BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
does god exist or not

Why would an all-powerful God intervene in matters prescribed to delegates? Considering He is out of the loop and may contribute inconsistently with accustomed protocol, we might perceive Him as a buffoon; But that's exactly how we may perceive our immediate superiors given their experience within the system we are new to. Ergo our perception of the Gods being insane or uncaring is based on our inexperience. We might expect all-powerful beings to impose themselves like warlords upon the field; But a cultured representative may act differently. Many expect a warlord; Our culture prepares us to that expectation, and considering our inexperience in retrospect we know we can be wrong. The story then is a second-hand account of the dealings between an all-powerful God and His delegates.
The Noah's Ark story is a complete impossibility

I assert that there is no way that the Biblical Noah's Ark story could have actually happened.The Burden Proof for this debate will rest on me solely, and I will use the bible as a source for Ark dimensions. Genesis 6:15 says "This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high." (1)Where a cubit is defined as 1 cubit = 0.529 m(2)First round is for acceptance.(1) http://www.biblegateway.com...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Noah's Ark story is a complete impossibility

Greetings once more comrades.Well I suppose that ends the debate.My opponent at the very start assumed the Burden Of Proof. That being said he has failed to prove the objectivity of the universe. While he did state: " I would turn this around and say instead that if my opponent at this time still believes the Ark story then he needs to prove that the Biblical God exists to make any of his claims relevant. I gave scientific evidence for my claims, so if my opponent wants to show that god exists he needs scientific facts as well."1. He has failed to prove the objectivity of the universe, thus all the empirical evidence(which was merely circumstantial) is irrelevant. 2. I have given reason to believe in the subjectivity of the universe and doubt all beyond my own existence.3. I cannot prove anything outside myself, therefore I can certainly not prove, nor could he disprove the Biblical God.4. However since all world views are equally valid, they are equally relevant.5. Since they are equally relevant, my claims are equally factual as his.6. Since my claims are equally factual, Noah's Ark cannot be an impossibility.Note to voters:If a subjective universe makes debate irrelevant, then Pro who has the burden of proof has failed to mention it. Therefore it would not influence voting. I apologize for calling his Con, you may penalize me for this in the "conduct" section of your ballot. Farewell, that was fun. ~Alex
should all drugs be legal

First before we start: I am new here and don't have a lot of experience of online debating. So be prepared that I might miss something. Now back to the topic: Not all drugs should be legal because: 1 It harms people around you when you use it [1] 2 Drugs are incredibly addictive (with heroin being the most dangerous on that field), meaning that people are very likely to over use (or abuse) drugs. [2] 3 A lot of people die from over dosing. [3] Legalizing all drugs would just increase these numbers and would probably create a society close to china after the first opium war. [4] Sources: [1] https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... [2] https://www.addictioncenter.com... [3] https://www.cdc.gov... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Russia/USSR has created more devastating weapons than ___________

In this debate, my opponent will choose a country and begin to list that country's most devastating weapons. I will be arguing that Russia/USSR's weapons are superior/more devastating than the weapons of the country of my opponent's choice. Weapons can be anything from warplanes, to bombs, to missiles, to tanks to guns. Weapons should be specific. For example, not the Atom Bomb in general, but a specific model. (Fat Man, for example. One of the nukes that was dropped on Japan.) If you have any questions, please ask in the comments. First Round is only for acceptance. Round 2- My opponent must announce the country that he will be "representing" and list 3 weapons. Round 3 and 4- My opponent must list 3 weapons in each Round. We will not be arguing the sheer destructive power and efficiency of the weapons.
Russia/USSR has created more devastating weapons than ___________

