BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Zombie fungus is a fraud

I apologize if i did not explain better why I was referencing mind controlling parasites. I thought you would understand. I was referencing them to show that the idea of mind control as you say it is not unrealistic, as it is shown by multiple examples throughout nature. Continuing, when the fungus infects the ant, whether it is alive or dead, the ant behaves in a way unlike it should. It moves toward sunlight and ignores its duty. Other ants no longer recognize the infected and proceed to kill on site. On your statement that the fungus does not contact the brain, it is still controlling the ant. Also, growing a mushroom out of your head is not part of a ants normal aging process. Sorry I took to long to respond, I was busy doing other things.
Zombie fungus is a fraud

It appears that my opponents argument is so weak that he has already resorted to finding other examples of parasitic organisms to support his views. Thus, my opponent has already inadvertently admitted that his argument is inherently weak. Note - None of the examples that my opponent has given includes a fungus taking control of an animal. Thus, all of these examples are irrelevant to this case. Note - The article that I have referenced doesn't state that the fungus has reached the ant's brain. Thus, it is merely speculation that the fungus is controlling the ant's actions. Generally speaking, fungus only attacks dead things. Thus, if an ant has a fungal infection, it is because the ant has reached the end of its life and is about to die anyway. Thus, the appearance of the fungus relates to the ant's body condition and not to the aggressive nature of the fungus which is presumed to be attacking the ant. Thus, fungi are incapable of planning such a complex maneuver of manipulating the ant's behaviour. Thus, this is just scientific wishful thinking and is not, in essence, a logical assumption. http://www.pnas.org... https://www.britannica.com... We can plainly see from the Encyclopedia Britannica reference that funguses only attacks dead plants and animals. Although, It can appear on the skin of a living person, animal or plant but remember that the top layer of skin is dead and not living. This applies to plants as well. If a plant is dying or is malnourished it may acquire a fungal infection. Thus, the fungus is attacking only the dead part of the animal or plant and is not attacking the living part. Thus, I have clearly demonstrated that the concept of a fungus controlling and manipulating an ant is just wishful thinking. Thus, the university system is just looking for an excuses to use government money to fund bogus research projects.
Laptops are better than desktops.

I must disagree with your ideas, because I believe that how good an object is is determined by the person owning it. For instance, to a developer a desktop is essential for its stability and performance. You never state a definition for convenient so I will go ahead and state it for you. This is also from http://dictionary.reference.com... Convenient-suitable or agreeable to the needs or purpose. Contention One (My first and only contention.) For many businesses having desktops is absolutely necessary. This is true because, one, desktops are more cost-effective. Secondly, desktops are harder to be misplaced, therefore reducing theft and the need to buy costly insurance. Therefore, in these times of economic downfall, desktops will easily prevail for its cheaper cost and its solid stability and performance. On to your case. First, you say that laptops are more convenient than desktops. However, you only said that the setting up of laptops is more convenient, meaning that laptops are only more convenient in that area. Desktops can handle more processes than most laptops can. Although desktops are not as portable as laptops desktops have more stability than laptops when it comes to battery life. Secondly, desktops are cheaper than laptops. You state that laptops are more expensive than desktops because there is a higher demand for them. However, the main reason why laptops are more expensive is because it requires more technology to make the computer parts smaller, not because more people want laptops.
Laptops are better than desktops.

The following definitions are provided by WWW.dictionary.com. A laptop is a battery-powered microcomputer small enough to rest on the user's lap, and a desktop is a type of computer, small or compact enough to fit or be used on a desk: a desktop computer. In this debate, I strongly argue that laptops are much better than desktops because of its convenience and portability. Contention One. Laptops are usually more expensive than desktops, and that must have a reason: the price is determined by how majority prefers one to another. Laptops come with a battery included; a user of a laptop can take it anywhere and use it as if he/she were at home. Also, the batteries of laptops are made to last, so the user can use the computer for more than one hour. I also have a laptop, and what I know from using both laptops and desktops is that laptops are more convenient. When I first installed my desktop computer, it took me an hour to set up the computer; however, for the laptop, I just turned it on, went through some simple steps, and started using it. Contention Two What probably makes laptops unbeatable against desktops is the portability. One can move around while working on a laptop. For example, a business man could be traveling to Brazil and be also working on a laptop inside the airplane. If you had to immigrate to Canada, planning to move around a lot, would you pick a laptop or a desktop? Therefore, I believe that portability and convenience brings laptops the champion's belt. Anyone but those who work at home or do "nothing important" at home would disagreeing with me, or at least I believe so.
Laptops are better than desktops.

