BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trump Next President

Also, he has been supportive of Katie Hopkins, one of the most despicable people on the planet. I'd rather not have a president who endorses someone who says they're against children beings named after a location after having named their own child "India." He also bragged about his IQ, calling all those who opposed him losers. He has also denounced global warming, claiming it is a lie. Global warming is a major problem and if the leader of one of the biggest (not literal) countries in the world doesn't do anything to prevent it, the planet is in big trouble. We need a leader who will recognise our impact on the world and will do something to stop it.
Jameis Winston should NOT enter the NFL Draft

Jameis Winston is ready for the Pros. My opponent wants to say Jameis Winston should not enter the NFL draft for personal character reasons. As the NFL does not have any real qualms about allowing people with troubled pasts join their organization I do not think it is up for him to remove himself from the draft. If a team wants to take him then he has the right to let them try and pick him up. If he's picked then great for him but character shouldn't hold him back. Why? His talent is incredible. In 27 games played he went 26-1. Threw for 7,964 yards (nearly 4,000 a year). Threw 65 Touchdowns. Had a rating of 163.3 Won the Heisman. Won two ACC Championship games. Won a National Championship. [http://www.sports-reference.com...] Simply put, there is nothing left for Jameis to do in college. He's won and achieved everything a player can even dream of attaining and he did it in two years. Now its time to go pro. Jameis doesn't need an education to play NFL football and his past antics have shown that he doesn't value education much anyways. He may have to develop more as a person but why not do that as part of a professional team? There is nothing left for him to do in college, time to move on. Character flaws do not outweigh the stunning body of work Jameis has put in. His talent is beyond ready for the NFL. Now its up to the NFL to decide if his character flaws are a downside or not.
Christianity is a religion

Thanks to my opponent. I will rebut only those parts of my opponent's response which relate to the resolution, which will make this a very short round indeed. "The definitions are true definitions" Here my opponent concedes that the definitions I provided for "religion" and "Christianity" are true and representative. This is basically an unwitting admission of defeat on my opponent's behalf, as the very definition of "Christianity" my opponent has agreed with refers to it as a religion. "Now it is religious to believe in God or many gods, and it is religious to pray and fast, and eat bread and drink wine, go to church and read the Bible and do well and obey God." Here my opponent concedes that it is "religious" to act in a Christian manner, which is implied anyway by the definitions. "In the same way religion is the reason why we have so many problems" I'm glad my opponent can admit this, but saddened that he can't extend it to his own religion. "Now I believe Christianity is not a religion because it does not address the notion of 'getting to God' by ways and means of men." Whether this is true or not, it says nothing of the fact that Christianity is a religion. This is like me defining swimming as "the action of moving through a liquid using one's body", and then saying that I believe swimming is not an activity because swimming pools have chlorine in them. It doesn't follow at all. "Definitions aside, they are pointless here, all definitions do is enhances a persons perspective on what that person thinks is right." Definitions are not pointless here and in fact are THE ENTIRE POINT. We use words to communicate things like religion and Christianity. We can not ignore definitions of these words, or we may as well not speak. Anyways, this is getting a bit tedious. I don't really need to say anything more. My opponent is attempting to argue against definitions he's conceded by saying that definitions are pointless when trying to discuss whether Christianity is a religion, but clearly this is incorrect and there is nothing I can say which will convince Godsands otherwise. "You cannot have a stick with out there being a tree and you cannot have a stick without having someone to use it. The tree is Christ and man is the person, religion just has the person a stick. In the same way white is Christianity, man is the person observing colour and blue, green, pink etc are religions." 1. Wow. 2. Lol. I'll leave it there for this round, cheers.
Who should be the next POTUS??.....Donald Trump(Pro)....Hillary Clinton(Con)

Hello! This will be my first debate in a while do to school. I will argue for Mr. Donald J. Trump and against Hillary because I solemnly believe that she will be a disaster for the United States. This debate is for Pro's and Con's of both candidates, so I expect Con to argue why Hillary is good, not just why Trump is bad. The format of this debate is as follows: Round 1: Acceptance Only Round 2: Arguments....NO REBUTTALS Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Conclusion Good Luck to my opponent and I hope I can convince you as to why Hillary Clinton is bad and Mr. Trump is good..
Chuck Norris Facts

