BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An omnipresent God is an atheist.

My opponent may provide anything he wishes, I allow him first and last argument out of respect. The only thing I must do is clarify a few terms for this debate. Omnipresent- everywhere all the time the resolution implies the existence of a God with this characteristic, so don't tell me to "prove it", I'll make my case after my opponents opening argument, however I would like one question to be answered: What is the smallest block of life, the minutest stone which lays the first foundation of life?
Curling is not a sport, it's for retards and janitors

Hello fanboy. Thank you for the kind words. I realize you put yourself in a unwinnable position to win this debate. I'm pretty sure you also realize this reality. I have provided proof in the last three rounds. This debate actually should had been just 3 rounds. Because now we just running in circles. You trying to claim curling isn't a sport or it just for retards and janitors doesn't hold water. You said you going to bring your A game now. After 3 brutal round. The problem is you have no chance to win this debate because you are fighting a unwinnable debate. So, really it not me you are losing too. You lose once you post this debate up. You would be losing to anyone else on this debate. And by the way this 4th round you didn't do any better than the previous rounds. Sorry to say.... You the one that cause this to yourself, by bring this debate to light. Now i have to bury this debate 6 feet under. You did it again. You mention websites trying to clam something that not true at all. This time I'm not going to single out these sites you provided. The first three site you mention isn't proof. You trying to single out the Special Olympics as your evidence. You trying to point out curling is in them, so it was made for retards and janitors. If we go with that logic then just about every sport in these Special Olympics are for retards and janitors. Did you know Special Olympics PLAY "ALL SPORTS". (8.) http://www.specialolympics.org... Do you know what Special Olympics is really for? "Special Olympics is the world's largest sports organization for children and adults with intellectual disabilities". (9.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Again you failed on providing inadequate information. Let me ask you something. If you go ahead and ask a janitors a real janitors if they play curling. You know what that answer would be? The answer would be No. Most if not all would not play this sport. And you want to know why? Well most janitors are old, and they would be unfit to play this sport. If you actually watch curling you would learn they all fit and not old. And just because a janitors can sweep doesn't mean they could sweep like a professional curler. So, you think you can ride a bike you could be a Professional Cyclist? Or just because you could swim, that make you a Professional swimmer? So your theory is again out the window on janitors playing curling. Provided no proof again for your claims. By the way the websites you provided has no details on how a curler is a janitor. The last and final round is now here. You better make this good unlike your previous rounds. This is your last chance to impress....
Curling is not a sport, it's for retards and janitors

I have to admit my opponent is a pretty formidable debater and he is so far destroying me in this debate, so I better bring out my A game here Like my original title states, this sport is for retards and janitors, to prove this point I'm attaching some more info on that http://info.specialolympicsontario.ca... http://wn3.ca... http://www.osoyoostimes.com... As we can see this sport is great when you are handy, slide down the ice, sweep the ice for a bit, not much talent involved in participating in this sport. As you can see, the same motion of movement done by the janitors makes them perfect athletes for this sport as they already do it professionally, the sweeping and brushing comes like natural instinct to janitorial and custodial athletes. http://www.alamy.com... Now you can deny that my statement debate does not cover the material provided here.
Curling is not a sport, it's for retards and janitors

So this is how you want it. Okay, fanboy. Let's break down your so-called evidence. The Youtube video you provided, is not considered evidence. Because of just some random dude in his kitchen trying to imitate this sport by trying to be one of the guys that sweep the rock, and by the way he not even using a heavy rock or anything heavy. Remember in curling they use a stone that weight over 40 pounds. So, in your logic, anybody can shoot a basketball or throw a baseball around and be considered a professional athlete. This https://ca.askmen.com... Site you trying to claim Curling is a wired sport, but it failed to even mention curling. So, again this is no evidence. The third claim you have is this http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...... I will counter with this site, http://ftw.usatoday.com... Again the proof is in my favor. The 4th reason you have is this site https://sportcultures.wordpress.com...... Again doesn't name Curling anywhere on this site, So you can't use this as evidence. The 5th reason you have is this site https://www.facebook.com... Again showing no proof of why Curling, not a sport nor why retards and janitors. It stated this "Come join us for a fun family day of curling to raise money for Down Syndrome". This is a charity event. Every sport has them. "Sports fundraising is so critical these days. Whether you are a basketball, football, soccer, or cheerleading organization". (7.) https://www.easy-fundraising-ideas.com... You said this " Curling sucks. This is stupid". Again this is just your opinion, showing no facts on why it sucks and showing no signs why it stupid. Everyone has a right to their opinion no matter how wrong they are. But you are debating on why Curling, not a real sport and why retards and janitors play this sport. And yet again you showing no real proof. Having some meanless websites without even mentioning Curling is no proof. And claiming Curling isn't a sport or stupid people play it and not having any credible sources in'st a real claim. I also provided why Curling you need to be fit and why this sport is Physical demanding and does have a skill set to actually play this game. Again this is why Curling in the Winter Olympics. You provided 5 things that didn't help your claim... Next Argument Please.......
Curling is not a sport, it's for retards and janitors

