BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tony The Tiger

Firstly, I'd like to say that I'm sorry that you feel that way about such an awesome cereal box-dude. But thank you for starting this debate. Okay. Onto the debate. (: "He is nothing but a useless icon." He can't be nothing but a useless icon if he's helped Frosted Flakes become a famous enterprise/cereal. Besides, whats so good about the other icons? Psh, don't disrespect. "The other cereal guys are much cooler" This is an opinion. Do the other cereal guys sing? No. "I would like my opponent to try and make me think otherwise." Okay. He doesn't have an annoying catch phrase repeated every single commercial, he SINGS with others, he does not have strange, distorted physical features like other cereal guys, and encourages outdoor activity/exercise ______________________________________________________________________________ My opponent has not mentioned why Tony the Tiger is NOT a good mascot for Frosted Flakes, or any other cereal. He has also not mentioned why Tony the Tiger isn't as good as the other cereal guys.
Tony The Tiger

"All he does is go on commercials that most people just ignore, and the other guys are better" Once again, opinion. I do watch the Tony the Tiger commercials. "...HE'S A TALKING TIGER! What's so normal about that? And the other guys aren't distorted. As for the exercising, i'll get to that in a minute." So? I don't see people bashing Spongebob for talking. As for the exercising, based on what I've seen, all of the Tony the Tiger commercials have been showing people being active, and encouraging it. "He helped it BECOME famous, now that it's already famous, he's useless." Says who? That is a generalization that is not completely true. He is important to keep the cereal famous. Everybody knows Toys-R-Us because of the catchy jingle they have and the giraffe. Take those two advertising qualities away, and there's nothing to make people interested. Same goes for Frosted Flakes. "Obviously, Kelloggs did not want Tony the Tiger anymore, so they had him die. How is that GREEEEEEAAAAAAAT?" This is also a generalization. You mentioned that the cereal has been failing due to inadequate mascots, right? Also, This is not Tony's fault, so does not portain to the argument "In the mid- to late-'90s, Tony was a bit of a buffoon," said Mark Baynes, Kellogg's Chief Marketing Officer, "He wasn't credible and kids were starting to lose a lot of association with the brand." This could be a way to get publicity, or they could simply think its time to let Tony go. "If Tony the Tiger is so great, then why would Kelloggs have him DIE?" Can you please post the link to this article? "The tiger, who consumed Frosted Flakes and milk (exclusively), developed Type 2 Diabetes sometime in the mid-1970s." Of course he would. Anybody who consumes soley one food(note the exclusively) would develop that. It was twenty years of eating the same sugary thing. But the amount of sugar that's in the cereal is not important. "Tony as a coach was completely ludicrous, and everyone knew it," said Toucan Sam, a lifelong friend." Maybe Toucan Sam was jealous. He was working for another cereal. _______________________________________________________________________________ My opponent has posted several counterarguments, but has still not proved how Tony is inferior to other cereal guys, and why he isn't a good mascot.
Ahura Mazda is the only believable deity.

Because other gods, (I am primarily "defending" the God of the Bible) including the God of the Bible, have some human traits, like you say, many of the false gods can be taken as fiction solely because of this. The God of the Bible has these traits because he created us in His own image. However, wouldn"t humans be also inclined to create a god that was their ideal god? As in, a god that lets you do whatever you want, and still welcomes you with open arms? So even Ahura Mazda can be disproved because of the fingerprints of humans upon him. The God of the Bible is not evil or lustful, and actually, hell was created "for the devil and his angels" [1]. However, if other humans choose to follow Satan there, they are "welcome". Still, God does not rejoice at the death of the wicked [2], and I actually have strong scriptural evidence that indicates the wicked will not have eternal conscious torment [3] (Christians who differ, please feel free to challenge me to a debate). Yes, The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same God, so they did forbid the consumption of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, this was done to protect the human"s innocence, not forbid them wisdom. They could still have wisdom, just not that which would destroy their innocence. God wanted humans so he could love them. As such, if he had not given them free will to disobey if they so chose, he would not have true love. He wanted people who would obey because they loved Him. So yes, he is still the God of Wisdom. I don"t know what gave you the idea that church attendance is mandatory, it is not. Although it is commanded that Christians be in fellowship with other believers. Perhaps other deities contradict themselves; however, the God of the Bible never does this [4]. Perhaps both the God of the Bible and Ahura Mazda give free will. However, Ahura Mazda gives so much as to become unholy. He goes to the point of accepting evil and calling it good. God never does this. In addition, if Ahura Mazda accepts everyone, even if they did not believe in him, and only on "good works", then who determines good works? What if someone supposes murder is a good work. Will he still be accepted by Ahura Mazda? We can see that Ahura Mazda is only the product of human pagans wishing to have the ideal God. Sources: [1] http://heritagebbc.com... [2] http://biblehub.com... [3] https://www.google.com...;*&spd=10840084681009456920 [4] https://answersingenesis.org... Note: Some of these sources contain primarily unrelated material. However, all sources contain the information for which I used them.
Ahura Mazda is the only believable deity.