1. The term "dead ringer" originated when somebody sat behind Chuck Norris in a movie theater, and forgot to turn off his cellphone during the movie. 2. Four out of five doctors do NOT recommend Chuck Norris as a solution to all problems. Additionally, 80% of all doctors suffer from roundhouse kicks. 3. Scientists have recently discovered why the universe is contstantly expanding: it wants to get away from Chuck Norris. 4. Chuck Norris has never won any Academy Awards for acting. .. because he's not acting. 5. Chuck Norris crossed the road. Nobody has ever dared to question his motives.
Chuck Norris Facts

Crime doesn't pay unless your a corner after a filming of a Walker Texas Ranger 2. According to Einstein's theory of Relativity Chuck Norris actually can kick you into yesterday 3. After Chuck Norris visited the Virgin Islands they were simply called the Islands 4. Chuck Norris once scored a 3 in a golf game of 18 holes 5. A bear once bumped into Chuck Norris it became so scared its fur turned white and it ran to the north pole its descendants are known as polar bears
Chuck Norris Facts

1. Chuck Norris has never needed to buy a house. He just enters other people's houses, and they move. 2. One day, Chuck Norris kicked a horse in the chin. Today, its descendants are known as "giraffes." 3. The term "break a leg" was first coined by Chuck Norris' co-stars, wishing the luck of a broken leg being the worst injury to be sustained while shooting the show. Sadly, this has never been true.
Chuck Norris Facts

1. Chucks Norris can burn ants with a magnifying glass. At night. 2. Chuck Norris was actually the fourth wise man. He gave Jesus the gift of a beard, which was by far His most favorite gift. The other wisemen were upset by this, and bribed the Gospel to have him written out of the Bible. They then mysteriously died by way of roundhouse kick. 3. Logging is not the cause of deforestation. Chuck Norris needs toothpicks.
The Crusades were an Invasion

My opponent's argument can be summarized as one point: -The Crusades were not an invasion, but an attempt by Christian Europe to re-conquer the Holy Land, and aid the Byzantine Empire. < > -However it is nearly impossible to conquer a land without first invading it. The Crusades could be a re-conquest, but that doesn't mean they aren't an invasion. For Con to win this debate, he has to show that the Crusades were not one of the following: 1) To enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent. 2) To enter as if to take possession. Christian Europe forcefully entered the Holy Land to boot out the Turks. This is hostile intent. They entered to take possession of the Holy Land. Now let's define conquest. My opponent does so, but the definition uses the word 'conquer', making it worthless without a definition of 'conquer'. conquest[4] 1) The act or process of conquering. 2) Something, such as territory, acquired by conquering conquering[5] 1) To defeat or subdue by force, especially by force of arms. 2) To gain or secure control of by or as if by force of arms. The second definition of conquering is more suited to the situation here - that's what Christian Europe was trying to do. Now, 'gaining or securing control' is the same as 'taking possession of'. 'By force of arms' is analogous to 'forcefully'. As you can see, the definitions of 'invasion' and 'conquest' are very similar; they are almost synonyms. Because the Crusades, even if they were a re-conquest, required an invasion, the Crusades were an invasion. Vote Pro! [4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [5] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The Crusades were an Invasion

.. i wish that by laying a couple of definitions, we can justify whether the Crusades were an invasion or not, but in-order to find that out, one has to observe and analyze parts of History in 1095 the Byzantium Empire sent a message of needed help to the Pope Urban the second to help the Byzantium empire repel the Seljuk Turks, the call for aid led to the pope calling for a crusade as, Jerusalem, and the holy land, was occupied by the Turks. .. the goal of the crusade, (and this is what people tend forget, is the freeing of the eastern christians from the rule of the Islamic Turks and also to recapture the holy land) Before the Seljuk Turks got hold of the Holy land, the Arabs were kind and open minded towards the visiting pilgrims. but when the Turks took over, they denied the rights of pilgrims to enter and also killed and executed them if they tried to enter. this led to the Papal States not only to aid the Byzantium empire, but to re-conquer the holy land, to allow pilgrims their rights to enter the holy land The aim for the crusade as i mentioned before was not to invade the holy land, but to re conquer it, and give back the rights to the christians pilgrims to enter the Holy land with out being killed or hanged. . . http://en.wiktionary.org... define reconquest "the process of conquering a previously lost land" looking forward to my opponents arguments . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Crusades were an Invasion

