BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does God exist(christianity)

I"d like to draw your attention to 3 miracles:the miracle of lanciano,the staircase of saint joseph and the incorruptable bodies of certain saints. The miracle of lanciano is a eucharistic miracle, purported to have occured in the eighth century in lanciano itally. In a nutshell,a monk had doubts of the real presence of christ in the eucharist. When he said the words if consecration"this is my body and this is my blood." The bread and wine turned into actual flesh and blood. And this flesh ladies and gentlemen was a piece of flesh near the heart where during that time,there was no way at all to slice that musscle out. The staircase of saint joseph is something which till today still cannot be explained is a miracle which occured in mexico. In a nutshell, there was a group of sisters who were sent fron kentucky to mexico to found a school for girls. By order of the bishop, a chapel was to be built and to be placed under the care of the sisters. Ater its construction,the builders were faced with a problem:there was no way to climb up from the ground floor to the choir loft. A staircase wouldve been impossible to build and a ladder wouldve taken up too muh room. The builders insised to demolish the choir but instead the nuns prayed a novena to saint joseph. After the novena, a mysterious man said that he could build a staircase on one condition:he"d be granted total privacy. For three months the man was locked in the chapel and no one was seen entering or leaving the chapel. When the staircase was built, the man left without asking for any reward. The staircase itself is weird as it seems. A spiral staircase with no centeral support!? You got that right. A spiral staircase,6 meters long, no centeral support snd 200 years old. Bear in mind it has been used alot of times. Till today the staircase is surrounded by 3 mysteries:the physics if its structure,the buders identity and the type of spruce wood the builder used. As we all know spruce has alot of species but this species of wood till today is still unidentified. The incorruptable bodies in a nutshell is very simple. We all know when you die your body starts decomposition immediately. Even under special care the body does not stop decomposition, however way you treat it the body will decompose just at a slower rate. One particular saint I want to look at is saknt bernadette. It has been if Im not mistaken 150 years since she died and till today not a single sign on decomposition has been spotted on her. There has been hundreds of cases like these. And till today there still has not been any scientific evidence for this to happen. So after all that Ive said,can we still deny gods existence especially after the story of the miracle of lanciano?
Pluto would totally beat the crap out of Goofy.

Greetings. First, I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate and extending the challenge of debating to anyone. With formalities out of the way, let us proceed: First, I would like to make it known that the job of the pro is to prove that "PLuto" would not totally beat the crap out of Goofy. With that said, I will address my opponent's argument(s) and add a few of my own. My opponent doesn't really provide any valid reasons as to why Pluto would beat the crap out of Goofy. All he does is provide a baseless assertion concerning his mother's poodle. According to American Heritage Dictionary, would is defined as: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This will 2 (wĭl) Pronunciation Key aux.v. Past tense would (wŏŏd) Used to indicate simple futurity: They will appear later. Used to indicate likelihood or certainty: You will regret this. Used to indicate willingness: Will you help me with this package? Used to indicate requirement or command: You will report to me afterward. Used to indicate intention: I will too if I feel like it. Used to indicate customary or habitual action: People will talk. Used to indicate capacity or ability: This metal will not crack under heavy pressure. Used to indicate probability or expectation: That will be the messenger ringing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With that said, I submit that Pluto "would" not totally beat the crap out of Goofy. Both him and Goofy are of gentle spirits and would thus have no reason to fight each other in a brawl. Not to mention that Goofy and Mickey are good friends, so Pluto would no doubt respect the wishes of his master too much to assault the "bipedal canine." That said, if the resolution were "Pluto could totally beat the crap out of Goofy", things may be different although the advantage would still be in goofy's favor. In both of the "Goof Troop" films, Goofy has used his acrobatics as well as his godly level of luck to get out of the most dire of situations. Not to mention that in the video games "Kingdom Hearts I and II", he has aided Sora in battling the most powerful of evil nemeses. This video is a good example: http://www.youtube.com... . No doubt would Mickey's pet be in a heeping amount of trouble if he were to pick a fight with someone who opposes foes like the one in the above video on a regular basis. However, since the resolution states "would" rather than "could", this isn't even an issue. Thank you.
Pluto would totally beat the crap out of Goofy.

