BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Choose Your Topic, Liz! <3

The resolution my opponent and I will be debating is: A presumed consent system of organ donation is the most just policy. I will be taking the con side, and 9space will take the pro.With the permission of my opponent, I have been allowed to post a few definitions before we begin. He has viewed these definitions beforehand and agreed to them. There should be no semantic arguments pertaining these words. presumed: to accept legally or officially that something is true until it is proved [or shown] not true (Webster)organ procurement: the removal or retrieval of organs from a donor for transplantation (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network) deceased: either irreversible discontinuance of circulatory / respiratory functions, or an irreversible discontinuance of the entire brain (including the brainstem) This is not to be confused with coma or a vegetative state. (Uniform Determination of Death Act) Organ Procurement: the removal or retrieval of organs from a donor for transplantation and research (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network)As what "justice" is will be a viable part of this debate, I will save defining it for my argument. I'm looking forward to a great debate!!
Christian/Catholic USA residents are aiding in the collapse of the USA economy.

I am PRO on the debate: Christian and Catholic residents of the USA are one of the largest groups in the USA perpetuating the ongoing collapse of the USA economy, causing financial hardship to their neighbors, friends, relatives, and even to themselves with the boomerang effect as they fail to do what is right, moral, and honorable. CLARIFICATIONS: By stating, "are one of the largest groups", I am referring to Christian/Catholics collectively as home owners who have breached their contractual obligation as borrowers. According to PEW FORUM ON RELIGION & PUBLIC LIFE: 78.4% of Adults in America are CHRISTIAN, of which 23.9% are CATHOLIC. www.religions.pewforum.org/reports According to CENSUS OF HOUSING: In the year 2000, in the USA there was a 66.2% HOMEOWNERSHIP RATE. According to the National Association of Realtors homeownership spiked to 69% in 2004 and 2005, and as of the 3rd quarter of 2010, it fell to 66.9%. www.nar.org homeownership statistics This is a political debate, not a religious debate per se, hence no Bible references, quotes, etc. Christians greatly influence USA political policy. The housing collapse and economic collapse is largely influenced by what our Christian brothers and sisters do and don't do. Of course, the buck does not stop at the Christian ATM housing machine and this is not the blame game, it is moreso to identify the large voting group claiming to be Christians/Catholics and how their actions or lack of actions thereof are directly affecting all of America's residents. ROUND 1: Acceptance, miscellaneous comments. ROUND 2: Opening Argument. ROUND 3: Rebuttal. ROUND 4: Final Rebuttal. ROUND 5: Closing Argument. Both Instigator and Contender must cite any/all material referenced. Neither Instigator or Contender shall use The Bible or any religious references (this is a Political, not a Religious debate).
It is reasonable to believe in God.

Something I noticed was that you constantly brought up 'atheists', as if atheists are the only people who would call Christians irrational. I am not an atheist- and this debate has nothing to do with atheists, only whether or not Christian beliefs are logical. I will therefore ignore most of your arguments about atheists unless there is direct relevance to this debate. You claim that atheism is illogical, rightly so, because they use the fallacious argument that "No god exists", which would indeed require omnipotence. However, in your attempt to show the irrationality of atheists you manage to exclude yourself for using the same fallacy- absolute knowledge without absolute proof. This is a fallacy of special pleading. Christians hold up by the same logical standards as everybody else- you can not exclude Christians from logic. You use the argument on faith, that because you have faith- you are not irrational. It is ironic, and almost circular, because non believers tend to claim that faith itself is irrational, and this faith, or belief in god is thusly irrational. You yourself claim that faith is "Beyond reason"- which is in other words saying that faith does not hold up to 'reason', or 'logic'. That is simply irrational. Rationality, and especially reason generally correlate with logic- I try to rationally prove my positions rather than saying "They're correct, I am always right, do not defy me. " Faith is inherently illogical, or as you might say "beyond logic". While Christians might feel a special presence, and might have 'faith' in God, that does not make their beliefs any more rational- even though Christians themselves may feel that they are being very rational. Please remember that thinking you are rational does not mean that you are. Your morality debate, and other discussion of atheists is irrelevant. You have shown no proof for the existence of god, morals are not proof- you have failed to provide a casual link between morality and God, and you have failed to provide a casual link to god and the creation of the universe. It would be a fallacy to say 'because there is no proof for anything else, god did it'- assuming you were correct in all of your assertions.
Pokemon one round debate

