BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This is Debate 6666.

Greetings. I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate and whatever ekse I usually say after this line. Now, let us proceed carefully. Argument #1. This debate is not titled Debate 6666 nor is it titled Debate NUMBER 6666. Rather, if you would carefully on the bottom right corner of the box which lists the time limit for each side to respectively posts their arguments, you shall see that this debate is titled "Debate No: 6666." Nowhere in my opponent's title or his first round can we see anything along these lines. Argument #2. Even if we are to ignore the above argument, we must keep in mind that there is no way this debate could be the 6666th debate to have transpired on this website. I say this simply based on the fact that arguments transpire both on the forums as well as the comment sections quite often. If anything, this could very well be the 100,0000th debate to have transpired on debate.org. Now if the resolution had stated that "This is the 6666th OFFICIAL debate to have occurred on this website", it would be a different story (although there'd still be some debate on what we can deem as official). At any rate, I believe I've proven the "debate counter" to be utterly inaccurate. ------>RE: "Isn't that cool? You all think it's very cool!" There is no breeze that is coming out of my computer screen while viewing this page. Ergo, this can by no means be considered "cool." And that'll do it for now.
This is Debate 6666.

First, if nefarious ways were used, then this debate is merely an illusion and we can't actually conclude it to be the actual debate 6666. Second, don't you find it awfully convenient that the 6664 debate is my debate, ladies and gentleman? With my opponent's genius computer hacking skills, what's to stop him from fixing up that debate as well, much less making me of all people to look bad? I'm telling you . . . he has this website fixed to his liking all along. FOR GREAT JUSTICE, SAY NO TO HACKING AND VOTE CON (provided you don't uphold not sayingism). Thanks for the debate.
Mark Sanchez (#5pick) will have a more productive 2009/2010 season then #1 pick Matthew Stafford

In the NFL there is no guarantee of completing the season healthy, and cons angle seems to be a good one, but the same statement can be made of Stafford. I understand that the NFL has an air of uncertainty, but that is never the intention of the player. My goal is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, if both players go through the season playing all 16 games, Sanchez will have a more productive season. (Players do not play to get hurt, so one must assume that they will play all 16 games) Stafford vs. preseason 30-of-55 (55 percent) passing, 399 yards, 1 TD, 4 INTs 3 sacks And two int came when he was playing against first team offences. . http://blog.mlive.com... Sanchez vs. preseason Sanchez 24/37 347 yards 3 tds 1 int 1 sack Took over as starter in week 3 and did not throw an int. . http://www.nfl.com... Stafford vs. Detroit's offensive line The Detroit offensive line is better then expected, but Sanchez has a stronger offensive line, as evidence of the number of sacks issued in the preseason as well as more notable pro bowlers and years of experience . http://www.freep.com... . http://sports.espn.go.com... Sanchez vs. wr. Yes the case can be made that Sanchez does not have an established #1 wide receiver, but as stated above in the source, he will have a better supporting cast. . http://sports.espn.go.com... Coach Rex Ryan vs. coach Jim Schwartz Rex Ryan was an intricate part in the starting of rookie Joe flacco. Rex Ryan has the experience edge by witnessing how a rookie qb needs to be brought along. He prepared his defense week in and week out, on rookie Joe flacco, knowing what he needs to do to make Sanchez productive. Jim Schwartz was the titan's def. coor. Jim Schwartz won the first game vs. the ravens last year, when Joe flacco was just getting started. After getting the supporting cast worked out, the titans lost there post season game vs. the rookie quarterback and supporting cast. Argo, Jim Schwartz's only experience is not only inconsistent but proves he has no experience in the field of starting a rookie qb. . http://www.pro-football-reference.com... Conclusion- Matthew Stafford is going to be a good quarterback, he might even be the better of the two when it is all said and done, but evidence is piled against him for the 2009/2010 seasons. Mark Sanchez has the better offensive line, defense, and coach with more experience. This year he will be more productive. I have provided enough facts to allow a clear favorite between the two.
Mark Sanchez (#5pick) will have a more productive 2009/2010 season then #1 pick Matthew Stafford