Bonjour. I am not saying that there is any certainty as to the existence of Ahura Mazda, but only that his existence is plausible. This is because every other God, having been evidently created by man, possesses inherent human traits. Almost all deities throughout history have been angry, lustful, wrathful, jealous, and deceptive. These were why the philosopher and Catholic Saint Augustine saw fit to reject the Pagan Deities. Not one of these traits is possessed by Ahura Mazda. One arguing from your perspective might argue that the Christian God is also without these traits. Alas! for Jesus may not be lustful, but he is certainly angry and jealous (or, why the creation of an eternal torture chamber for those that did not adore him?). It's been a while, so correct if I am mistaken, but the Christian deity is three persons in one God. That means that Jesus was also responsible for demanding that Adam and Eve refrain from the Tree of Knowledge (so obviously, he is no God of Wisdom). To quote David Hume, "It is an absurdity to believe that a deity has human passions, and one of the lowest of human passions, a restless appetite for applause." Is not this restless appetite for applause the reason for mandatory attendance at church? As for the other deities, their rules all contradict one another (sometimes within the same religion). And they do, as Augustine said, behave as humans. However, Ahura Mazda merely watches. He desires no applause, as that those who do not kneel before him are not those he considers to be his enemies. He would rather be rejected as a credible deity by reason and thought, than be accepted because of a primal fear of torture. According to his prophet Zoroaster, "With an open mind, see and listen to all the highest ideals. Consider the most enlightened thoughts. Then choose your path, person by person, each for oneself". To give credence to your God you bring forth the concept of Free Will, and this, too, exists with Ahura Mazda. However, as evidenced in the above paragraph, Ahura Mazda does not punish rejecting him as a deity. If the Christian God is real, then I, regardless of my behavior in life, am damned to eternal suffering. If the God of Zoroaster is real, the two of us, who both do not believe in him, will be judged on our virtue and not on our personal opinions.
Ahura Mazda is the only believable deity.

Hello, Luciferwept, I look forward to an enlightening debate for both of us. I believe in one God, the God of the Bible. As such, I disagree that Ahura Mazda is the only believable deity. You give two reasons why you believe Ahura Mazda is the only viable option. However, both of your reasons are no reasons at all. Essentially, you choose to deny the possibility of other Gods because you don't like their rules. In order to disprove them, or say their existence is impossible, you must do more than this, however. A just God would never treat all people the same, even if they rejected him. There are those who do not want to have anything to do with God, and so He lets them have their free will and choose their own way. A god that did not do this would be practically cruel. The God of the Bible is actually himself the God of wisdom [1], AND love, in addition to being the God of lightning, water, and everything else. Your reasons are only governed by personal preference, not factuality. Bring forward real reasons and proofs that debunk the existence of other gods. [1] http://biblehub.com...
Ahura Mazda is the only believable deity.

A brief debate on the believability of one of the world's oldest deities, Ahura Mazda[1][2]. I am an Atheist, but I am willing to admit that the existence of Ahura Mazda is not philosophically impossible, but the existence of all other deities is impossible.The reason for this is twofold: the Zoroastrian religion did not forcibly convert people, as did virtually every other religion in human history. This is because the Prophet Zarathustra believed that each individual should decide for himself whether or not Ahura Mazda, Spenta Mainyu, and Angra Mainyu, were plausible celestial beings. This is is due to the fact that Ahura Mazda is a God of of Wisdom and not a God of Lightning or God of Water or (most foolishly of all) a God of Love.Shortly put, if a good Atheist/Christian/Muslim/Jew/Shintoist/Pagan/Hindu/etc. should find themselves standing before Ahura Mazda, they would be embraced by the God, even though they never accepted him. This is not true of Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, Odin, Zeus, etc. Ahura Mazda demands no "Sacrifice of the Intellect", but instead is a God who is actualy compatible with Utilitarianism.[1] https://www.britannica.com...[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Ahura Mazda is the only believable deity.