BOP is shared You have 48 hours to write your argument after you accept Rules: - Any rebuttals given by my opponent will result in an automatic Forfeit. - You must argue why your chosen Pokemon is your favorite, not why it could beat mine or other Pokemon. - In your first few sentences you must say In all uppercase letters who your favorite Pokemon is. - You need to have at least 1 photo or link to a photo. - Sources are required . - Failure to follow or breaking any of rules will result in a forfeit. Judging: - Judge by who made a better case. - DO NOT JUDGE BY WHICH ONE IS STRONGER!!!! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: My favorite Pokemon is PIPLUP. Piplup is a water type Pokemon, basic, and Generation four. http://www.debate.org......... 1. Piplup is one of the strongest swimmers 2. Piplup has tons of Self-Pride 3. Piplup is Cute 4. He is adapted to where he lives 1. Piplup is a penguin. Therefore Piplup is a strong swimmer. He is able to dive for 10 minutes at a time to hunt for food. When he evolves into empoleon his fins become so sharp that he can cut through 10 feet of ice with his flippers. Empoleon is one of the fastest swimmers but he is not the fastest. (golduck is) 2. Piplup is very proud of him/herself. He can't walk very well but when he falls, his self pride is't hurt. In fact he will even puff out his chest. He refuses food from humans because of his pride. His pride has it's flaws, but it's really handy in a battle. It means he will never give up. 3. Piplup look is very cute and unique. Just look at the pictures (I would add links but the take up like 2,000 characters) (Just look up "piplup" in google and look at the images) 4. Survival of the fittest. Piplup is adapted to survive in arctic waters. He lives in very cold areas where there's less of a struggle for food. Conclusion: Piplup is my favorite pokemon Sources: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com......... Pokemon Trading card game http://webcache.googleusercontent.com.........(Pok%25C3%25A9mon)+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Pokemon one round debate

I'm fine with those terms. Game on! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My favorite Pokemon is DIALGA. Dialga is a steel-dragon type pokemon, basic, legendary, and also Generation IV. If you want to see a picture, copy and paste the link below into your browser. bit.ly/dialgapower 1. Dialga is a legendary Pokemon 2. Dialga has control over time to some degree 3. Dialga looks awesome 1. Dialga is a legendary Pokemon because there only is one in any given Pokemon game, unless you trade for a lot of Dialga, or cheat. Anyway, legendary Pokemon are more powerful than normal Pokemon you catch in the tall grass or whatever. 2. In the anime, the manga, and the games, Dialga has power over time. It can slow down time for its enemies, speed up time for itself and its allies and even stop time to crush everything it wants. OP! Also, Dialga is the only Pokemon with the move Roar of Time, and this move is really OP, being the second-most powerful Dragon type move. 3. Just look at it. It may not be cute like Piplup, but it makes up for it by looking amazingly awesome.
The Microsoft Zune HD is better than the comparative Apple Ipod Touch

My critiscism is in terms of harddrive space and the zune Hd can have only have the memory of an Ipod Touch which can have 64GB harddrive. A fact that you neglected to mention in your definitions, as such, the ipod touch is superior to the zune Hd in terms of space and hence appeals to a larger market audience by having the option to have a larger harddrive. Secondly the Ipod touch in comparison to the Zune has a larger screen at 3.5 inches in comparison to the Zune's 3.3 inch display. The ipod touch also offers a higher resolution display at 480 by 320 pixels compared to the Zune's capability of just 480 by 272 . In turn allowing for better video playback using the device. The ipod touch also supports 576P resolution for output. I would also argue that although the Zune Hd can output video at 720p this incurs an extra cost as it requires a dock, and a HDTV so isn't relevant to the devices own capabilities. Thirdly the ipod touch has full wireless and bluetooth capability, which the zune lacks as i cannot find any reference to bluetooth, and allows the user to sync and download music from the itune store easily. I put this in contendence with your statement "4)" where you state that "These are all things that the Ipod Touch cannot do." Incorrect as the Ipod touch can, in turn this questions you sources and bias. In regards to appearance i feel that from the images i have seen of the Zune it is not aesthetically pleasing or modern in any ways preffering a more rugged and rectangular design. I would claim that the ipod touch have a more aestheically pleasing and ergonomic design than the zune. I would also highlight that "The Zune HD weighs almost half of what the Ipod Touch weighs " my opponent is purposefully being vague as simple math s shows that the zune weight 65% the weight of the touch, and that by using this language your presenting your bias. In other note as far as i know apple offers an inscription service on all Ipods and this does cost extra. I also note that the Zune claims a battery life of 33 hours and you have compared this to touch of the same size at 30hours although the Zune measure this with (wireless off) and no information is availiable as to whether this is a fair comparision to the touch so cannot truly be used as prove of superiority.
The Microsoft Zune HD is better than the comparative Apple Ipod Touch