- Thank you once again for your submission. First let's clarify the situation about the bomb. Yes, many people died in that war, but it was war, we could both agree that the US had to do what they had to do. You omitted the fact that this bomb ended the Pacific War and brought the United States to triumph. Secondly, XM25 is much more hi-tech than the AGS-17, it is guaranteed to hit anyone from a 1,000 meter range, while the AGS-17 has some possibilities it might miss a target. The reason the XM25 is much more accurate is because of its attachments: Thermal scope, environmental sensors, ballistic computer, and so on so forth. Lastly, the M1 howitzer is also considered as one of the most heaviest and biggest howitzers built in the world by the US forces. The Pion may have a much stronger yield, but the M1 is capable of reaching targets from 14.3 miles, it has a much longer range than the Pion.Now, allow me to end this round with the following weaponries:3. Guided MLRS: Also known as the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System is a missile built by the US forces. This missile is a mobile launch missile used commonly during battlefields. The length of this missile is 3.94 m. The diameter is 0.227 m. The launch weight is 302 kg. It consists of a single warhead which ways 90 kg. The firing range is 70 km aka 43 miles. The status of this missile is operational; it was introduced to service in 2003. You are also able to equip this missile with HE submunition grenades. It's guidance system source comes from the GPS. This missile is normally launched from the M270A1 military vehicle. These missiles were first deployed in Iraq in 2005. This missile was commonly replaced with thermobaric warheads and penetrator rod warheads. Sources: http://missilethreat.com... 2. LGM 25C Titan 2: This is an intercontinental ballistic missile. It runs on liquid propellants and it's silo based. It was the largest missile to be launched by the US Air Force and it was the final liquid fueled missile to be launched. The length of the missile is 31.10 m. The diameter is 3.05 m. It consists of a single warhead which weighs 4,000 kg. And its firing range is 15,000 km. The status of the missile is obsolete; it was revoked from service in 1987. The Titan was specifically designed for counter-value targets. You can't deny that it was consisted of a very powerful, heavy warhead that was ever designed in history. Source:http://missilethreat.com... 1. LGM 118 Peacekeeper: Once again this is a silo based intercontinental ballistic missile with a liquid based fuel system. The length of the missile is 21.8 m. The diameter is 2.34 m. The launch weight was 87,750 kg. The payload was 10 Mk 21 RVs set on a MIRV platform. The missile of consisted of the powerful W87 warheads which were able to yield a 475 kt! It also had a three stage solid propellant. The status of this missile project has been terminated since 2005.Sourceshttp://missilethreat.com... - May the odds be ever in our favors.
Russia/USSR has created more devastating weapons than ___________

- Thank you for your response it means a lot to me since I'm new to this site. I would just like to notify you that the weapons that I presented are considered as one of the most powerful arms the United States developed. I do admit that I haven't provided an explanation of how dangerous the Trident was, but I have provided the amount of warheads it contained. I have provided an explanation of how dangerous the bomb, Fat Man was. Fat Man yielded a detonation that was measured 21kt and 88TJ (TNT power). Yes, it is true that the Tsar Bomba was the most powerful atomic explosion, but it was merely an experiment produced by the USSR. Fat Man approximately killed 30,000-80,000 people in that city, this bomb has ended the Pacific War and brought triumph to the United States [1]. Thank you for informing about the sequence (least destructive to most destructive). [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. XM25 CDTE: Also known as the punisher and the Individual Semi Automatic Airbust System is an American airbust grenade launcher. It was originally used in the war in Afghanistan. Due to the weapons powerful ability of destruction the Armed Committee tried to stop its funding, but failed to do so. The weapon was designed and manufactured by Alliant Techsystem and Helter & Koch. This weapon is able to reach for point targets from 500 m and area point targets from 700 m. Although, it's maximum firing range is 1,000 M! The KBP AGS-17 may have a slightly longer firing range, but the XM25 is guaranteed to hit a target from 1,000 M! This weapon contains the following attachments: Thermal scope, environmental sensors, Ballistic computer, laser rangefinder, ammunition fuze and so much more (2). Sources: [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. 240 mm howitzer M1: This is possibly the largest and heaviest howitzer produced by the American forces. It weighs 29,300 kg and its length is 8.38 m. 14 crew members are needed to operate this machine. Its muzzle velocity is 2,300 ft and its maximum firing range is 14.3 miles. Lastly, it is able to fire 30 rounds in an hour! This howitzer was first introduced to service in 1943, it is used by the American military forces, Taiwanese forces and British forces. The M1 was used by the Americans military forces during the WWII an the Korean War (3). Sources: [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org... 1. M134 bomblet: This is a chemical, sub-munition weaponry. It was originally invested for the M190 Honest John Rocket launch in the 1950s. It was created for warfare and it improved greatly during 1964. However, this weapon was never used for war. This cluster bomb was full of the sarin nerve agent. The bomblet detonates 5,000 ft above its target to let the agent disperse in the air and later fall to the ground. The chemical agent is able to disperse in a 1,000 m diameter. The Honest John missile was able to hold 356 of M134s (4). Sources: [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org... - I'm looking forward to my opponent's response.
Russia/USSR has created more devastating weapons than ___________