I shall negate the resolution, "Mark Sanchez (#5pick) will have a more productive 2009/2010 season then #1 pick Matthew Stafford. " ============== Burden of Proof: As Instigator and Pro, my opponent has the Burden of Proof to affirm the resolution and prove that Sanchez will have a more productive season than Stafford. ============== There is no way for my opponent to prove that Sanchez will have a more productive season that Stafford. For instance: Sanchez may get severely injured in Week 3 play and have to stay out for the entire season, while Stafford may get a hot streak and win every single game he plays. Sanchez would be forced to stay off the field and could not have a more productive season than Stafford. The point is, due to the general unexpected events of the future, my opponent cannot possibly prove that Sanchez will have a better season that Stafford. There are just too many possibilities that can go against Sanchez and can benefit Stafford, like the situation I just mentioned.
God meddles in human affairs in a negative and selfish way. Prove me wrong.

Once again, you suffer from closed mind syndrome with literally a world of opinions and no facts at all. Mine are all true, that YOU do not know, and do not LOOK, is not my problem. Man is not moral ... see your delusion? Man is indwelt slave to SIN. That's why you go to Hell? Not because God sends people there? Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned-- this is pretty clear ... your going to Hell because you sin, not because God is sending you! If your WRONG in that ... how can you be right in anything? you state "It seems the topic of this argument has switched from the morality of God" God ɡäd/ noun noun: God; noun: god; plural noun: gods; plural noun: the gods 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. This proves your wrong on item#2 as well. do we have a third? Obviously you do- "And you have no evidence of that whole evolution bit," I'll prove it: NAME the Living tissue created by Evolution Science during experimentation! you won't FIND it cause none was produced! Shall we see if your wrong a forth? of course -" if it undergoes" and like your entire conversation has gone .... IF YOU had wheels you'd be a wagon! D.E.L.U.S.I.O.N. and I.M.A.G.I.N.A.T.I.O.N not a fact in your entire discussion! hehehe. Thaat nature did not produce the life on Earth IS proof that Someone ELSE put Life here! That you could not see that, by assuming the Evolution evidence was not Fact, when it WAS, makes your arguments pointless, as they are all in your mind, and not facts at all. You provided no examples where God purposely did anything this century? You might want to blame God for weather, but Chemtrails and cloud seeding isn't Gods doing is it? But nice talking to you. Your fantasies have been refreshing. OH do not DIE whatever you do! hehehe your in for a REAL eye opener.
God meddles in human affairs in a negative and selfish way. Prove me wrong.

The entire argument is based on complete falsehood. But it is to be expected, so your not to blame, your only human. Let's clear up your errors, one at a time. 1st error- Please state which Bible you get verses from if you wish to use them. *You don't have to use just one btw.* God is God there IS only one! That isn't going to change. BTW- He is the one that created HELL, to house immortal Fallen Angels ... and that will be used for the immortal Souls of Men. 2nd error- God has meddled with the nature of human existence post-creation. FACT:False! IF you look around? God has left YOU to your OWN devices and destruction! FACT: God has meddled (as you call it) in only one way. He has made a WAY for Man to BE SAVED from their destiny:HELL FACT: You are not required to accept it, God will not force you ... you have the right to choice between DEATH andd Life! FACT: the Israelites abandoned God, not the other way around. They to are destined to Hell, merely a remnant shall survive by they own choice ... just like you? a Selfish, God would kill off only unbelievers ... it RAINS on everyone, believer or not! All perish in famine, plague, Fires, Hurricane, tornado, explosion, that alone proves there IS no selfishness involved at all. The evil of the world ... that would be you ... kill off each other, rape each other, rob each other, hate one another, pollute one another and pass on disease. Those of God do not! We do sometimes die at your hands but that is a small matter as we go to a place of Honor and privilege where as you go to a place of vile torments, intense suffering and extreme pain! Course the fact that you DON'T BELIEVE this? Is gonna do YOU absolutely no good. Because fire Burns ... even if you don't believe it? As to Bible? I won't use really be using it, the REASON? It's NOT talking to YOU or yours (unbelievers) it is speaking ONLY to believers ABOUT believers. Everything in it pertains to Christian instruction and history and what is going to happen in the latter days! we all already KNOW what is going to happen to all of you? Your Going to Hell? No surprise there? So we are not to concern ourselves with you. Save to give you the Good news that you CAN be saved should you CHOOSE to be, but after that? It's up to you. God doesn't even require US to prove anything to you at all. You either beieve and are saved or you Don't and continue to Hell, s is your destiny!
God meddles in human affairs in a negative and selfish way. Prove me wrong.

