BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Objectively, the most terrifying pre-K/T extinction land animal was the Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Thanks Con!I took 30 mins to make an excellent rebuttal but then DDO bugged, I hate myself.Now again:Spinosaurus aegyptiacus:There are partly false things that Con said which is:"almost 60 feet" & " (made of 20 tons of muscle)"The source says the following:"12.6 to 14.3 meters (41 to 47 ft) and a body mass of 12 to 20.9 tonnes"[1]Therefore no way Spnosaurus is around 60 ft, but the body mass ranges between 12 to 21 tons.T-Rex is much bigger and always huge, I will explain that later in the argument, which shows that T-Rex strength is equivalent to Megalodon, which I will show that Megalodon is seriously strong.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...Quetzlcoatlus northropi:This is a flying animal, and the debate topic is about land animals which makes this strong dinosaur ignored and dismissed.Carcharodontous saharicus:False(partly) things in Con's argument:"C. saharicus ranging between 12 and 13 m (39 and 43 ft) and weight estimates between 6 and 15 metric tons." [2]Again I will show that T-Rex is stronger in the argument below.[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...Tyrannosaurus Rex:12.3 metres (40 ft) long, and was 4 metres (13 ft) tall at the hips. Mass estimates have varied widely over the years, from more than 7.2 metric tons (7.9 short tons)."The calculations suggested that adult T. rex could have generated from 35000 to 57000 newtons of force in the back teeth, or the equivalent of three times the force estimated for a great white shark, 15 times the force of an African lion, 3 1/2 times the force of an Australian saltwater crocodile and around 7 times the estimated force for Allosaurus"[3]Now see this:"However, even higher estimates were made by professor Mason B. Meers of the University of Tampa in 2003. In his study, Meers estimated a possible bite force of around 183000 to 235000 newtons or 18.3 to 23.5 metric tons; a bite force equivalent to that of the largest Megalodon shark specimens."[3]This shows that T-Rex is objectively far stronger than any other land animal in terms of strength, bite of force of 18.3 to 23.5, that is more than Carcharodontous saharicus, Quetzlcoatlus northropi, and Spinosaurus aegyptiacus in size.And the bite is equivalent to the Megalodon that "Currently, most experts acknowledge that C.megalodon reached a total length of more than 16 metres (52 ft)."[4]And "Megalodon had a very robust dentition, and had a total of about 276 teeth in its jaws, spanning 5 rows. Paleontologists suggest that a very large megalodon had jaws over 2 metres (7 ft) across."[4]Even after millions of years, Tyrannosaurus Rex footprints are alive! : http://upload.wikimedia.org...; />[5]Objectively Tyrannosaurus Rex, when biting any of the said dinosaurs, they will be crushed completely.[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...We conclude that Tyrannosaurus can crush any of said dinosaurs when such force, no one can face him.
Objectively, the most terrifying pre-K/T extinction land animal was the Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Thanks Pro! While the T-rex was undoubtedly a formidable predator, there are many pre K/T extinciton animals that were far more terrifying than it. I will describe three such animals to prove that Tyrannosaurus was not the most terrifying animal. 1. Spinosaurus aegyptiacus was the largest land carnivore to ever exist, with a length of almost 60 feet! It had a long snout lined with razor-sharp teeth, and unlike the T-rex it had long, maneuverable arms. Spinosaurus also lived on both land and in water, and was capable of swimming. Imagine that. The largest and predator (made of 20 tons of muscle) is chasing you, you jump into the water to avoid it, and it jumps right in there with you! Spinosaurus had a jaw similar to that of a modern crocodile; that is, it had immense crushing power. Even its relatives (in the Baryonyx family) were capable of all this. Spinosaurus was definitely more terrifying than the T-rex. 2. Quetzlcoatlus northropi was the largest flying animal discovered. Picture a typical Pterosaur. Now give it a wingspan of 6 humans laid end to end. Now give it a sharp beak, claws, and a fierce attitude. This monster could fly over valleys, oceans, forests, you name it! If a Quetzlcoatlus is on your tail, there's nowhere to hide. Quetzlcoatlus was even capable of long range flight. Truly, Quezlcoatlus was more terrifying than T-rex. 3. Carcharodontous saharicus was similar to T-rex, only bigger, stronger, and scarier. At 43 feet long and 15 tons, it was larger and heavier than T-rex. It was named for its jagged sharp teeth up to 8 inches long. Its 5.2-foot skull was designed for ripping up meat, and its arms were long and maneuverable. Basically, Carcharodontosaurus was a larger, angrier version of T-rex and was therefore scarier. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Atheists are wrong and ignorant