I will note that my opponent did not provide any description of how destructive/powerful the weapons he presented are. He only gave their dimensions and weight. He provided speed/accuracy for the Trident, but that still does not reveal how powerful the missile is. I would also like to say that as far as atom bombs go, the Fat Man was not very powerful. As mentioned, the Tsar Bomb is literally thousands of times more powerful than both, the Fat Man and the "Bunker Buster". A single warhead of the "Satan" missile is more powerful than the Fat Man. Remember, we are going for most destructive within the weapon's "class". For example, you cannot compare an artillery piece to a bomb or missile. I hope the voters will judge fairly. Now, onto my second round of weaponry. 1. KBP AGS-17 Plamya (Flame)- This is a Soviet 30 mm grenade launcher. Quite possibly the most destructive feature of this weapon is that it fires nearly seven grenades PER SECOND. Its effective firing range is 1.7 km, which means the user can destroy enemies at a very long range without being shot at. http://www.militaryfactory.com... 2. M1939- A super-heavy Soviet howitzer. It fired 305 mm rounds that would destroy everything in its path. Because the round is so enormous, it takes three minutes to reload. If the caliber doesn't tell you anything, get some measuring tape and measure out 305 mm. That is the diameter of the round. (Approx. 0.33 yards) http://en.wikipedia.org...(Br-18) 3. 2S7 Pion- This Soviet SPG is known as the largest SPG ever built, and the most powerful conventional artillery piece in the world. Its 203 mm gun can fire projectiles up to 29 miles away to hit a target. It is also capable of firing nuclear ammunition. The gun is so powerful that there is an alarm that goes off for five seconds before the gun is fired so crew members move away and are not physically incapacitated from the concussive force of the weapon. http://www.militaryfactory.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... I await my opponent's response.
Russia/USSR has created more devastating weapons than ___________

In this debate I will present the country, USA and its weapons of distractions. I believe that the United States of America had and always will have the most powerful weapons on this planet, no matter if they are thermonuclear, missiles, tanks or guns. The weapons that I will present are as follows: 1. Fat Man- Fat Man was an atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, during the Pacific War on August 9, 1945. The weapon was built by the Los Almos Laboratory. This bomb weighed 4,670 kg, its length was 3.3 meters and the diameter of the bomb was 1.5 meters. The bomb was filled with an overwhelming amount of Plutonium. The filling weight of this bomb was 14lb and the detonation yield was 21kt or 88TJ. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Massive Ordance Penetrator- Also known as the GBU-57A/B is a weapon belonging to the U. S. Air Force. The weapon's nickname is the "bunker buster" bomb. The weapon was originally conducted by Boeing. It weighs approximately 14,000 kg. It has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 0.80 meters. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. UGM-133A Trident II- The Trident II is a ballistic missile which was built by Lockhead Martin Space Systems based in Sunnyvale, California; it was introduced to service on March 1990. The weapon is used by the United States Navy and the Royal Navy. The unit cost of the weapon has been $37,320,070 since 2014. The weight of the weapon is 59,000 kg. The length is 13.579 meters. The diameter is 2.11 meters. Contains W88 and W76 warheads. The speed of the missile is 18,030 mph. The accuracy is 300-390 according to CEP.
Russia/USSR has created more devastating weapons than ___________