So I wanted to include some info on how curling is for retards and janitors and back it up with some evidence. So here you go https://www.facebook.com... https://sportcultures.wordpress.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca... https://ca.askmen.com... The first lesson that hits you is: Curling sucks. This is stupid. And if you like curling you're either: A.) Trolling. Or B.) Scottish. Because even though Scotland gave us the guy who invented Buicks, we also have to endure their lame ice sport and the overblown coverage its quirkiness encourages. Even though it's presence is almost non-existent, seeing it at all is still a real kick in our big American schlongs. Memorably described to me once as "a mixture of lawn bowls and housework", curling is one of those sports that if you don't play it, you don't get it. I'm sure its exponents have fun pushing a rock along the ice and then sweeping around it, but for spectators its eye-wateringly boring For retards this is a great sport as it doesn't require a lot of talent, you just have to slide down the ice, and janitors are already used to sweeping floors and mopping floors so the arm movement is essentially the same, therefore they are a shoe in for this activity.
Curling is not a sport, it's for retards and janitors

Okay, thank you, Fanboy. You really dislike this sport. I do agree with you it could be boring but can all sports be boring sometimes? Okay, you say a true sport need "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another'. Umm. if you ever were to try this sports Curling is all of though things and more. Curling is "considered one of the most physically demanding sports in the Olympic games. Curling is most often played in Canada. (4.)http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com... Oh what that you want more proof okay here we go. "A large amount of force is required from the legs, and stability must be maintained in order to ensure the stone is released in the proper direction. Sweeping is one of the most physically demanding skills in the sport, requiring balance, coordination, strength, and endurance. (5.) http://curlnoca.ca... So, again the point is proof by my source, you need to work out daily and actually need to be fit to play this sport well. Your 400-pound guy theory is incorrect. Sure he can play but he can't actually play at a high level such as international competition or at the Olympic level. You also have a claim in your argument that state that Curling is very unpopular. Again this is not true, At least not in another country. It's fairly popular in places like Canada. It is very strategical and a lot of the times unpredictable, It really is like it's nickname "chess on ice". So, Curling is popular in another country, why does the Olympic keep on having these events in the Olympic or having international tournaments. Curling is popular because it is physically demanding, and it does have skill sets such as "During the delivery, curlers must propel the 18.6 kg granite stone a distance of approximately 42 meters".(6.) http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com... Again there are other more boring sports such as Golf, Racecar driving, and some others. And Curling has a lot of events around the world. Yes, it not as popular like Football, baseball or some other big sporting events. But it still has a fan base, just like the WWE has a fan base. This sport is just more mainstream in the colder places. But you keep on staying retards and janitors play this sport and yet provided zero proof on this. This is a real sport rather you like it or not, it not for you to say it can't be or shouldn't be a sport when in fact you never played this sport, so you have no real insight on this but only watching it on tv, so you just giving out an opinion and that is all with no real proof. There is good reasons why this sport is still going in the Winter Olympic. So, yes it is Physical demanding and yes it does have a skill set, and yes it has follower throughout the world, and yes people watch this. Next Argument, please......
Curling is not a sport, it's for retards and janitors

So lets debate curling Yes curling unfortunately is in the Olympics and it's considered an old sport but it should not be a sport but more of a leisure activity such as billiards, darts or shuffleboard. But in this case it could fall under "training methods for future cleaners or floor sweepers" or "leisure activity for people with Downs Syndrome or Autism" or "Be in the Special Olympics as a sport" Sport by definition is "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. " Lets break down this definition according to curling. An activity involving physical exertion - there is no physical exertion sliding down the ice on one foot while letting go of a rock. Also there is no exertion by the sweepers who slide down while mopping the ice. You are essentially gliding. That's like saying I'm exerted from playing shuffle board or billiard. Also I don't see any entertainment in watching people push rocks down the ice. How large is the viewing attendance at these events, 20 people? ? 50? ?. It's not like at a hockey game, baseball or football where you can have over 20 thousand in the stands. Sweeping a stone down the ice, after it was already pushed by the thrower is not physical at all, brushing ice is not physical, at least the cleaners at Molly Maid sweep up dust from the ground and have to put it into a garbage, in curling you are not picking up anything, you are sliding around following a rock. You might as well be sliding on the family farm pond kicking a cow dung, that's about the extent of this sport. You can be a 400 plumper sliding a rock down the ice, how is that a sport, it's not it's an activity for bored janitors and retards who aren't talented or coordinated to play a real sport . http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...
Curling is not a sport, it's for retards and janitors