What would Ahura Mazda do if someone does not want to be with him? Ahura Mazda does not seem to offer free will, which, as we have discussed, is not a good thing. God (that is, the God of the Bible) does not force those who do not want to be with him to do so. Original, sinless man was made in God"s image. Since the curse, man has become corrupt. We do not share the trait of evil or lustfulness with the God of the Bible. The tree was put in the garden so that Adam and Eve could have freewill. If there was no way to violate the rules, God could not have creatures to love and to love him. They would be slaves. No, that is not what I meant when I said I do not believe in eternal conscious torment. While the wicked will be separated from God in the second death, it will be through complete annihilation. However, that is a different debate (Fellow Christians, feel free to challenge me to a friendly debate on this subject). Those in Heaven will praise God, but I believe will also engage in activities for leisure. Heaven is not a place of boring harp plucking, but of vigorous praise and activity. Christians are told to be a witness to unbelievers. We should participate with them (just not in sin) as we would with anyone else. The actions you say were done by Christians were all either not actually Christians, and/or they were not condoned by God. In fact, some of them were specifically reprimanded by God and his prophets. In conclusion, I have shown that Ahura Mazda is not the only possible deity. He is the product of humans looking to make the perfect God.
Evolution is real

Okay,nice argument Dragonfang(legit),its very true that my argument was in fact short so I will make it up to the readers of this debate.So I will expain my arguments better. Things to get clear : -The title of the debate is evolution is real not is evolution a fact.I have to prof that evolution is a real phenomenon happening now. -Life has not been found in near out of space ,so alien life is not a thing we can prof. So we only now life on earth.So if I prove that evolution is a real phenomen here on Earth,I win the debate. As Dragonfang gentely pointed out alien life is a teory so it cant be proven so we (earthlings)could be the only life in the universe. But there is life on Earth it"s a well nown fact (I hope).so Ionly have to prov evolution here on Earth. Things on evolution: -Natural selection is a phenomen proved in the natural selection of the white moths in London,seingn in natur or even artificial selection. (Arteficial selection:selection that does not happens naturally by natural selection and sexual selection.arteficial selection is guided by smart beigns by they own criteria) Natural selection has been proven in the video I will up-load on natural selection. Artificial selction has been done by humans to farm animals that have been arteficialy selected to be of more us to the animal product industries cows have beenselected to produce more milk andchicken to produce more eggs. Plants have been artificially inseminated to create new sorts of flours in Holland. Sexual selection:has been proven in my first argument and you didn"t refused so I assume Dragonfang doesn"t oppose to Natural selection and Sexual selection. But when do different varieties of a specis like dogs that have very big differences of dogs like pitbulls and rotweilers. Evolution has been observed the creation of a new specis:http://evolution.berkeley.edu... We are all related:Humans have 50% of the same genetical material as a fruit fly and 98% in common with chips.we all have almost the same genetical material. Conclusion:evolution is proven it"s a real thing here on Earth if it is true on other planets but we don"t if alien life exist. Mutacion are real proven by science over and over tryng to debate against that is follishness. Mutacions add genetical material to be sorted out by natural or artificial selection. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
true math=physical experience

Resolution: true math=physical experience Many people know that 10*1,000,000 = 10,000,000. Yet, there is no physical experience. This is completely in the abstract. Let's say if this was sheets of paper. A huge box contains a million pieces of paper and there are ten boxes. Nobody is going to count a box with a million sheets of paper, then multiply by ten, and then count all ten boxes each with a million pieces of paper. Just to verify that 10*1,000,000 really is 10,000,000. The physical experience isn't there. Yet, we all know that ten million is the correct answer.
true math=physical experience

Negative, Con does not agree. true math=physical experience is the resolution. A person never physically experiences calculus. You will never physically experience f(x) = 3x^4 + 10x^3 + 12x^2. Find the derivative of f(x). Yet, this is what a beginner's calculus class looks like. This is math. Now imagine an advanced calculus problem. Pro has yet to clarify what the difference between math and true math is.
Antidepressants are Over-prescribed

I negate the resolution. Resolved:Depression and it's symptoms are over-diagnosed which results in medication intended for depression being overused, or used for "sad" feelings or minor symptoms rather than actual depression. This means that Depression is over-diagnosed which causes overuse of medication for lesser conditions. In todays round, to win i must prove that the current amount of diagnoses is beneficial over a lesser amount of diagnoses. My opponent says that antidepressants are over-prescribed. This means that, according to my opponent, that the 35 million adults in the US alone, that are diagnosed with depression, fewer should receive help for their medical condition. Depression is defined as a medical illness. So people with depression should suffer through these illnesses? No. Depression has been proven to lead to suicide and other non beneficial effects to the person. Cutting off help and medical aid would be just wrong and potentialy fatal to the person. If somebody has a form of cancer, would you say they can not get an operation because too many people have cancer? Also, my opponent has shared no statistics or evidence or proof to support their rash claim. For these reasons, I urge a Con in todays round. Thank you. http://www.pristiq.com...
Antidepressants are Over-prescribed

