BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Does Exist

I will be putting forward the argument that God does Exists, my opponent will be arguing that this is not true. Round 1 will be for acceptance Round 2 will be for initial arguments Round 4 will be for summerising with no new additonal argument A definition of God has been requested so here is the definition for this debate. God (noun) 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes;
Poetry Insults Debate

Do I have a choice? I have to accept this debate. I have no voice. I am a fish taking the bait. Like a rat, I know quite a bit. I know when to hit. Too bad you have no grit. You'll just have a fit. Did you have to open that box? Calling me a constant liar, soon a paradox. I now I'm tricky just like a fox. You stand out like you have the pox. Homework is done usually very quick. But you gave me four rounds. This point I'll stop and stick. I'll surely make a loud sound. My mind might be outside, But in my head there is mass. I have the endless energy of the sun to turn the tide To defeat you and play the bass. Since I'm taller than you, that point is quite mute. If you bring up similar points, I'll win this dispute. My amusement park, I need no recruits. To win this competition, maybe late I'll play the flute. Hopefully my breathe will make you faint. For the world you have taint. Oh please, anything more creative? I guess to genius, you're not native. Clearly I did repeat Your inane message. Let's see if you could drop the beet Or will crawl out of a wreckage.
Poetry Insults Debate

Hey, Mister Rami, I've decided to say, A few things to you, In this poem today. You're ugly as a sewer rat, Your face, it hurts my eyes, Your mouth is like Life magazine, Because it's full of lies. You're annoying just like homework, Your mouth drones on and on, You think that you're a genius, But that is where you're wrong. Your brain is like the great it outdoors, Because it's full of air, Don't even get me started, On the mess that you call hair. You're height is like your IQ, 'Cause they're both not that huge, If your life is an amusement park, You're going down the fluge. Your breath is just like tear gas, A suffocating pool, I've got one more thing to say, And that is, you're a fool. Will you create a reply, Or merely replicate?
I am the Pro, I have won and you are done!

It looks like you have just lost you first debate mate as they would say in England. I knew it wasn't worth my time to drop a line to this worthless slime I doubt you will post again so I guess this is bye bye my friend. Who am I kidding your not my friend we are enemies that is what we will always be. I am the one who one so you better hurry up son because you are losing and I bet you will start boozing after this debate, That is all I have to say. You, the voters know who to vote for I will not make it a bore just click my name to put this kid to shame.
I am the Pro, I have won and you are done!

I guess you don't understand what this debate is about, you need to be slapped in the face with a trout It is about making puns and having fun so why don't you shut up son because I am your daddy and you come from inside of me. I will win because I am in like Flynn if you ever heard of an acronym. I am smarter than you, and you reak of sewage and poo. Why don't go crawl back into the hole you came from because I can see that you are new. Since this is your first debate I see I will have to go easy to keep this in reality unless you ask for me to go ham on you man! I will destroy you in this rap battle, that is what you signed up for sunny and this debate was supposed to be funny, I put it as the category if you can read why don't you go leave because your giving me your fleas and It will then go down in history about me beating you that was you mistake be prepared for the date rape that I will commit on you. I want to be clear what we are doing here, we are having a rap battle and if you wish to continue then you will have to improve.
I am the Pro, I have won and you are done!

If you accept this challenge you have already lost, because I am the boss I am the king, look at me with my diamond ring if you think you are better you have to be kidding If you wish to lose then why don't you choose accept or are you afraid to damage your rep? If you want to get burned to the ground why don't you step into my compound because I will blow off your head with a gun and I think you wont have any fun when we are done so why don't you just leave because you know I am the bees knees
If we lived in a virtual reality (like the Matrix), should we fight to be free of it

Don't apologise for who you are. We all start somewhere. Its where we going that's important and honestly I'm impressed. You have a open mind. As for living in slavery, we already do. The method of slavery is the world monetary system and many are content to live under its rule. But that's an argument for another day. As for your question, would I remain in the system or fight? ?? ? I believe I already stated my case in my first argument. As long as human existance wasn't in peril i'd be content to remain in the system.
If we lived in a virtual reality (like the Matrix), should we fight to be free of it