Eden - I don't know. But, as I said, "It ultimately doesn't matter why."Bad things happening - I already addressed this.If there is no God, there's no Universal moral standard, because there is no one at the very top telling us, "Thou shalt not..." and "Thou shalt...". This means we cannot determine what is ultimately good or bad. Since we wouldn't be able to do that if God doesn't exist, it cannot be used as an argument against God, because there is no waying of knowing if a problem of evil even exists.If one wants to suggest that a problem of evil does exist, they need to be able to determine what is right or wrong: Which requires God. Since you need God to even make the argument, the point refutes itself: If God exists, he knows what he is doing. Thus, there is no problem of evil, because we aren't anyone to question the actions of a perfect being, while we are imperfect.
Atheists are wrong and ignorant

"Well,Eden was in Earth, first of all, but that isn't the point;it ultimately doesn't matter why" I was just saying that humans sinned and got punished by being sent away from Eden (or so the bible says) but animals(other than the serpent) did nothing wrong. I wanted to know why they were punished too and sent away from Eden. Also, when I was talking about bad things I was meaning journalists being held at gunpoint, all the wars and conflict in the world and babies that are killed. This cannot be right, so why does God let it happen? If there is a God why does he let bad thing happen to people who have no choice? Who have never done anything wrong. Babies that are stillborn, what did they ever do? Please don't just ignore my arguments this time.
Atheists are wrong and ignorant

"I know that many people, would argue that Adam and Eve sinned and that it is their fault we don't live in paradise, but God is always talking about forgiveness so why couldn't he forgive humans?" He wants to forgive us. That's why Jesus died on the cross. He can't automatically forgive us because of this: God is eternal. When we disobey him, we disobey an eternal God, thus the consequences are eternal. It needs to be payed for in an eternal way: If we are eternally punished, there is no forgiveness because the sin is never payed for (God is merciful and just. He can't have injustice), so he sent someone else to be punished in our sins, thus fulfilling justice (sin is punished) and mercy (forgiving sinners). "Also, deer, cows, sleeps and other animals didn't sin so why are they on earth and not in Eden?" Well, Eden was in Earth, first of all, but that isn't the point: It ultimately doesn't matter why. Problem of Evil: -To say bad things even happen, you need to determine what is bad in the first place. If there is no absolute standard, then there is really no problem of bad things happening. Thus is cannot be used as an argument against God because you cannot know what is truly bad in the first place (Who determines it? You? Why should your moral standard affect whether God exists? You're a lump of cells...) If there is an absolute standard, then you need someone above everything else (Like God) to tell us what is bad and what is good, thus it cannot be used as an argument against God, because you need God to exist to even make the argument. -Bad things happen because of sin. Sin brought death. God gave us a way out of sin & spiritual death. Many won't accept that way out, because they love darkness/sin. Thus evil and suffering in the world is man's fault, not God. God offers us life, man don't want it. While God is the one responsible for giving man free-will in the first place, since God & everything he does is perfect, it is the best thing he could have done.
Atheists are wrong and ignorant

In this text I am going to state why Atheists are not ignorant and wrong. Many atheists don't believe in God because they have wittnessed an event that has got them thinking about God and whether he actually exists. Lots of events happen in the world that make people think about humanity and fairness but really all of that is a question of God. I know that many people, would argue that Adam and Eve sinned and that it is their fault we don't live in paradise, but God is always talking about forgiveness so why couldn't he forgive humans? Also, deer, cows, sleeps and other animals didn't sin so why are they on earth and not in Eden? You may say that everything happens for a reason but why? Why do parents deserve to have a miscarriage? Why does a 6 year old deserve to have cancer? Why does a girl deserve to lose all her hair over chemotherapy? None of these people deserve that, just as you don't deserve to be killed, but why does it happen? If their was a God why did he let the world do that to those people? Is that fair? No. So how come people argue about that. Life isn't fair and you can still argue that God loves, cherishes and protects? How? Are you sure? Because I could say that you are wrong and ignorant for believing in God. But I don't because I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and that I am too, but I shouldn't judge. I am agnostic but i am not ignorant, I truly believe that their isn't a God, but if you believe their is, that is your decision and I cannot change that, but you should think about what you are saying. Not every atheist is ignorant and wrong. Many have good reasons, you just don't know their stories. As I don't know yours and you don't know mine.
God exists.