As mentioned, I will be representing Russia/USSR. 1. Tu-160 (Blackjack)- This is the biggest, heaviest bomber ever produced. (Made in 1989 in USSR). This monster has a load of up to 165,000 kg of explosives, capable of causing unseen destruction. Even with that, it is still quite fast. Let's compare this weight load to other bombers: B2 Spirit- 83,000 kg B1 Lancer- 129,000 kg B-52 Stratofortress- 143,000 kg Tu-160- 165,000 kg http://www.militaryfactory.com... 2. R-36 (Satan) Missile- NATO calls this missile "Satan" for a good reason. It is Soviet technology and was, in fact, recently upgraded. This missile is capable of carrying 10 warheads and 40 penetration aids. A single one of those warheads is over 20 Megatons of TNT. http://en.wikipedia.org...(missile) 3. Tsar Bomb- The most powerful man-made explosive ever made. When this bomb was tested, the subsequent mushroom cloud was 40 miles high. The "cap of the mushroom" had a width of 59 miles, and the base had a width of 25 miles. All buildings in a town located 34 miles away were destroyed. A third degree burn would be inflicted to anyone standing within a 62 mile radius, and a "thermal pulse" was felt by scientists that were 170 miles away. The seismic shock wave from the detonation could be measurable even on its THIRD passage around the Earth. Finally, this bomb was about 2,380 times more powerful than Fat Man, the atomic bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki. http://en.wikipedia.org... I await my opponent's response.
Gay Boy scout leaders.

So, what is the benefit of making boys more diverse? In what regard would they be more diverse, and how is that to their benefit? Surely they would just become a Jack-of-all-trades, master of none? It is to mans benefit and societys betterment that the male is single-minded. Would Stephen Hawking have come up with the Big Bang Theory if he split his attention between physics and sewing? Would the great architects of history have benefitted from having their functionality diluted by extraneous matter? Would all the worlds great sportsmen have benefitted from dividing their time between their passion and fashion? Would Jimi Hendrix / Eric Clapton / Steve Vai / Bert Jansch / John Renbourn have gifted the world with such majesty on their instruments if they were forced to become more diverse? No! It is a mans way that he follows his self-appointed duty with a single-minded determination. That he disregards superfluous and useless distractions. It is to the glory of man, and to the world, that he is as he is. "Gays, in case you haven't noticed, are in fact a lot like women." Quite. I said as much in my previous round. I quote myself: "Gays are like women." Women are strong because a deodorant commercial says so? Sure! See what I did there? No, but of course women are strong. They are just strong in different ways to men. Men should teach boys how to be men. Should a man run the girl guides? I don't think so. I'm not sexist in the least. But not being sexist doesn't mean that I have to view the world asexually. Men and women are different. They think differently, they act differently, they value different things. No one is saying that one is better than the other, but they ARE different. Boys will grow up to be men. It is men who should teach boys the ways of men. They are the only one qualified enough to do so. But gay men are men too, I hear you cry. Yes, but they are not men men, they are gay men. Distinct in their own kind, but not an ideal teacher of men-in-waiting. You would seek to arbitrarily hand over the tutelage of manhood based on sexual orientation. There's no true rationale behind it. It would bring its own difficulties however. There would be trust issues. Like it or not, people would be suspicious of allowing their boys to join the Boy Scouts. The numbers who attend would diminish. You would be breeding a brotherhood where masculinity was diminished. What benefit is to be had there? None. Let men be men. Let men teach boys how to be men. Let boys make their journey of discovery of the female by themselves.
Gay Boy scout leaders.