I'm sorry for the word choice in my original question, I was thinking of the premise of the Matrix at first, where VR is a means of control. I might as well address that too, as that would be a bad thing for humanity as well. If we were put into a virtual reality to supply power to machines like in the Matrix, would we fight back? I believe some people would, and should. If we were put into virtual reality as a means of control, then we should fight back, because being the slaves of others, no matter what, is not what we live for. We are not here in this world to be someone else's slave. Some say that "ignorance is bliss" when it comes to this, like Cypher in the Matrix. He wanted to be reinserted into the Matrix, he was content with being a slave as long as he didn't know it. However, this really goes against our path of evolution, the path that has been carved to get us to where we are today. If we were enslaved and put into VR, then that would be counter to everything we've built up. Yet some would not fight back, because "ignorance is bliss." Where do you stand on being enslaved and put into VR? In short, not a whole lot of outcomes seem like they'd be desirable. The only ones that seem to be also seem to hinge on self-control, something I believe this generation is very hard-pressed to learn. Being slaves would be far from good, and neglecting this world would send us back to the Stone Age. The only real way to avoid VR being a bad thing is to regulate ourselves, and if we ever make VR, I just hope that we are capable of controlling ourselves. Thank you for debating me, it's been a good debate. And I apologize if I sound a bit jaded for a 15-year old, it's just how I am. (Yeah, it's closing statement time.)
If we lived in a virtual reality (like the Matrix), should we fight to be free of it

Well I agree that if we could live in a virtual world that is better than our reality, we would. that's why we on this site. In my real world I have nobody in my real world who understands the concepts I like discussing. But that is not the question we debating. Your question is "Should we fight to be free of it" Fight implies a desire to do or want something but not having the ability to do it. If we want to live in the virtual reality we wont fight not to. You might as well ask a smoker if he should fight to ban cigarettes.
If we lived in a virtual reality (like the Matrix), should we fight to be free of it

I agree, if people can be mindful of the VR use, and keep it to certain times of use, it could be a good thing. However, who's to say that people can resist the temptation of a world that could be better. It kind of depends on what the VR can do as well. If it is meant to simulate an only slightly better world, it would be easy to self-regulate its use. However, if the virtual world was a near perfect place, would it be so easy to resist letting it become our life? There are many variables to this one, indeed there are. However, the way my generation is, with plenty of entitled, spoiled brats, and children in teenage bodies that weren't raised right to go around, I'm not so sure they would want to leave a world where they can live a better life than their own. It really depends on the person, but the direction things seem to be going, reality would be a thing of the past to people like them. While it could be beneficial for disabled people, as you said, who's to say that it will not be abused by the rest of humanity? Of course, I can't know this for sure, but with the entitled brats of this generation, I would guess that if there was a better virtual world, they'd probably wouldn't skimp on the chance to escape their own shortcomings. Ergo, it would lead to exactly what I have spoken about with their complete neglect of reality.
If we lived in a virtual reality (like the Matrix), should we fight to be free of it

Apologies. I misunderstood your question. Still pretty new at this too. When you said fight to be free of it i assumed we were not there by choice. I'm curious where these kids would come from if we were in a virtual reality but that's irrelevant. There would be definate atvantages for people with disabilities. A blind person could see. A legless person could climb mountains. Etc but I'm pretty sure not everyone would choose to stay there. They could look after the planet and visit V.R on weekends. And if nobody wanted to live in the real reality I'm pretty sure we could build machines capable of doing so. Either way there would be no need to fight to be free of V.R.
If we lived in a virtual reality (like the Matrix), should we fight to be free of it

First time at this, so let's go. You say that there would be no perceptual difference, and therefore that makes it okay. But you did not address my point of what would inevitably happen to this planet if we just let ourselves live in an artificial world. What would happen to the Earth if we neglected it in favor of virtual reality? As I said, the next generation would probably not be so eager to pick up the mess that would be left when the previous generation decided to live in a dream world. They would likely end up joining into this virtual world, with the mentality that they could live a better life inside it. This mentality would also likely be the next generation's as well. They would be born into a neglected world, with the conditions worsening, and then many of them would want to forget about the real, crumbling one, to live in a better one. As conditions worsened and worsened, more generations would make this same decision, and then eventually our willful neglect would catch up to us. We might even face extinction, depending on if the virtual world could be maintained in the wasteland that would likely be the product of our neglect. If that were true, people would still go into this virtual reality, unwilling to rebuild everything, to be back in the Stone Age if they could live in a better world immediately. If the virtual world did fail, we would be forced, as a species, to start over. If we could get those people out, we might be able to start over, but if the people in the dream world couldn't be freed, then the very few who might live outside of it would be hard pressed to rebuild anything. We would face extinction. None of these outcomes are very good for us as a species.
If we lived in a virtual reality (like the Matrix), should we fight to be free of it