The resolution is that God exists. Pro will be arguing that God exists, while Con will be arguing that Pro has not established that God exists.By accepting this debate, Pro agrees that they have the burden of proof to establish that it is objectively more likely than not that God exists. The rules for assessing this are the standard rules of logic, including the rules of deductive and inductive inference. For example, a deductive argument must be deductively valid and have premises that we have sufficient reason to believe are true, and an inductive argument must establish that the conclusion is the best or only explanation for the evidence cited in the premises.God for the purposes of this debate shall be defined, by default, as an omnipotent, omniscient, all good person. I take this definition from the first paragraph of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Concepts of God." [1]If Pro wants to use a definition other than this default definition, they should ask for me to approve it in the comments section before accepting the debate. The following types of definition are unacceptable: (a) Definitions that attempt to win the debate by defining God as something that obviously exists, like "God is love" or "God is the universe." (b) Definitions that attempt to define God as something radically different from the traditional Judeo-Christian God as conceived of by Anselm, Aquinas, Richard Swinburne, or other traditional authors.[1] https://plato.stanford.edu...
The "I was just following orders" defense should not shield soldiers from criminal culpability.

NOTE: I set the debate so that it can only be accepted by a member ranked as good as me or better. If you are interested in this debate but cannot accept, let me know.The Nuremberg trials, held by the Allies after World War II, rejected the "I was just following orders" defense to charges of military atrocity and human rights violations. It was a landmark decision in international law, as the denial of the superior orders defense confirms that responsibility runs to the individual even when the individual was acting on their orders. Thus, it was established that not only nations, but individuals are responsible for war, war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.The question at stake in this debate is the following: Is it reasonable to expect soldiers to exercise independent judgment to resist faulty orders? At the heart of this question is a serious dilemma that faces soldiers attempting to determine what is right and what is wrong in the context of war. For how can we expect soldiers who are fundamentally taught to obey orders and military discipline to resist illegal directions? There is a strong argument to be made for both sides of this debate. I will argue illegal orders that violate basic moral conduct should not shield soldiers from criminal culpability, even in wartime. It is for my opponent to argue the other side.There are no strict rules for this debate, but I do ask that semantic arguments be avoided and that no new arguments be made in the final round. Thanks.
Llamas are funny

1. Llamas Kill PeopleLlamas have involuntary psychopathic murder spells (See video). http://www.youtube.com...As historical evidence, GiantSpoonMan's father was slaughtered by the llama mafia during prohibition. It was around 2:45 in the morning. GreySpoonMan was simply going for a late night stroll because he couldn't sleep. He was peacefully listening to the echoing of his footsteps on the damp brick roads when suddely a voice called out,"You're in the wrong neighborhood."Grey abrubtly turned about face, sweat now running down his brow in fear. He tried to look casual as he briskly walked away, but his thighs started to burn. His walking turned into running along with the growing sound of clops. His escape attempt gew increasingly faster, faster than he could keep up with without tripping on a loose brick and falling to the road.The last thing he saw was a long, furry neck growing out of a big, furry body. And the last thing he heard was,"Como te llamas, muthaf4cka."Whack...........If anyone thought that story was funny, they're going to Hell.Llamas are murderers. They feel so shame. They have no humor. They are, not, funny. 2. Llamas Spit Like Cray-Cray I don't find getting spit on very funny. Especially after being murdered.3. Take Drugs Obama Pleases Me Was A Terrible MovieTake Drugs Obama Pleases Me starred Taylor Llamner, known for his miserable performances in films like The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lllama Girl in 3-D, Pallama Dynasty, and Shield Your Eyes, Full Moon. Rotten Tomatoes's review was based soley on special effects, while the story and acting remained dry and unbearable.The film recieved terrible reception from other critics who actually have taste:"This film goes down as one of the worst films in history along with 'Bratisllama' and 'Fat Dump'." - New York Times, 2008."Whenever this director wants to leave the film industry, alpaka lunch for him." - Huffington Post, 2008."I'M GOING TO KILL MYSELF OVER A MOVIE!!!" - Whitney Houston, 2008.Review Llamas kill people. Llamas kill people. Llamas kill people. ConclusionLlamas aren't funny.
Llamas are funny

Llamas have existed since 1999 and, unlike any other animal, has made people laugh everyday by bringing their sophisticated humor to people. Their satirical humor to criticize politicians, religion and the USA has boosted their career, which led them to their first animated feature film "Take Drugs Obama Pleases Me" (2008), and received mainly positive reviews; Rotten Tomatoes reported that 93% of critics gave positive reviews, which granted the film a "Certified Fresh" rating.
One's "Physical Experience" Can be Proven to be Absolutely True

belief=be lie, as i have to imagine it a fact is a past observation, fact=knowledge=memory of physical experience i can at best believe what others tell me, as i have to imagine it possibilities are false, not real, as i dont know, possibility has 2 sides, imagination is unknown fact=memory facts dosnt exist beyond my own memory, truth is in the past, imaginaiton represent future the light of the sun comes from the sun, i percieve it with my eyes, my eyes are true, i am my eyes, without light, my eyes would cease to exist in the long run if the light of a match is wood burning, how can the light shine without fire, and how can there be fire without something to be on fire, like wood, so the match burning is light, light being the balancing point between the match, and the match burning, so light is matter, as light cant exist without matter physical is something, mental is nothing physical experience is matter, matter is the opposite of information, matter is true, information is false and truth
One's "Physical Experience" Can be Proven to be Absolutely True