Me. Against: God has meddled with the nature of human existence post-creation, and has done it in ways that further his grip on the human race/ the israelites. Opponent. For: God hasn't meddled with human affairs in a selfish way and what he does is all good. (Or post your own opinion in rebuttal to mine.) Some claim God is omnipotent, and all knowing but somehow all good. I'll use common sense and reasoning considering all we have to go on is the bible. All Bible quotes used by me are from the NIV and my 1990's Roman Catholic Bible. Please state which Bible you get verses from if you wish to use them. *You don't have to use just one btw.*
abortion

Abortion is a process in which an unwanted fetus is terminated. Whether the pregnancy was caused by foolishness, malfunctions in reproductive prevention, or something severe such as rape, it is always the woman's choice on what she gets to do with her body. If the two people were using a means of contraception or birth control that did not work, they clearly were already trying to prevent this from happening, and should not be punished by being forced to carry the baby. A fetus and a lifetime of commitment is never a punishment for sex, ever. Plan B is in fact a good idea to use in case of an accident, but it can only be consumed a few times before deeming you infertile. With thousands and thousands of children in adoption and foster care facilities, it is an unfair option to try and force adoption as an excuse to carry a child. If a woman comes to the difficult and emotionally straining decision to terminate a fetus hardly the size of half of a fist, you must believe that is in her and the baby's best interest. If they are unfit to become parents or would birth a child into an unhealthy environment it is inhumane to force a woman to waste the gift of life if it would only harm the future child.
abortion

Abortion should not be legal in any circumstance. several means of preventative tools have been manufactured. There are even steps that you can take after unplanned conception. The woman has a choice over her body, but to a certain degree. no more than 8 weeks after fertilization, the fetus starts to react to touch. no more than 20 weeks, the fetus develops nerves.the fetus responds to pain. the fetus is being killed because of what an inconvenience parenthood would be for the mother. statistics show that The majority of women have an abortion because they "arent ready". abortion is killing. no single person gets to decide if one lives or dies- born, or unborn.
Stratospheric Sulfate Aersols or geoengineering should be used in 2016 to combat global warming

Hello! I have always been a science enthusiast so I assume a stance on this topic with ease. The question of whether or not humans have a direct affect on Earth's climate is age-old, but new science has put forth irrefutable evidence that we do have an effect on our climate, however large the scale. We must be especially careful in researching climate change prevention as a government, but if we can assure that we can safely combat global warming through geoengineering without major repercussions, then there is no reason not to do so. Some feel as though global warming is the inevitable, natural course of the Earth's existence, while others believe that our industrial habits have an adverse effect on the temperature of the Earth. For this debate, we should assume the latter. I look forward to a good debate.
Vaccinations Against Preventable Childhood Disease

