to give my points. AMD has the factor needed. What I would like to say here is that, all that is needed in a home CPU is what AMD tries to give best. The question is, why does one generally buy a PC or a Laptop which is meant to be used at home? ENTERTAINMENT. i. e Games, Videos, Online surfing, Listening to songs etc. .. and not things like C++ or high processing required activities. When it comes to gaming, the first thing that comes to the mind is the power of one's GPU. Now, AMD has better integrated GPU's than Intel. Checkout . http://www.tomshardware.com.... for proof. If Intel is not able to give us the needed GPU power to play our favourite games, then of course AMD is a better choice and checkout reviews of tomshardware to know that multitasking is awesome in AMD too. Intel is too costly. The very known fact that Intel is expensive makes it lose against the race against AMD. AMD on the other hand makes value for money products. For a comparison, The high end i3 with a meagre processing and GPU power is of RS 14,000. Well, in US $ it is 240 $ but the high end XII Phenom with 8 cores and world class GPU is of Rs 12000 which is 195 $. What is the use of spending all that money on a meagre Intel processor instead of a high end AMD?
Unicorn poop is good for you.

You are the most pathetic, disturbing and childish 45 year old man on this worthless site. You should be ashamed of yourself. Here, on Debate.org we pride ourselves on smart, well thought out debates, discussing the current issues of the world. And you are just that 1% that has ruin it for everyone. Unicorn poop is good for you? What world are you living in little man? Do you have the mind of a child or are you just mentally deficient? You make the people from bedlam look sane. I bet you're writing this from your dark sanitarium. Do everyone a well earned favour and ask for a couple extra bed sheets tonight and hang yourself mate. Kudos
AOW war debate, The asian country vs european country (asia pro europe con)

Without valuble leadership, The UK miserably fails the attempt to take over india. A new treaty is signed Treaty of party *The Uk give india all of it`s money, Tech, And whatever they have *The UK is now Owned by India, and so is the commonwelth *The UK pay epic diplomat mr.almighty *The UK give japan new zealand *The UK pay each country Inida had traties with *All UK and australian citizens, After getting the funds for the treaty of party, Are executed by human testing.
AOW war debate, The asian country vs european country (asia pro europe con)

I have chosen the United Kingdom MANPOWER: Total Population: 63,742,977 Available Manpower: 29,164,233 Active Frontline Personnel: 146,980 Active Reserve Personnel: 182,000 LAND SYSTEMS: Tanks: 407 AFVs: 5,948 SPGs: 89 Towed Artillery guns: 138 MLRs: 42 NAVAL POWER: Total Naval Strength: 66 Aircraft Carriers: 1 Frigates: 13 Destroyers: 6 Corvettes: 0 Submarines: 10 Coastal Defense Craft: 28 Mine Warfare: 15 RESOURCES: Oil Production: 1,100,000 bbl/day Oil Consumption: 1,217,000 bbl/day Proven Oil Reserves: 3,122,000,000 bbl/day LOGISTICAL Labor Force: 30,150,000 Merchant Marine strength: 504 Major Ports and Terminals: 14 Roadway Coverage: 394,428 Railway Coverage: 16,454 Serviceable Airports: 460 FINANCIAL Defense Budget: $51,500,000,000 External Debt: $9,577,000,000,000 Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold: $87,480,000,000 Purchasing Power Parity: $2,387,000,000,000 My WMD is a Nuclear weapon 209.2 billion kilojoules (50 kilotons of TNT)
Star Trek is better than Star Wars

First of all, the costume design in Star Wars is not better than Star Trek's. Star Trek's costume design is simple, yet awesome, and as Apple Computers said, "Simplicity is the Ultimate Sophistication". Anyways, name at least five Star Wars aliens without looking online and tell me the names of them. Previously mentioned in round 2 were Klingons, Vulcans, Xindi, Romulans, Q, Ferengi and Borg, seven any Trekkie should know. Han Solo may be cool, but in my opinion, Spock is even cooler(not in the "cool" sense, but in the sense that he is an extremely great character). Though I agree Picard is a bit uptight, Lieutenent Commander Data makes up for it. While I do agree that lightsabers are cooler than a phaser gun, they just wouldn't work for the Star Trek series. Also, for villains, shooting lightning out of their hands works for the Sith, but just isn't as cool as Khan sending Ceti Eel into Captain Clark Terrel and Commander Pavel Chekov's ears, as in Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan. By the way, scientifically explaining things in Star Trek works for Star Trek, and the force works for Star Wars. It's just that I always liked logic and explanations in detail, so I favor Star Trek. There's just one thing that irks me a tiny bit about the transporters: the explanation for getting around the heisenburg uncertainty principle was the Heisenburg Compensator. And how does this work? Noone knows. It just does. That is my one and only problem with the original series. The Enterprise has been iconic since the first series by the way, and not from being in all Star Trek series. The most iconic one, and the one everybody knows, is the U.S.S Enterprise NCC 1-701.
Star Trek is better than Star Wars