::Introduction:: Thanks and good luck to whoever accepts this debate. This arguement is to prove that the Microsoft Zune HD is better than the comparative Apple Ipod Touch. ::Definitions:: Microsoft Zune HD - The "Zune HD" touchscreen media player that was released by Microsoft late 2009. [1] Better - Of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; [2] Comparative - Most similar in regard to storage capacity. For example, a 16gb Zune HD being compared to a 16gb Ipod Touch. Also, a 32gb Zune HD being compared to a 32gb Ipod Touch. Apple Ipod Touch - The "Ipod Touch" touchscreen media player made by Apple. This is referring to the most recent generation of the player. [3] ::Limitations:: I do not want this argument to spread farther than the device and the software associated with it. Please do not discuss how good/bad Microsoft/apple is. ::Arguments:: 1) Price The Zune HD (32gb) costs $289.99 from the Zune originals store [4]. The Ipod Touch (32gb) costs $299.99 from the Apple store [3]. Simple math will conclude that the Zune will cost $10 cheaper. It is the more cost effective of the two. 2) Battery life Because of its bright, power conserving oled screen, the Zune HD has a battery life of 33 hours [5]. The Ipod touch has a battery life of 30 hours [6]. The zune can last three hours longer. 3) High Definition Content The Zune HD supports an output size of 720p high definition video [1]. It also comes with built in high definition radio [1]. The ipod touch can do neither. 4) Wireless connectivity In addition to access to the internet [7], the Zune HD has the option to sync wirelessly with a computer [7]. This can be done from either the player or the computer. The Zune HD also has the option to search for any buy music directly from the player itself [7]. When listening to the radio, the song name appears, with the option to purchase. Wi-fi is necessary for connectivity. These are all things that the Ipod Touch cannot do. 5) Appearance The Zune HD's dimensions are 0.35 inches by 2 inches by 0.4 inches [5]. The Ipod Touch's dimensions are 4.3 inches by 2.4 inches by 0.33 inches [5]. In my opinion, both players have a sleek appearance on the front. But the zune has more option for physical customization, including seven colors, many designs and logos, and free inscription [4]. I believe that the Ipod touch also offers inscription, but I have no reference for this. The Zune HD weighs almost half of what the Ipod Touch weighs [5]. ::Conclusion:: I will save the rest of my arguments for a later time. I thank the person who accepts this debate and I wish them luck. Have fun! ::References:: [1] http://www.zune.net... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://www.apple.com... [4] https://zunestore.net... [5] http://www.zunescene.com... [6] http://www.apple.com... [7] http://www.zune.net...
Soccer is better than football

Hi there, I'm new to the forum so be kind. I am an English man, here we have Football, excuse my ignorance but I was under the impression that Soccer was Football, sorta kills the argument really, we call it Football because the Ball, that's the round thing knocked around the pitch, pitch being the field or the green stuff they run around on, is kicked with the foot, you see Football. What's Soccer then? Please explain!
Soccer is better than football

I am just copying this of a debate I should of won but no one voted. _______________________________________________________________________________________Argument- More fans than football. Soccer players don't need to spend a lot of money for gear like football players and coaches do. Football is a stop stop game and soccer is a fluid game. Not long to learn the basics of soccer unlike football. Don't need physical strength of football to play soccer. Soccer is in the Olympics and football is not. Stretches across the world thus you have more fans to talk with and share your love for the sport. Less able to have injures than football players.Websites used-http://www.realclearsports.com......http://www.livestrong.com......________________________________________________________________________________________Best of luck to my opponentRules are that you can not give up. No cussing and format is paragraph than rebuttals of your opponent's paragraph. ----->FOLLOW THESE RULES<-----
Soccer is better than football

Report me for what? You have no basis for an argument, what are you 12 or something ! If you say Soccer is what it is then you have posted it incorrect, if you had said which is better, American Football or Soccer then you would have had a different response and maybe a whole host of people willing to participate. Maybe I'll report you you loose either way, is this how they teach you to accept your mistakes over there, if you don't win you call in the heavies, oh yes I forgot you are the supper power, if you lot don't like something you bring a gun along! Moron.......
Vegetables are better than Non-vegetables!