Vaccinations against highly infectious childhood diseases such as the measles, mumps, rubella, and pertussis (aka whooping cough) have saved millions of lives and improved the quality of life in countries where vaccines are accessible to the public. Unfortunately, more than half of the parents in the United States and some parts of the United Kingdom are choosing not to vaccinate for fear that vaccinations are harmful to their children. Autism, mercury, and aluminum are commonly cited as reasons against vaccinations: all reasons which have been poorly researched by antivaxxers. The Andrew Wakefield article loosely correlating the MMR vaccine and autism has been thoroughly debunked and retracted. The mercury used in Thimerosol (ethylmercury) is much easier for the body to break down than the mercury found in seafood (methylmercury), and an infant will have greater aluminum exposure from 6 months of breastfeeding than from their full vaccination schedule in the same time frame.
Vaccinations Against Preventable Childhood Disease

The NVIC says, "there are problems, many doctors are in denial." They looked at measles and all these infectious diseases that were killing people, they found that the drop in deaths had nothing to do with the vaccines. The verdict concerning Dr. Andrew Wakefield denied sound scientific studies replicating his findings. The public, parents, doctors and scientists worldwide are calling for a enquiry: http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com... Total Signed 4328 as of April 27, 2013. 5 reasons why we should have a choice to get vaccines. #1: Vaccines have Chemicals and Poisons #2: Vaccinated Children are Unhealtly also #3: We Are Learning the Dangers #4: Vaccines Have been Removed #5: You Can Get Vaccinated, But Never Undo a Vaccination
Debate. Org Needs Fixing

Thank You For Accepting. . . . First, There are way too many trolls. It practically ruins the entire website. Like you put on a serious debate, And then someone calls you a n*gger, And comments about the size of your "pp" (I actually saw both of these things happen). There are so many people that should just be banned, But aren't cause the staff is too slow. Second, When someone's writing an argument there are just too many problems. Every letter after a comma is capitalized for some random reason. All the URL's are botched up because every letter after a period is also capitalized, So someone has to go in a correct all the capital letters to visit the designated website. Third, Most people don't vote. DDO has some stupid policy that you need to put in your phone number for "reliable voting". But, The phone number checker is broken, So no one can vote, Making the whole debate useless, And you'll tie to some troll commenting about the size of your penis. Fourth, DDO notifies you every time if someone voted on a poll or an opinion you voted on. It clogs up your mailbox. Finally, You can't even create polls, Or opinions. It always says that something went wrong, And you have to wait for 10 minutes before that even happens. I have a pretty decent computer and it's really fast, So it's not my computer that's bad, It's DDO.
Children should know their biological father

I am politely disagree with your opinion still hardly support my argument this because you are telling that Australia law but not world this may be only use only on Australia Land not other nations may draw yourself because your argument is out of the topic that we discuss you want to discuss about other nations law,we can talk about it, American Humane, as a policy, opposes the use of physical discipline on children at home, in the community, or in school. In two national surveys, Murray A. Strauss, co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, found that 90% of parents of three- and four-year-old had struck their children and that 22% of parents of children under one year of age had also hit their children.
Children should know their biological father

im not blaming the parents i just think the child should be told that was how they where conceived not be kept in the dark about there other parent. many of the people that i know that have had donor conceived child have said they keep it to themselves until the child is told at the right age or wants to know why they have two mummies and no daddies or vice versus and if the child wants to meet there bio father then they have every right. a law in Australia is that the child has the right to know but once they turn eighteen they are handed the papers to find there bio father if they want to or before turning eighteen. as every donor has to hand over there info when they donate. and no-one ever thinks they are sex addicts they more want to know if they can have them as a donor
Children should know their biological father

Yes i am agree with you my friend..people should know their health..but,ever you think about the donater??..if you tell me like that..it will be better to eliminate the donation center if you mind think like that..so, the childrens who were born must take their own chance of living..not hoping for miracle like fairytales.. I admit that you are absolutely right in your argumennt..but there still a lack of point cause you still want to blame the parents..try you to imigane that you are the donater..it will better for you to secret this from the citizen..or people will look you like a sex addict..
Children should know their biological father