The complex wire settings that you say is required to set up a desktop does not require professional knowledge. I was able to set up my desktop within 5 minutes using the simple instructions that came with my desktop. Also you mentioned that many programs are already installed on laptops which make life easier for the users. However, the flaw in that statement is that desktops can also have pre-installed programs. Therefore, the convenience of a laptop is not as greeat as you say it to be. To answer your second argument, I must say that the reason a safe box exists is to portect the laptops. Therefore, it must be ture that more protection was used on the laptops than on the desktops that were stolen. Since your school used the safe box, the school obviously added "insurance" on the laptops by doing so. Therefore, it gives further evidence that laptops require more security than desktops. Also the scenario used in your argument was merely a school situation. Since that scenario is not universal, as you said the scenario must be to be true, the statement cannot be true for all cases. Therefore, you cannot claim that laptops are superior to a desktop. For your final argument you restate the conveniency of having pre-installed programs and a easier setup process. As I have already counteractedd these statements I will go on. You have failed to mention a laptops performance against that of a desktop, you only mention its portability. Just because something is portable does not make it better. Think of a small portable battery and compare it to a unmovable but stable and strong generator. Those are the items you are comparing, a powerful, fast and stable desktops against a portable laptop. Desktops are superior in three categories, while laptops are only good in one. Therefore, desktops are betterr than laptops, whether in the school, the office or your home.
Laptops are better than desktops.

First of all, Laptops are convenient because it does not need any wiring in the process of set-up. Desktops need complex wire settings before being able to use; however, laptops come prepared for the users, and it does not need a professional knowledge to set up a laptop: the wireless network finder are usually included in the laptop. Also, many programs are already installed on laptops, making it easier for the users. Therefore, the convenience of setting up a laptop will always be an advantage. Second of all, for what you said in your second round's argument, I will say that laptops are harder to be stolen *because* laptops are portable; what it means is that portable devices are handled with more care and weariness therefore becoming harder to be misplaced. On the other hand, desktops are more noticeable to a potential thief. For example, in the school of my friend, 7 desktops are stolen during the school year. If desktops were harder to be misplaced or stolen, how did those desktops get stolen? My school uses more laptops than desktops; a safe box with laptops secure the laptops when they are not used. In a class period, when laptops are needed, the teacher brings the safe box into the classroom and distributes them to the class. After the class is done, all the laptops are collected. So, the risk of theft is reduced. Because a desktop cannot be moved around easily, it is harder to reorganize a room full of desktops because there would be wires all over the place. Anyone with a desktop would know that messy wires bothers a lot; what my father used to do when he only had a desktop is calling a *professional problem solver for computers* because he could not figure out which jack matches which plug. Finally, laptops are convenient because they have many installed programs and easier set-up process. Furthermore, laptops are portable, therefore enabling the user to work anywhere and anytime. Laptops are better than desktops. Solid.
Laptops are better than desktops.

When have I ever said that the affordability of a desktop is what makes it convenient? I precisely stated that what makes a desktop convenient is its ability to run many processes at once. What you have said was never stated by me, so you are basically putting words into my mouth. To address your concern with my definition of convenient, the way I am using convenient is to state that desktops are more convenient when running many processes. Therefore my definition of convenient fits for this situation. Also, you say that since laptops require more technology laptops are better. However, the technology used in laptops are similar to the technology used for desktops, the only difference being that the advanced technology helps make the parts of the laptop smaller. This does not mean that laptops are better, only that it is harder to make one. The advanced technology used in laptops does not in anyway improve the quality and performance of the laptop. I realize that some business men and women prefer laptops for its portability. However, you failed to mention the business men and women who work in offices. The office workers often prefer desktops for its stability and performance rather than the laptops portability. Also you state that the people I mentioned is merely a small percentage of the whole population. With no evidence to back your statement up, I believe your statement cannot be considered true. You have also failed to counteract my statement saying that desktops are less likely to be misplaced or stolen, which in the end, saves money. Therefore, my statement must be logical and that I am correct when I say that desktops are more cost-effective.
Laptops are better than desktops.