Resolution: Depression and it's symptoms are over-diagnosed which results in medication intended for depression being overused, or used for "sad" feelings or minor symptoms rather than actual depression. It is the burden of my opponent to prove that medication for depression is NOT over-prescribed, that is it is prescribed at a decent level or under-prescribed OR to prove that medication for depression is mostly used to treat actual depression and not used primarily for self-diagnosed depression, or minor symptoms and feelings. For the purposes of this debate, facts and statistics on prescriptions for antidepressants shall be only on those prescribed to those with depression an other depressive and unipolar disorders. Definitions ==== Depression - For the purposes of this debate, depression shall refer to the professional diagnosis. Antidepressants - A drug used to alleviate mood disorders such as anxiety, and in this case, depression. Good luck to any opponents who accept.
is flash better than arrow

Hello, PRO. I assume you are talking about 'The Flash' and 'Green Arrow' from the DC comics. I accept this debate. Your thesis is: 'The Flash is better than the Green Arrow,' because you are pro/for. My thesis is: 'The Flash is not better than the Green Arrow,' because I am CON. The burden of proof is on PRO--(s)he has to prove that The Flash is indeed better than the Green Arrow to win this debate. I don't have to prove that The Green Arrow is better than The Flash, but by the bare minimum, to win this debate, I have to prove that The Flash is no better than the Green Arrow. In other words, PRO has to prove that The Flash > Green Arrow to win this debate, where I have to prove that The Flash = Green Arrow or The Flash < Green Arrow. I'd like to point out that PRO is arguing that The Flash is better than Green Arrow, but (s)he states the following:'the flash can run fast but arrow is awesome with a bow'(S)He says that 'the flash can run fast,' but doesn't explain why running fast makes The Flash better than Green Arrow. (S)He then goes on to agree with my thesis, saying: 'but arrow is awesome with a bow. ' Because PRO agreed with my thesis that The Flash is not better than the Green Arrow. Because PRO agreed with my thesis, this debate is over.
Birth with drugs(Pro) or without drugs (Con)

I apologize for forfeiting the previous round. My family has recently been through a crisis and I did not have enough time to effectively make an argument. I apologize to my opponent as well as the voters for taking up time and for taking away the chance of someone else to have a really solid debate. All I will say is birthing drugs are not actually harmful to the mother or the baby. They merely provide relief for a process that is one of the most painful experiences a person can experience. They do not have an effect on the child or the mother after delivery. Though I am passionate and believe in my arguments, I encourage you vote for my opponent as I was not able to effectively debate. I am truly sorry for the inconvenience and I wish my opponent the best of luck in the future. Good night everyone.
Birth with drugs(Pro) or without drugs (Con)

Epidurals can sometimes not work like they should. They will only numb some areas of the belly and when this happens there will be extra medicine needed and this is not what your baby needs at one time. Since they can prolong your labor your baby might end up being in the posterior position by the time you are ready to deliver. Sometimes this has no effect at all on anything but i can if the baby continues to keep spinning and end up upside down. This can cause major problems later if the baby does not turn back around or can not be turned back around. What some people don't know is that whatever happens to the mother will happen to the baby, when the mother has some severe side effects from the medication it will impact the baby that much harder and they are not equipped to deal with that at this stage.
Birth with drugs(Pro) or without drugs (Con)

Despite what you believe and what your quotes say, epidurals do not harm the baby. You are not drugging the baby by using an epidural. You are simply causing less pain for yourself. This choice really should be a woman's choice for herself. Many pregnancies can be very dangerous. Woman can be in danger of dying during birth. The biggest misconception of epidurals is they are the same thing as a spinal. This is incorrect. An epidural is injected into the area around the vertebrae near the spinal fluid. A spinal is injected directly into the fluid. If both are combined, there is not as much of a need for medication and it allows for pain relief without numbness. If both are used, pushing becomes easier and makes less of a need for forceps. Yes, whatever medication you take somehow reaches the baby through your blood but the amount of medication in your bloodstream from an epidural is extremely small, the spinal is even smaller. Neither causes any harm to the baby. There may be side affects but it does not happen very often, only with high spears of medication. The main risk and most common (though it does not happen often) is hypotension, or a drop in blood pressure. It is not always severe. An epidural or a spinal does not actually cause any health (mental or physical) complications to the baby or the mother. They are meant only to help make the pain of childbirth easier to endure. I understand why you may think that medications administered to the mother through the bloodstream may cause health issues to the child or the mother but this is not the case.