Thank you, yhubin, for starting this debate. I'll start off with some definitions. The Crusades[1] 1) A series of religiously-sanctioned military campaigns waged by much of Latin Christian Europe. The specific crusades to regain control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291 invasion[2] 1) An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army. There are a two definitions of invading that are pertinent. invading[3]: 1) To enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent. 2) To enter as if to take possession. By simply defining the terms in the resolution, we see that the Crusades were invasions. They were attacks by Christian Europe on Middle Eastern land, in order to take it over. Europeans entered the Holy Land with hostile intent, to take possession of it. I look forward to my opponent's arguments. Resolution affirmed. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Rap music is starting to have a negative infulenece on teens

Extend my first argument - sexually suggestive rap music is not a significant influence on the behavior of teens. That's from the New York Times in November 2007. Extend my second argument - rap music creates opportunities to solve social issues that negatively impact teens by creating a medium that they are familiar with and that can express their attitudes in a meaningful way. That's from author Bakari Kitwana in 2005.
creationism should be taught in science classrooms over evolution

I actually disagree, I believe it is good to have a good amount of both. I believe that you should be able to have a freedom of speech in what you believe. I also believe that, since this world is so large, that you should be able to know what other people believe. I do not think one should be taught over the other. Even if you are religious, you should know how science works in the eyes of a scientist and if you're not, vice versa.
creationism should be taught in science classrooms over evolution

Science classrooms are reserved for science, not fables. The scientific method has show. Its effectiveness time and time again. In the case of the theory of evolution it is no more a "theory" than there is a theory of gravity. In the case of creationism, the only thing I see it being effective at is giving a nice (depending on your definition of nice) story to those who find comfort in the delusion of a belief in God. Adam & Eve, the snake, Noah and his arc, etc. are all not real. I've read the bible and I'm versed in the workings of evolution. I am looking forward to a fun healthy debate and hopefully we can land on an island of logical agreement.
creationism should be taught in science classrooms over evolution

I believe it is not infinite as well, but still quite large. On a size scale that humans can not imagine I also believe. The most abundant elements in our body are the same elements that are the most abundant in the universe(out of regular matter of course). Hydrogen nitrogen, oxygen, carbon runs deep through out the universe. With that in mind, there could be lets say a million twin earths out there but because they could also be so far far apart from each other there is no way for any communication to take place. Coupling the size of the universe and how were made of basic ingrideients I believe life is inevitable
creationism should be taught in science classrooms over evolution

Oh of course. Since we are at an agreement let me ask some questions and hopefully they are good "food for thought" questions. I hypothesis the only way religion would ever die out is if the majority of humans were not afraid or at least nervous of death. Do you agree? I feel like a large reason there are so many faithful is that they don't want to think that when you die it's over. Also what is your opinion towards life else where in the galaxy or universe? I believe that it is statistically more probable that there is life elsewhere. If you do not agree I have a few thoughts that might make you think. I have other queries but I shall save them for later rounds Incase you have any commentary
You choose the topic! (#2)

Hello again! I'm doing another "you choose the topic" debate! I enjoyed the last one so I think I'll do another! Choose whatever topic you want and I'll be on the pro side even if I personally don't agree with it. Yes, you are free to choose ANY topic you want, however, I would appreciate if you would be reasonable when selecting your topic. Here's the structure: Round One: You will select a topic and define any key terms. Round Two: Arguments. NO REBUTTAL! Round Three: Rebuttal Round Four: Final Rebuttal and Closing Statements Good luck!
Cod4 modern warfare vs Cod 5 world at war

Ahhh... I understand. Things happen. Well then, thanks for the debate! I just want to add some things before we finish though, just need to get this out of me lol. World at War was based off the exact same engine and foundations set by CoD4. WaW was basically the same game in a different setting with different guns. A few different perks and the addition of a couple new things didn't make World at War feel like the next game of the series, but more like a bonus pack for CoD4. Taking the upgrade from CoD3 to CoD4, which was substantial, and comparing it to the transfer of CoD4 to WaW, which wasn't that much of an upgrade at all, you see that Infinity Ward really brought the most to the plate. Oh, and the spawning in WaW is horrendous. Coming back into the game with your back to your opponent is never a fun ordeal. Lets also look at the reviews for both games. ~Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare~ Game Informer - 10/10 GameSpot - 9/10 GameTrailers - 9.4/10 X-Play - 5/5 ~Call of Duty: World at War~ Game Informer - 8.75 GameSpot - 8.5/10 GameTrailers - 8.7/10 X-Play - 4/5 As you can see, both games had high reviews, but CoD4 clearly was rated superior. Well, that's all I really have to say. I am still playing CoD4 happily as WaW sits on my shelf. Once again I thank you, monkeydude99 for starting this debate, and I'm sorry that you didn't get the chance to argue me. I also play video games a lot, and if you would like to debate on something else in that category, please let me know!
Cod4 modern warfare vs Cod 5 world at war