Curling should not be considered a sport. This is more like a cleaning chore than a sport. You get a bunch of people with rocks that they send down the ice towards a bulls eye and then you get a bunch of floor cleaners aka sweepers that brush the ice as fast as they can to move the rock along. The concept is similar to shuffle board. This sport is a retarded activity that should only be done Clean Net USA, or Molly Maid cleaner employees between cleaning jobs. There is absolutely no skill involved in this sport, no physical exertion beyond the broom sweepers that brush the ice like a pair of degenerates as the rock slides down and the moron that yells as the rock heads down the ice. This is an activity that can be done by anyone and is no different then lawn darts, horse shoe throwing, or darts, you can be a 400lb beer drinking, holding a smoke in your mouth type athlete. This is not a sport, this is a completely retarded activity, that some losers who don't have any type of talent play because they are not coordinated enough to play a real sport like hockey, football, baseball, basketball, etc etc. Sweeping the ice while yelling is not a sport, it's a moronic activity and it doesn't really vary too much from house cleaning your floor.
Strong reasons make strong actions

Interesting. I'll take a shot at it. Strong -- Powerful in influence, authority, resources, or means of prevailing or succeeding. My opponent's sole argument has been that an action depends on effort and not for any particular reason. This is simply not always true and therefore a very weak contention (especially because my opponent has not backed it up). For instance, if an example of a "strong action" would be blowing up a building, and the perpetrator need only push a small detonator to do so, that would require very little effort to actually do (assuming said perpetrator was not the one who rigged the building, etc.). You can apply this example to a plethora of other strong action examples though; for instance it would require very little effort to punch someone in the face, but one's reasoning for doing so might be very strong. Thus I have proven so far that a strong action can be carried out with extremely little physical effort. Now I will prove how strong reasons lead to strong actions. Consider the strong action of killing someone. An individual may on the surface have little to no reason to commit such a crime; however, when looking beneath the surface a different picture might be portrayed. For example, if a man with seemingly no reason to do so shot someone, a STRONG underlying REASON for that may be to blame, i.e. a mental disorder such as impulse control, a disassociative disorder, schizophrenia, etc. In other words, there is always a reason behind an action. Even if that reason is underlying, unknown, or exists solely within the psyche, it is still present and still responsible. In conclusion, I have proven why it is strong reasons that make strong actions, and that strong efforts are not always responsible for strong actions or even required for strong actions. Back to you, Con.
This horse believes that RXR's account should be unbanned

RXR is a DDO account who has been banned for suspicious reasons by the devil airfax Pro = supports desicion for RXR to be unbanned con = supports desicion for rxr to be banned (sadly) 1 st round non acceptance 2nd roundclaim and reasoning 3nd round we all go home Anyways i will be smoking a blunt while someone accepts this debate.
This horse believes that RXR's account should be unbanned

Thank you for this debate! Just to explain myself: "1 st round non acceptance." It was the first round; I non accepted. RXR should defiantly be banned. He was an obvious troll, and ruined some people's honest debates. He was not using the site appropriately, and according to site rules, that should definitely result in a ban[1]. [1] http://www.debate.org...
The Star Wars prequels are bad

Hello Debate.org, it's time for a (hopefully) more lighthearted and nerdy topic. I recently watched the Star Wars prequels, meaning The Phantom Menace (1999), Attack of the Clones (2002), and Revenge of the Sith (2005). I'll admit that I kind of liked the last one, but it is still a deeply flawed movie, and I hated the other two. So my argument is that on the whole, this prequel trilogy was bad, and the negatives outweigh the positives.But I understand that these movies have their fans. Some of which like them even better than the originals. I'd like to debate somebody who enjoys the prequels, and help enlighten me as to why anyone enjoys these films. My opponent doesn't need to argue that they're perfect, simply that the positives outweigh the negatives. This debate is going to be based more on subjective opinion than facts. So rather than using sources, all we can do is try to convince each other with the power of rhetoric.As usual, I've closed off this debate for now to ward off trolls. If you'd like to debate me, please say so in the comments. Look forward to some responses, and may the midichlorians be with you!
Gays can't reproduce so they must be recruiting.