What you are saying right now is that cheaper price means convenience; however, affordability and convenience are two different things. Convenience is the readiness of the product when one needs to use it, and affordability is the availability for cheaper prices. You should not just look up a word on the online dictionary and say that what you think suits perfectly to your word. You have to be correct. Also, laptops are more expensive because they require better technology. Then, is it not better than a desktop? I think I forgot to mention the definition of better:of superior quality or excellence. Laptops are superior to desktops obviously because it needs an advanced technology. What you said in the first branch of your argument only helps me prove my point. Thank you. You should also realize that many business people prefer laptops because they often travel abroad. You cannot just mention a specific group of business people and say they are the majority of the population of the consumers. There are several billion people on this earth. Those business people that "you" mentioned are only a small percentage of the whole population of the world.
Suicidal Jokes

Whether I feel bad about somebody committing suicide after I make a joke is beside the point. The debate is over whether jokes on suicide can be funny or not. The instigater does carry some burden of proof here, and they need to show that it's impossible for suicide jokes to be funny. It's not enough to prove they are damaging, or offensive. He must also prove that nobody can find a suicidal joke funny, and quite frankly I find quite a few of them Hilarious.
Suicidal Jokes

I assume this is one of those joke battle debates, so I'll proceed under that assumption. 1. A man went into a library and asked for a book on how to commit suicide. The librarian said: "Screw off, you won't bring it back." 2. Did you hear about the blonde who tried to kill herself? She jumped out a basement window! 3. I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" "Like what?" "Well ... are you religious or atheist?" "Religious." "Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" "Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" "Baptist." "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" "Baptist Church of God." "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God." "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" To which I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off. 4. Q: What happened to the Irishman who tried to kill himself by swallowing 100 pain killers? A: After two he began to feel better. 5. How did the frog die? He Kermit suicide! Beat those suicide jokes con!!!
God's Existence

Thank you for accepting :) My opening argument is this: By referring to the object of discussion as "God" (singular, with a capital G) it is to be assumed that we are discussing the Christian God, as the Christians are the only religion that refer to a one superior being in that exact manner. However, the Christian God is present in some manner or another in various literary works. Should I choose, I could attempt to disprove his existence as he is represented in the Bible, or I could disprove his existence as he is represented in Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy. (an anti-Christian work in which God is a sham who inevitably is destroyed by two children). Because of the multiple literary representations of God, and you're failure to pick the battleground, I shall disprove God as portrayed by Morgan Freeman in the film "Bruce Almighty". (Just because we are debating the existence of the Christian God does not mean we are limited to the Christian's View of their God). Actually, I was just toying with you about the Morgan Freeman thing- In the future take note that making anything complicated enough to have loopholes could be your undoing in many debates :) My first argument against God as perceived by the Christian Bible (King James Version) is this: "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." Genesis 1:26 [1] Should this scripture verse be interpreted literally, men and women alike would look identical to God, yet there are people of infinitely different builds, skin tones, hair/eye color, and appearance. If God created both Adam and Eve in quick succession and told them to populate the earth, their children would all closely resemble their parent. Even after a thousand generations of inbreeding, their children and descendants would still resemble them. A more supported argument is that men evolved from more primitive creatures related to the apes [2]. If such a glaring inconsistency exists between the Bible and Scientific evidence, then the credibility of the Bible should be dismissed as hogwash. [1] http://www.biblegateway.com... [2] http://www.creationtheory.org...
God's Existence

I must say, I am impressed by your presentation. I especially enjoyed your quote. I also find myself to be very thankful for allowing me to state my conditions. Your ethics are inspiring. I do hope this debate does go better than my last, as I never had the chance to present my insight. My conditions are that the topic stay relevant and that they are passionate. Do know that this topic is a relative issue and cannot be *physically* proven, otherwise I would be presenting this before a board of professors rather than a web community. I will, however, prove the three points you required of me. My intentions are not to convert you, but to convict you. With this being said, I accept your challenge. Con, I demand you present a single argument at a time and a convincing one at that. I will then prove your argument to be invalid and to be supporting my clause. I will use different methods to prove my points. Con, take your stand.
God's Existence

I witnessed your previous debate on this exact point. You claimed that you could undeniably prove God's existence, and I would care to debate you on the matter. I would like this to be a revival of that debate, in which you (pro) began with the following: "I will prove undeniably that God exists. AND that any rejection of Him is a contradiction in itself. I urge the con to go first as I can guarantee that any argument presented by the con will in fact support my argument. Con, take your stand." By declaring that you will prove anything, you have brought the burden of proof upon yourself. Thank you. In order for you to win this debate three things must occur: 1.- You must prove undeniably that God exists 2.- You must prove all contradictions of God as rejections of themselves 3.- You must explain how my arguments support yours. I have created this debate and made it four rounds instead of three. I did this to provide you an opportunity to add any information or conditions to the debate, after which I will happily begin.
Allow Muslim immigrants equal opporunity.