imagination is false, and physical experience is true, 0 and 1. know is true, belief is doubt information is the opposite of matter information is false and truth you havnt explained anything, data is not information, not mental in any case.. possibilities are imaginary, not real imagination is false only know is true i dont know information, know is matter, unknown is information i have no conviction that my physical experience is real, it is by default sensory experiecne is true, not false i dont believe in evidence, i know my experience of now i dont believe in cells, dna, particels atoms, all imaginary, not real i am life, therfore i can die, if i couldnt die i couldnt be life, if i cant get sick i cant be healthy physical experience is transformation the matrix theory.. has just been disproved, you have done nothing to disprove it but assert you have disproved it
One's "Physical Experience" Can be Proven to be Absolutely True

information is false and truth, matter is true, 0 and 1 self=see life flow to say you are a brain in a vat you would have to say reality is false, is reality false? and is imagination true? possibilities are imaginary belief=possible=false know=no other possibility=true knowledge=impossible=truth a computer can never work my brain, becasue data is not mental, not information(disproves the brain in a vat theory) i know the light on my screen, certainty is a personal experience, i am certain that i have 5 fingers right now... and that im typing with both my hands, that im reading these words so everything you see is just a confirmation that your brain works huh, you dont actually see anything my eyes do not recieve information, light is matter destruction=turn my back how do i confirm that i can see if seeing isnt the confirmation that i can see? .. or how do you determine the shape of a cloud it isnt easy or natural to cut open a head, so as far as i know, i dont have a brain, nature flows in the path of least resistance cause and effect is logic, reality is logic numbers are imaginary, but math is absolute, if you have a bear skin, you have a dead bear, and if you have a bear skin, i know it comes from a bear logic+experience of it=reason(concept, simulation of logic) there is no logic in fantasy, i cant die in a dream, as i can only die if i am alive sense=objective experience, does make sense.... is an apple in your hand not an object?... do you not experience that object.. possibilities are imaginary, stories, not real know is not possible, know is no other possibility, absolute. possibility has a positive and negative side
One's "Physical Experience" Can be Proven to be Absolutely True

Objective reality is true. It is our perceived notion of reality that is in question. There must be *some kind* of reality or else self cannot exist. Without a reality, self has no reference or comparison to determine existence, and would be an absolutely empty mind; nothing. All knowledge and experience that one possesses (whether true or false) is acquired from perception of some reality. Similar to your statement "true cannot exist without false", self cannot exist without non-self (reality). Even in extreme Solipsism, I would be doubtful that one can argue that *some reality* doesn't exist. A common philosophical argument/concept is the "Brain in a Vat" theory [1], which is the premise for the popular movie, The Matrix [2]. This presents the possibility that you, in objective reality, are merely a brain that is being fed information that describes the reality that you are currently experiencing. If true, then that indicates that your brain is receiving fabricated information that is interpreted as sensory information, and that *everything* that you think you know and experience could then be false. For example, you provide the statement that indicates that, due to my sight, I can see the words on my computer screen and know that they exist. There exists the possibility that the information I am receiving, via sight, is entirely false and is just fabricated by an unknown source and projected/fed to my brain, which then has no reason to not assume it is true. "Seeing" is not a confirmation that you can see, but rather, the confirmation that your brain is receiving information that it interprets as "sight". You also gave example regarding logic, and 1+1. These things do not physically exist in reality. Logic is a conceptual tool employed by our reasoning, which exists only in one's own mind. Similarly, numbers are imaginary concepts that do not exist in reality. For instance, there can be two apples, but the concept of "two" without any associated, tangible element does not exist. At the end, you use the term "objective experience". This doesn't make any sense, since experience exists within each individual's mind, which contradicts the definition of "objective", provided in Round #1. In conclusion, the philosophy of the "Brain in a Vat" automatically casts a possibility of falsehood upon our physical experience, thus, undermining any argument you can provide that attempts to prove that your physical experience is absolutely true. In order to prove the premise of this debate true, you must be able to defeat the principle of this philosophical notion. Note: I am not trying to use this argument as a cheap win, but rather to demonstrate that our perception is unquestionably fallible, and cannot be absolutely trusted to determine objective reality. I could also use lesser examples, such as, seeing a white shirt under a perfectly set blue light; your brain will "know" that the shirt is blue when, in fact, it is white in reality. [1] Mind and Philosophy - http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com... [2] Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org...