I agree in final that treyarch did a much better job than activision while creating the call of duty game series. in cod5 there are better maps the ability to get in vehicles is finally added your rewards for kill streaks are much better your weapons are more unique the game offers a better campaighn mode and a bonus zombie mode. in this debate im looking for people who have actually played this game and voters who know what there talking about
Free will is an illusion

Second Round is for Opening arguments, NO rebuttals. Third Round is for Rebuttals. Forth Round is for Rebuttals and conclusion. No semantics, the definitions provided are the ones to be used. No trolling. BOP is shared. Sources may be placed in the comments section if needed. Minimum ELO is 2000. No Profanity. No Counter-Plans Free will: The ability to choose between different possible courses of action.
Karma exists not as a physical reality, but as a psycho-spiritual reality for all self-aware beings.

Rebuttal you stated "Therefore we can call anguish a type of desire. When someone is anguishing over something, it means that they are taking in a reality that they wish were not true. If there is no tension between the reality that someone is taking in and the reality that he or she wants, there can be no anguish. Therefore, desire, which is a type of conscious intention, is required for mental anguish." um thanks for the meaning but has nothing to do with the topic.............. Not only your statements is off topic there is no proof or evidence no source no anything.... i would like a better explanation please...........
Karma exists not as a physical reality, but as a psycho-spiritual reality for all self-aware beings.

I will be arguing for the existence of Karma. Karma is defined here as the psycho-spiritual principle that the conscious intentions of any self aware individual are the only causes of mental anguish and personal fulfillment. The BOP is on me to prove the existence of this psycho-spiritual principle. If my opponent can prove that mental anguish or personal fulfillment can be directly caused by something other than conscious intention, then he wins. I do not support the just-world hypothesis. Rounds: Round 1 will be acceptance and any courtesies either wishes to administer. Round 2 will Pro's opening argument and con's rebuttals Round 3 will be rebuttals and whatever new arguments either side wishes to add Round 4 will be a conclusion, each side summing up their arguments for their position. No new arguments may be given. Whoever might disagree with me, I look forward to debating you. Let the best argument win!
A higher minimum wage is the answer to poverty

Higher minimum wage is an uncompetitive economic solution to a social problem. It would raise the costs of doing business as higher payroll would result in less funds being available for other investment activities. As a result of this,businesses would be forced especially manufacturing to move to more competitive areas as seen with the explosion in Chinese manufacturing. A result of this would be lower tax receipts and hence less money for governments and it would be extension amplify poverty rates. The resulting unemployment would render the desired effects of higher minimum wage futile and contribute to an economic slump or depression whose negative effects can not be understated. Raising minimum wage can never solve poverty. It will simply create a cycle where the rich find ways to get the money back and the poorer will get poorer. An example of this is if employees making $500 weekly are adjusted to higher wages and eventually receive $800 weekly, they will now have more money to spend individually but also collectively hence inflation would eventually go up as demand for products will increase while supply stays the same, the end result,milk costing $3.49 would eventually cost $5.49 and the benefit of increased minimum wage would vanish (this is a basic example to demonstrate the diverse impact of increased minimum wage).in the end the rich (owners of resources ) would end up getting the increase back and hence the poverty cycle would continue. A better fix for poverty would be an effective and proper distribution of income, this does not neccesarily have to be through taxation but by direct infusion of wealth/subsidies to people in poverty. Of course any system can be abused but if basic necessities are met using such a mechanism, the harsh effects of poverty can be mitigated while providing sufficient incentive and opportunities for development. The notion that increasing minimum wage could somehow impact poverty by reducing it,ignores the political and social mechanisms in society , what is the point of raising wages while rent increases by a factor of 2 as compared to the wage increase? Companies that provide a lot of economic activity will become less competitive when global competitors do not have high wage costs and could eventually be driven out of business or move to new locations and this would cost the state or country jobs,revenue and skill sets. How can a company hire more people when it's costs have gone up? The notion that higher wages would translate into more business ignores business costs and makes a bold assumption that people would spend more if they make more, an attempt to define all human spending behavior in such a manner has no scientific basis. It is more likely that some people may spend, some may save but the notion that people will go on shopping sprees is ridiculous, if I have a Toyota Camry and I make $20,000 a year,will an increase to $35000 mean that I will now upgrade my car? Of course not hence the benefits of higher minimum wages would most likely than not go towards maintaining standard of living.