"When you vote Pro, you break the social contract between the government and the people, because you put a group of non-citizens, who are not apart of the social contract, on the same level as citizens, who are apart of the social contract." mmurph123This could be said for any immigrants in any country. Many immigrants are hard working. Japanese for example are known for non-violence. "Subpoint A is SecurityLarge resettlement efforts prompt a response from right wing extremists. Dearden '14 explains Norway’s domestic intelligence agency says the national threat level has increased as a result of the increasing number of refugees and migrants arriving in the country. But it is the response of far-right groups, rather than the asylum seekers themselves, affecting the security situation" mmurph123Here's the problem, large resettlement efforts. If it was just a few, we could assimilate them fully into our culture, country, and turn them into full citizens. Yet, when you take a huge amount of immigrants in at once from a vastly different culture, there is going to be a culture gap and culture shock. Can you imagine fleeing from a country where gays are publicly executed to a country that allows gay marriages? This will surely result in culture shock. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be reached is we must find a way to better assimilate mass amounts of immigrants from a radically different culture. Think of the Borg from Star Trek. [0] Do they simply allow new comers to keep their old cultural identity? No, they strip away the old culture and implant the new. This may sound harsh, but overall there is three choices, and this is the best.0. Assimilate the immigrants.1. Allow the immigrants to migrate with doors wide open and keep their own radically different culture which leads to conflict, as seen in Germany.2. Mercilessly refuse the immigrants. Considering option 1 is not working and option two is too cruel, option 0 seems the only viable choice. Note, this should also cover subpoint B.The terrorists are acting as if they are within their own country. We are being too respectful of their violent and vile culture. We must purge them of their cultural identity and assimilate them into western culture. Then, the chances of terrorist attack should be minimal. Thank you for debating. Sources0. http://www.startrek.com...
Allow Muslim immigrants equal opporunity.

I negate and contention one is the Social Contract Theory. Aondohemba '15 explains that the social contract "... is a notion that the state is the result of a contract entered into by men who originally lived in a state of nature; that there was only one contract, the social pact to which government was not a party. Individuals surrendered all their rights to the community and therefore, after making the contract may have only such rights as are allowed to them by what Rousseau calls the General Will(Law). Sovereignty, which belongs to the community of such individuals, is absolute, not the government that is absolute. And that every individual is a sovereign-being that makes up the whole sovereign community. This means that the individuals still have freedom from depending on any other body rather than themselves in a contract so entered into by them in a society. The government so formed by individuals after this social contract is very much dependent on the people. As such, people only appointed from their equals some trustees who would ensure the execution of the objectives of the General Will (the common Law) for collective security in the overall interest of the community."When you vote Pro, you break the social contract between the government and the people, because you put a group of non-citizens, who are not apart of the social contract, on the same level as citizens, who are apart of the social contract.Contention 2 is SafetySubpoint A is SecurityLarge resettlement efforts prompt a response from right wing extremists. Dearden '14 explains Norway’s domestic intelligence agency says the national threat level has increased as a result of the increasing number of refugees and migrants arriving in the country. But it is the response of far-right groups, rather than the asylum seekers themselves, affecting the security situationSubpoint B is Terrorism.I will use this point to refute my opened case. First, he concedes that Terrorism is an issue. Flow Security directly to my side as a result. But Secondly, he also claims that letting people die is the price for doing what is right and for freedom. Recognize that this puts the burden on him to prove that taking in refugees is both right and is a prerequisite for freedom. But third, recognize that it isn't the right thing to break the social contract theory and harm your own citizens. Kassam '16 explains that despite making up only 2% of the population, illegal immigrants and asylum seekers committed 6% of the crimes in Germany. At that point, is it truly right for a nation to give a forgeiner the same rights as a citizen? When they commit portionally more crime than normal citizens it can't be considered right for a government to put them on the same level as a citizen. Please Negate.Sources:Kassam '16 : http://www.meforum.org...Dreaden '14: http://www.independent.co.uk... Aondohemba '15: http://www.academicjournals.org...