Yes children should know their bio father as they could end up with a fatal disease the doctors will then not have to run hundreds of tests to determine what disease or illness they have cause when they find out it just might be to late. Yer you have a point but just think of it from Donor Conceived Children they want to know there family history there back ground. they would also like to know that they don't have to worry about getting some disease or cancer. i know my family and would have hated not to know that i have a high chance of getting breast cancer as it is a family disease and then one of my friends she has a high risk of getting melanoma. then her and her sisters wouldn't be doing all the fund raising for a cure for melanoma if they didn't know that a lot of their family has be killed or is drastically suffering with it.
Anything you want

This is quite simple. Light travels at 186,282 miles per second. We can see light from stars several light years away. Do you see the logical conclusion that can be drawn from this? Well, I have no idea; I'm not an astronomer. But, like light is really fast. It's so fast, it could probably travel INTO THE FUTURE. Using fancy-schmancy calculations you can't understand, I found out that the light from the sun time-traveled from last Sunday. Booyah. Also, I wrote something two weeks ago and dated it. Checkmate. I await your arguments.
Aegislash v. Magikarp

Hi!Friendly debate between me and my opponent (YamaVonKarma) to determine which Pokemon is better, Magikarp or Aegislash.I will be arguing in favor of Aegislash.Rules/StructuringR1: Acceptance from opponentR2: Both sides list their Pokemon with their selected moveset and items (if desired)R3: Both sides will argue how their Pokemon should win.R4: Continuous arguments to an eventual conclusion.This is by no means a serious debate, as such it should be taken in a light way.If opponent has any questions regarding the layout they should feel free to address it in the comments upon which I shall make the necessary changes. If opponent accepts that implies they accept the rules and structuring of the debate.I assume opponent will treat me with respect, and I shall do the same of opponent!Good luck, Karma! :)
Aegislash v. Magikarp

In place of forfeiting, I have decided to announce my opponent as the victor. It is no secret that I have been severely beaten and am in need of a Pokecenter. In hindsight, I should've picked a real pokemon instead of a joke pokemon. .. because let's all face it, it doesn't get much suckier than Magikarp. Even Vanillite, a living ice cream cone is a stronger pokemon. *Leaving on a high note* . http://www.youtube.com...
Aegislash v. Magikarp

I. Dragon RageOpponent brings up the possibility of Dragon Rage. However this is easily nullified by:1. King's Shield2. Substitute3. With HP EVs Aegis can have up to 167 HP [1], which is 5 Dragon Rages. This allows for Aegislash to do 4 Swords Dances (which is insanely high attack) and use Shadow Sneak to easily wipe out Magi (even with 2-3 this is sufficient enough). II. FlailFlail would be an important factor if Magikarp were somehow able to withstand the Shadow Sneak. However:1. Normal type moves don't hit Ghost types.2. The SS could easily kill if Aegis got 2-3 SDs off. III. Shell BellViable if Magi wanted to attack if the SS were unable to kill and it was low health, however this is near useless as the SS is most likely guaranteed to kill. IV. MagicAssuming this refers to Bubble, which deals magic/special damage, overall it deals very low damage to Aegis and is blockable by King's Shield/Substitute. Awaiting refutation. [1] . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...
Aegislash v. Magikarp

How I would win with Magikarp: Dragon Rage Deals 40 DMG (20 to Aegislash - as it is a Dragon Type move) everytime used Costs 10 PP 100% accuracy Flail This unholy cannon of glory gets stronger with each damaging blow you land on my Magikarp. If you managed to get me down to 1 HP, I'd deal 200 DMG and recive 20 HP from the attack. Shell Bell "The Shell Bell is an item that restores 10% of all direct caused damage from the target to the user. This means that over-time effects such as poison or burning will not heal the target." Magic With literally every possible advantage of mine nulified, I'd only have one resort left. Depending on Magikarp's will to live.