I'm reminded of the saying, "If it looks like shyt, smells like shyt, feels like shyt and tastes like shyt, its probably shyt" There would be no perceptual difference between the reality we perceive today and one we perceive in a virtual reality. We could still do all the things we want to do. Scientists could still develope new things to better our lives. Artists could still paint. Writers could still write. Would a story written by a writer in a virtual reality have less value than a writer in the real world? Who knows???? Perhaps virtual reality is the next stage in human evolution. And fighting it would simply be us resisting change and trying to cling to the past. Ask yourself what makes us humans.... is it climbing mountains? Swimming in oceans? Eating and drinking? babboons climb mountains. Fish swim. All animals eat and drink. Only 3 things put us apart from animals. Human interaction, art and contemplation. In a virtual reality the mountain climbing and ocean swimming wouldn't be real....but the human interaction, art and anything we contemplate would. I would therefore be content living in a virtual reality. Ps.....would whoever controls this simulation please make my next girlfriend blonde, blue eyed with d-cups and a mute lol
If we lived in a virtual reality (like the Matrix), should we fight to be free of it

I believe that we humans, as a species, have always had to ensure survival by bettering ourselves. If we didn't, we would still be living in caves, hunting with spears crafted out of sticks, fighting to survive. However, we adapted, and we bettered ourselves to guarantee our own survival. We continued to better ourselves throughout history, and have made it to where we are today, the digital age. If we were to accept a virtual reality, it would run counter to our past, and our nature to adapt. We would be letting all that go for the sake of our own enjoyment. In the Matrix, the Matrix is a method of control and domination, and to accept being a slave would run against all the advancements we have made, our ability to adapt and survive. We would be accepting defeat. But even if the machines had created the Matrix for us to live in a better world, or we had created it, I'd still be opposed to it. Like I said, I believe that our ability to advance our species so far from where we began is what defines us, and if we let go of that, then we let go of everything that has been built up for us just so that we can enjoy ourselves. With that mentality, what would happen to future generations? What would they do with the world we would inevitably neglect by living in a simulation? Would they try to live in it, and make it live again? Or would they give up, and join us in this better world, the simulation, and continue this neglect? I imagine that many people would give up on the real world, with an "ignorance is bliss" mentality, until we neglected everything so badly that our population would be badly crippled, and maybe even lead to extinction. And even if we didn't go extinct, the remaining humans would be back at humanity's square one after centuries of neglect, and we would be back to the Stone Age. This is the opt-in round for anyone interested in debating this. Just a philosophical debate on this subject, no evidence needed to back up your opinion. Felt like doing this in light of the fact that I recently watched the Matrix, and loved it.
Muslims Are Terrorists

Pro has 4 assertions... still there are no reasons for his opinions... waiting for his reasons in the next rounds... also he didnt provide definition of "terrorism" so the definition first...terrorism: - "systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal"- "the act of terrorizing"in this sense everyone (or groups/states) that their actions corresponds to the definition above will be considered as terrorists. Pro has 4 assertions:1 - all muslims are terrorists.RE: thats a big accusation to start with. that means 1.6 billion poeple on earth (~20 percent globally) are terrorists.2. barbaric terrorist religion.RE: there is no THE "Sharia Law" book. Islam composed by many sects, you have many interpretations and opinions. also we have to be balanced, any accusation thrown at Islam will be compared to other religions so Pro must say other religions are also "barbaric terrorist religion" and consider on that basis all its followers to be "terrorists".3. ISIS or any "islamic" terrorist groups are true believers of islam.RE: as its sounds so stupid, i will wait for his reasons and expound on this although muslim scholars worldwide unanimously reject ISIS/other terrorist groups.4. "muslims who say that all muslims are not terrorists are either: terrorists in disguise (liars) , OR not true believers of islam (ignorants)."RE: Pro says all muslims are liars/ignorants in a nutshell. will wait for the reasons...
Omega Spawn Vs Wolverine

There is a very unfortunate aspect of wolverine that means it is literally impossible for him to lose... He can't die.If the fight were to ever get to close-combat wolverine is regarded as the number one mutant throughout the history of all comics in terms of his ability to fight mêlée. He is fast, agile strong, can hear a movement without seeing it, smell a man without seeing him and stab a man with claws made of Adamantium which is essentially powerful enough to penetrate one's skull (the hardest bone structure of the human body). While superman might be number one in speed of fighting and agility Wolverine is simply overall the number one mêlée fighter because he is basically a werewolf that is human but has wolf fighting ability at all times.Wolverine can heal from anything so I fail to see how he could be killed.
It's impossible to know or prove anything absolutely

At this point, I could summarise the arguments that have already been made; that logic, by virtue of being a formal and self consistent approach, demonstrates that some things MUST follow others; I think the above rounds speak for themselves, and any significant re-iteration would only serve to make peoples eyes bleed. What I will say, however, is by the very nature of his argument; my oponent is in a logical paradox; in that he is always wrong. It all boils down to whether or not we can trust logic statements; can we trust where something that is logically "True" is logically "True? " This seems silly, but this is the fundamental argument my oponent is making, that we cannot be sure. This is where the paradox lies.
It's impossible to know or prove anything absolutely