In all seriousness though, gay boy scout leaders would be very beneficial for the boy scouts. It would make the boys more diverse and prevent the boys turning into monsters who put up tents for a living. Gays, in case you haven't noticed, are in fact a lot like women. This makes them beneficial to be boy scout leaderrs, because as we all know, women are strong [1]. Women also can do some neat things like hold another human in their stomach and have red wine pour out of their coin slot. These are some cool tricks that the boy scouts need to know. It may interest Con to know that he is a sexist pig, as he is generalizing and saying that men are these omnipotent superheroes and that women are these hair-obsessing fashion-following screaming weak muppets. That is not true. Women can be omnipotent superheroes if they want to and men can be hair-obsessing fashion-following screaming weak muppets if they want to. There's no reason why they can't be. (This paragraph should get me the vote of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, feminists and trans people). Men are not dominant over women. Men need women to survive, just as women need men to survive [2]. For all these reasons and the ones that I gave in the previous round, I think that the boy scouts should allow gay boy scout leaders. I thank you. Sources[1] . http://www.youtube.com... (the video)[2] . http://www.parenting.com...
Gay Boy scout leaders.

I accept. The Boy Scouts do not need any gay leaders. Here's why: Sewing is a woman's business. The Boy Scouts are for males. Gays are like women. Boy Scouts are for males. Boys need to learn how to become men. That includes having a distrust of homosexuals. Homosexual Boy Scout leaders would not convince these boys of the necessity of distrusting homosexuals. Boys, who are learning to become men need to learn that fashion is a female area. It's not important to men. Boy scouts need to learn that it is their duty as men to fulfil higher callings, their higher nature. The homosexual is exclusively earthly, unspiritual, of the flesh and feminine. What can he teach about becoming a man? Perhaps you should allow homosexual males to teach in the girl guides - that would be far more appropriate. A man recognises the inherent emptiness of all praise. It is one reason why man has earthly dominion over all other living things - he does not get swept away too often in his own importance. What would it benefit a young boy to receives vacuous praise like 'you are fabulous'? Boy needs to become man. Boy needs to learn to put emotions aside. Boy needs to learn not to be suckered in by the lavishing of meaningless praise. The boy needs to become a man. Only men can teach boys to become men.
Gay Boy scout leaders.

The boy scouts made a big mistake when they maintained their position on not allowing any gay leaders [1]. This is because little boys need a diversity in activities, life isn't just putting up tents and tieing knots.What the boy scouts are missing out on are the cool, hip and fun activities that gay leaders would introduce, such as Extreme Sewing Adventures and Radical Rainbow-drawing, with merit badges complete with pink glitter on them. With Gay boy scout leaders, the boy scouts will feel fabulous.Also, Gay boy scout leaders would be a help to people like me, who can't tie knots.Me: waa!Gay leader: What's the matter, scout?Me: I can't tie knots, and big Jim can!Gay leader: Don't feel sad, have this merit badge! Scouts need to be a bit more gay in my opinion, anyway.So that's what I want to debate today, whether the boy scouts should allow gay boy scout leaders. I hope for a good debate. No homophobia (or a 'Fear of Queer' as it's known as in my area), please.I thank you.Sources[1] http://edition.cnn.com...
Government employees may not use their religion to refuse the issue of gay marriage licenses

The whole point I want to make in this debate is that, unlike Con's assertion in the last round, a county clerk, or any other government employee does NOT have the choice to do what he or she feels is right, as regards whether or not to perform the duties of the office to which they've been appointed or elected. If they feel that their job requires them to do something that is against their beliefs the only honorable options are to either resign or request reassignment. A soldier doesn't have the right to decide what combat assignment he'll accept, a policeman can't decide what laws to enforce, and a county clerk can't decide which couples, of those who meet all the legal requirements for marriage, she'll issue a license to. If any government employee believes, for any reason, that they can't fulfill the duties of their office, as defined by the government who writes their paycheck, they shouldn't be in that office. Would any employer, government or private business, keep on an employee who tells them that they refuse to perform all the requirements in their job description but still insists on being paid their full salary? I thank Con for this debate and the interesting points Con provided.
Government employees may not use their religion to refuse the issue of gay marriage licenses

In each state there are multiple county clerks if what I am reading is correct. If that is the case I am sure if one of them has a religious problem with it they can discuss it with their boss. The boss has other people to send the couple too. Or maybe tell them from the start that it is against your religion so if they need you then they will send only straight couples. If you think about it though why take a job like that unless you are prepared to have to deal with a situation like that. A county clerk has the right to do what he/she feels is right.