Sure, the games are better for Star Wars, but the movies are the most iconic aspect of its franchise. Second of all, Star Wars isn't about Carrie Fisher in a gold bikini, pervert. Anyways, Star Trek has much higher tension. For most of the episodes in the original series, I was at the edge of my seat. Take "The Menagerie", the two part storyline from season 1. At least for the first part, I was dying from said tension. Maybe Star Wars has more iconic single villains, but Star Trek has more iconic alien races as a whole, like the Klingons, the Vulcans, Xindi, the Romulans, Q, Ferengi, and Borg just to name a few.Anyways, talking about Star Wars games, you didn't even mention Rogue Squadron. Kids these days. U.S.S Enterprise is also much more iconic than the Millenium Falcon. And while Han Solo and the Millenium Falcon was taking down the Death Star, Kirk and crew were exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilizations, and boldly going where no man has gone before, unlike the bounty hunters. You never know what to expect from a Star Trek episode.
Star Trek is better than Star Wars

Reasons why star wars is better Carrie Fisher in a gold bikini chaned to a fat alien, this could be higher up on the list. trek games to shame, while we may not be getting star wars 1313 star wars has given us one of the best role playing games ever in knights of the Old Republic and more than double the game titles of any star treck adaptions a star ship captain of the Enterprise doesnt know how to put sentances together or run a crew sure if you place the falcon side by side with enterprise its a tough choice as to which ship is the more iconic or the two of them. But think about the impact that one ship has had in popular culture from only appering in three movies compared to enterprise appearing in every single star trek. Star Wars has better music, with the exception of the score to wrath of khan star wars has a better score. it is iconic. lightsabers... pair up the two iconic wepons from each franchise the light saber and which one wins a pulsating beam of light that can slice threw mettle like it was butter.
Star Trek is better than Star Wars

Star Trek(by the way, I'm talking about all the TV shows except Voyager and Enterprise. Yes, even the animated series) is better than Star Wars. Yes, Star Wars is an excellent movie, but Star Trek is better. Before we begin this debate, we must realize a distinction between the two. Star Trek is purely science fiction. Star Wars has elements of science fiction, but it falls under the a sub-category of fantasy, the space opera. But of course, if you are a real Star Wars fan, you would know that, so you're probably scoffing at me right now. Anyways, I hope this will be a good debate! Do you accept my challenge?
terrorist are bad for the world

"1. Where is your evidence? 2. Some people just bomb a place trying to get attention. 3. Terrorists made be heros in some countries, but will be criminals in other countries. 4. Terrorist attacks can lead to having a war too. 5. People can become terrorists if they are angry when there president they chose didn't win the election." 1: Given that what we are debating is almost solely opinion based, the evidence for my argument is in the logic I used. 2: So? That does nothing to refute my point. Saying "terrorists are bad for the world" is universally condemning, and when I show that terrorism cannot be universally condemned, I win this round. 3: You are just proving my point. Universally condemning terrorism does not work, because opinion varies so widely based on who is being attacked, and the reasons for that attack. 4: So they can. But in the one example I can think of off of the top of my head, the war in Iraq, that was a war started because of fabricated evidence and straight up lies. The fault for that lies with the U.S not terrorists. You may as well say that because I punched you, its somehow my fault if you brutally murder my entire family. 5: Very true. They can also become terrorists when they become sick enough of being repressed and murdered by their own government. That is not a refutation of my point. My basic point has gone completely unrefuted. Terrorism is an acceptable form of political expression when there is no other option available. Given that I have shown the resolution is not universally true, that terrorism can have a positive impact on the world, by allowing for expression of ideas when it may not otherwise be possible, and can even be promoting the ideals which we arbitrarily determine to be good. I mean, from the point of the British, American rebels were terrorists, but you dont see them being attacked and denigrated for it.