As I stated in my original speech, I am not attempting to prove anything, but merely show the high probability of the truth of this theory. 1. Logic is different than math, and while the two often work together, just as often logic is without math. How do we discover how logic works? Through experimentation. And experimentation has been flawed. Therefore, it is possible (albeit highly unlikely, very highly unlikely) that some of our knowledge of logic is flawed. Additionally, we can have a logical statement such as a syllogism, but the validity of the statement itself can be false (at least, very likely to be false). The syllogism: Birds can fly An ostrich is a bird Therefore an ostrich can fly The previous statement is sound in the terms of logic that my opponent is using, however, it is easy to see that ostriches cannot fly (at least to our limited perceptions). 2. The argument as to the algebraic equation is simply to point out that what we perceive to be "common knowledge" isn't necessarily consistent. We cannot prove that the math equation actually works, although some would argue that it does. The illustration here is not that math can be proven, but that it can't be–not absolutely (totally). But aside from the example and addressing the argument as to being unsure about logic, I agree that we cannot be completely sure about logic. Why? Because history shows that even our logic has been inconsistent at times. While it can be argued that reason we have this "sensus logikos" is because logic is innate, our sense of knowledge is still inherently limited, as can be seen throughout history. While I believe it is highly probable that logic is, in fact, truth, how can we be totally sure, seeing as people make mistakes? Even the argument that it can be proven that we cannot be certain about anything isn't true, because we can't be certain that this belief itself is true, and thus that disputes the argument that we can prove that we can't be certain of anything. The whole theory of epistemological skepticism is that we can't know anything totally, or prove anything totally–even this theory itself–because experience has shown human knowledge to be limited. Of course, the entire premise of this theory could be incorrect. But once again, it's a theory. All knowledge stems from a sense of faith in one aspect or another. We have to put faith (complete trust or confidence in something) in order to be able to argue for anything at all. Even the argument of math is one that is based on the belief that math is accurate. If it were shown that math can be wrong, then it would mean either that math is probably wrong or that humans have improperly interpreted math. This concept, therefore, (like all others) is based on a belief in something. The key thing to remember is that our beliefs can be flawed, and thus it is highly probable that we can't know or prove anything absolutely. The resolution is affirmed.
It's impossible to know or prove anything absolutely

The reason scientists and mathematicians disagree with the theory of epistemological skepticism in regard to math is due to the fact that, although nothing can be absolutely proven, we live as if it were the case. The argument that math is based on logic is true to a great extent. But this brings us back to how we know about logic. The definition of the word gives us a foundation: logic–"reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. " How are these "principles of validity" decided upon? Where do they come from? In essence, the answer is that it is based on our experiences which have been shown to be flawed. Logic–like any other form of philosophical endeavor of inquiry is based on human experience. The argument of "cause and effect" would be one of logic…but the only reason this is so is because we have observed this to be the case. Had humans not observed the "law" of cause and effect, it would be assumed that cause and effect was, in fact, not a fact at all. The point being, all knowledge comes from our experience, and human experience has been repeatedly shown to be inconsistent. While it is commonly agreed that basic laws of logic and mathematics exist and are valid, the only reason we have this knowledge of them is because of human experimentation in these matters–a method shown to be relative. As my opponent put it, this is to be unsure of logical reasoning itself. Now, while this argument may seem controversial, it itself makes logical sense: if in fact, logic is based on our experiences (that is, we discover logic through experience), and our experiences have been shown to be flawed, then we cannot be entirely certain of logic. Take the following algebraic example, in contrast with the claim that mathematics are complete knowledge: a = b a^2 = ab a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2 (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b) a + b = b 2b = b 2 = 1 2 + 3 = 1 + 3 5 = 2 + 2 While most people would consider 5 to = 2+3, 4+1, or something along those lines, mathematics itself can be inconsistent in it's end result. My opponent claims that if I were to prove logic unprovable, then I would have disproved my position. While this is true, I haven't actually proved anything in this entire debate–and that is precisely the point. We can't be certain that I am correct, we can't be certain that my opponent is correct. Based on past history, we can conclude that it is *very likely* that complete knowledge/proof is unattainable, even that mathematics and logic itself–because they are based on human experience–that it is possible that we cannot be sure of those. Despite this, my arguments still stand: it is entirely possible that a level of absolute truth (such as logic) does exist. But we can't prove it–we can't be absolutely certain.