1 ) Human beings by evolution are designed to eat meat. a) That is the reason we have canines. 2) Meat is Incredibly Nutritious a)A 100 gram portion (3.5 ounces) of raw ground beef contains large amounts of Vitamin B12, B3 (Niacin), B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and plenty of other vitamins and minerals. 3) Vegetables lack calories, example Spinach contains only 23 calories per 100 grams broccoli contains 34 calories per 100 grams etc Even if we are to assume an average of 30 calories per 100 grams in vegetables An average person who requires 2000 calories per day will have to eat around 7 kg of vegetables. Of course vegetable are not bad, but when combined with meat they serve us best. And yes consuming huge quantities of meat will cause you to get fat and leads to whole lot of problems. 3 to 4 serving of meat per week is best. Balanced diet is the key to healthy life, not a vigorous veg diet. http://meatandhealth.redmeatinfo.com...
Vegetables are better than Non-vegetables!

Vegetables are much better than Non-vegetables because they are healthy, they are good for you and they give you good nutritional value. Green Vegetables such as spinach, rocket, fresh herbs,silver beet,Asian greens and broccoli are high in antioxidants. If you eat vegetables you can maintain a healthy diet. Eating vegetables also mean you are healthy and you won't get affected by deceases. It is scientifically proven a human should eat vegetables daily in order to stay healthy. On the other hand it is not healthy to eat non-vegetables. Non-vegetables(meats like beef) contain fat which causes you to increase weight and it also make you look fat. Personally i love unhealthy but soon I realised that it wasn't good for so I changed from unhealthy to healthy. In conclusion Vegetables are Best in all cases. Vigorous Vegetarians who brings us victory! VEGETABLES!
There should be no gun laws.

If you take away guns, people will have NO way to protect themselves. The supreme court stated that it is not the police's job to protect you. Therefore it is the people's job to protect themselves. You never responded to my claim that gun laws only affect the law abiders and not the law breakers. This either means that you agree with me or are not trying very hard on this debate. 3 of 4 of the sources you cited were biased and one source you completely misinterpreted.
There should be no gun laws.

If you put guns in the hands of the civilians, that will lead to even more shootings. Humans are prone to make mistakes, and who knows they will not make a mistake and shoot someone. Large incidents could lead to many people being shot and the banning of guns. If we just put a limit on guns, it should never resort to this. http://www.nytimes.com... http://reason.com... http://www.foxnews.com... http://www.democratandchronicle.com...
Captain America (Pro) or Iron Man (Con)

Round One: Acceptance ONLY Round Two: Opening Arguments Round Three: Rebuttals and Closing Statements Voting Period is 1 Week. We both have 24 hours to argue. I am a new debater so please excuse me if my arguments suck. This is not me trying to get a vote, but please do not hammer me about it. I am here to get better. The debate is merely, debating who would win on a one on one fight. No outside help. In this case, even Jarvis is disabled (Keep in mind that the Iron Man Suit is COMPLETELY functional without Jarvis). One on one fight. I figure that this is a widely discussed topic, given the fact that Captain America: Civil War is coming out soon, and also that the first trailer just came out. Hope this debate goes well, and best wishes to the other person.
Captain America (Pro) or Iron Man (Con)

Excuse my late post. I have been busy with my schooling. Thank you for you rpatience.Before I start with my rebuttals, I would just like to point out that the argument my opponent failed to provide any references to back up his point.RebuttalsMy opponent actually agreed that Captain America is one of the greates superheroes ever. He also brought out the fact that Iron Man has defeated Red Hulk, with his suit. That is including him having help from Jarvis. This is contradictory to our debate, being that Jarvis has been eliminated. In the comics, Captain America has fought the Hulk one on one. The hulk is the better fighter between him an Red Hulk. The angrier hulk gets the stronger he gets. There is no telling how angry he can get so his power is likely unlimited. In the fight between Hulk and Captain America, Steve held his own pretty decently - without a fancy suit like Iron Man. My opponent has also brought out that the Armor that Tony is wearing is NEARLY indestructible. NEARLY. This proves that there is a way for it to be destroyed or manipulated.My opponent also brought out that Tony is an "excellent future and on-the-fly tactician." Excellence and mastery are very different. I could be an excellent reader, but that does not mean that I am a master at it. In my argument I broght out that Captain America is a MASTER Tactician and Strategist, clearly trumping Iron Man's "excellent future and on-the-fly tactian".I do agree with my opponent when he says that this fight would last a while. Iron would also likely get some nice solid punches in. However when it is all over, Captain America is walking away from this fight with a win.I would like to thank my opponent for taking the time to debate this topic with me. I feel like I have gained some knowledge form the experience, and I cannot wait to do it again. I would lalso like to thank the readers for sticking around to view our debate. And again I would like to ask that I am not ridiculed for my arguments if they are not the best. I am still new and am hoping to learn. \I await my opponents response.