My opponent doesn't seem to understand what this is about. I stumbled upon a website here that should help you understand the issue so we have a good debate. I will argue that people are born gay and gays don't recruit. Thanks for debating. My opponent is supposed to argue this line of reasoning "Because homosexuals can't reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting "TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT" in their homosexual parades. A group called the "Lesbian Avengers" prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print "WE RECRUIT" on their literature." [0]Source0. http://www.traditioninaction.org...
Gays can't reproduce so they must be recruiting.

Let's wrap up this debate with some key issues to vote on. 1) Topicality. My opponent claims that my entire case is off topic, and just now provides a definition. They did not provide a definition previously, so you should accept mine because of the unwritten rule not to add new arguments in the final chance to argue for either side. Even if you accept this new definition, you should still prefer mine because it is from a more credible source (Merriam-Webster as opposed to the user-created Free Dictionary); and it is a more commonly used definition. 2) My case. Extend all of my arguments as my opponent does nothing to refute them. Gay people aren't born because babies are almost universally crying and upset at birth, and gay people do recruit simply by being happy. 3) My opponent's case. My opponent actually doesn't have a case or any points toward their side, so they can't possibly win the debate, even if I lose on topicality.
Gays can't reproduce so they must be recruiting.

People are not born gay, but rather gay people recruit. Gay is defined by Merriam-Webster as "happy and excited; cheerful and lively." Prefer this definition because my opponent didn't offer a definition, thus we must choose this one. Even if you think that the website my opponent cited in their last round was a definition, you should still prefer my definition because it was a more credible source and it is the more commonly used definition (as opposed to the slang that my opponent uses it as). So it doesn't make sense that people would be born gay. In fact, nearly all babies cry at birth. That's not a sign of cheerful and lively people! It is also the case that people can control their emotions and cheer themselves up. They can become gay, but are not born so. Gay people do recruit. In fact, many websites exist trying to recruit happy people because they perform better. And once those happy people are there, they would recruit other happy people. Studies also show that being around cheerful people makes us more cheerful. So in a sense, they are recruiting simply by being gay. Please vote pro! Thank you.
a person cannot know they are saved - they must entertain the possibility of error

Pro did not prove that Paul was a New Testament believer. It was left to Con to prove that no salvation was lost by the opening and 2nd posting of Pro. This was accomplished. Now Pro wants Con to prove that Con is not going off in a tangent. Pro if you want to debate the salvation of Saul/Paul or anyone else, you first must prove that Saul/Paul or anyone else had/have salvation to lose. Saul of Tarsus did not lose his Old Testament Salvation. But Pro lost this debate. Thanks
a person cannot know they are saved - they must entertain the possibility of error

Will my opponent please give some sort of a definition as to what 'salvation' is. How can one argue about losing something if they don't even know what it is that they were to have lost? In mathematics 2 + 2 = 4. But X + Y = 4 may or may not be correct depending on the values given to the variables. Define the variable 'salvation' then we can see if an 'error' has been made. Example- 1) In Roman terms salvation is baptism by a priest sprinkling water on the person to receive salvation. 2) In Baptist' terms salvation is repeating the sinner's prayer. 3) In modern terms salvation is an experience. And the list continues on and on. Also, some groups believe that a person who 'becomes' saved has a personality change. Dear opponent, give even just a short take on what salvation is then we can have a real debate.
bible is not infallible

Your examples do not reflect the way modern American society operates today. The reason that these laws were put into place was to help mankind become a utopian society as God intended. We are on our way to perfection now, thanks to God's ground work. Those laws may not be applicable today, but that does not mean that the Bible is not infallible, as His direction has allowed us to make progress towards achieving His intended goal. The Bible IS infallible and without it we wouldn't be able to gauge our success as a people.
the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

here is a source for the 1 in 34 justifiable homicides v none justifiable. that doesn't include suicides as the link indicateshttps://www.washingtonpost.com...con says i included suicides but that's not true. again look at the math from even the questionable source i mentioned last round of lott and if ninety percent of defensive use of guns is brandishing a weopon, then the rate of legit use v non legit use is one to three. simple math, regardless of what source he uses. it isn't that firearm deaths decreased by fifty percent, it is total rate of murders decreased by fifty percent. to be fair, it depends on when you count to what year, but it's close to 2 in 100000 to 1 in 100000. it may have been only 37% in a given year as cited by con, but the overall trend is closer to half. and that highlights another point. the overall death rate went down with the advent of gun confiscation. that is backed up by the harvard study i cited and i might be wrong but also the medical study (?) i cited with the graph in the last post. again, they say overall death declines with less guns, which means they aren't just killing with knives and bats to make up for it. i dont know where con is getting his data that says there's no correlation between guns and homicides. is he doing his own calculation from the wiki links? i'm just not sure.