In my opinion, and I suppose it is just that, is this isn't even really a debateable topic. I mean, we're talking about a bipedal canine named Goofy. I'm fairly certain even my mom's year old poodle could take out that big shoed freak. Given those things (and more to come), I'm sure Pluto could beat the crap Goofy, totally.
The Beatles are NOT the best band ever

1) Best is subjective when it comes to taste, which is why things like topping charts, longevity of their music, paving the way for different styles, etc. has to come into play. You said in your initial comment, part of why I took the debate, "I am not saying they were bad, just that they are not worthy of the titles and appraisal they are given." And I think I have proved they were worthy of it. 2) "The Beatles contributed to music's evolution, and that is admirable," To me, that seems to be contrary to what you said. It seems you are saying they do deserve the titles and appraisals they have been given. They did much to make it possible for other bands to expand. I don't disagree that you can't give the title of greatness to one band alone, however, your first post was more than just them being the best band. You said they did not deserve the appraisals given, and that is beyond false to me and something you even admitted to an extent.
The Beatles are NOT the best band ever

1- Even though I acknowledge your counter arguments, I still stand firm in my belief that The Beatles are not the best band ever. However, even though I have my favorites, I will not label any band as the best ever. Such thing does not exist. Relativity and taste weigh largely on this decision and it is nobody's right to make such choice for everybody else. Everyone has a favorite band or musician, and in each individual's little world (not in the whole wide world), that artist is the best. Things like this are what make music such a great element of life, its diversity, and its capacity to reach billions in an infinite number of ways. For music to do this, defining one particular group as the best for rigid, "factual" reasons is not at all important. Sure, some artists are better than others for obvious reasons (auto-tune vs authentic vocals, drum beat generators vs virtuous percussionists, etc.), but there really is no point in determining which one is the ultimate best. Many entertainers are characterized by their excellence, and allowing listeners to choose which one(s) stand out in their worlds is what makes music our universal communicator. Music is about sharing emotions, feelings, experiences, and thoughts. The possibilities are endless. Searching vigorously for who is the best at that just takes away time and energy from enjoying music's true purpose. 2- The Beatles contributed to music's evolution, and that is admirable, but marking them as the best ever is innaccurate. The aspects that define a great band are quantitatively large (musical talent, trajectory, stage presence, influence, and innovation, just to name a very few). Some bands excel in some of these aspects, some excel in others. It is obviously impossible for one single band to cover all of those aspects and be the all-time greatest at all of them. And for the reasons mentioned above, to me, it is pointless to try to define one group as the only one who meets such "requirements of greatness".
The Beatles are NOT the best band ever

1) Yes, they contributed to the formation of Rock music. They were the most successful songwriters of their era 2) Then you need to define what the best means, because when a group sets records for being the favorite band on a list called Hot 100's (which is still looked at today) it means they are pretty good, especially when it took decades for people to even contend with them on it. As to their terms of talent and technique, I'll address that next. 3) They don't have to be the best musicians to be considered one of the best bands. Individual musicians can be amazing and be part of bands that are not fantastic. Many talented people and bands came after them, but they are not on the same standard for many reasons. 4) They changed the way music was made and recorded. Prior to them record labels dictated much and controlled how artists recorded. They changed the archetype and broke out writing their own songs and recording them. They played their instruments and sang, something that was not the norm for that time. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com... ) 5) Yes, many great Rock bands came after them - but they owe much of what they did to the Beatles paving the way. They still have songs that are more popular than songs written currently. 6) They have truly been a band you can listen to in any decade, they have stood the test of time thus far. 7) A measure of a good band is not if they stay together, it is their music, what they did to further the music industry, and how their music still affects and resonates today. 8) That is an opinion, that the best bands give the best shows. Were you at a Beatle's show? Because I believe they had much stage presence and bland is the last word many would use to describe them. It seems you are comparing shows from today to what they performed with back then - and that is a false comparison to make.
The Beatles are NOT the best band ever

1- During the 60's, bands like The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Jimmy Hendrix Experience, and The Kinks emerged and contributed to the formation of Rock Music. Not only by creating songs we still listen to today but by creating signature moves, sounds, and techniques (like Keith Richards' simple yet engaging solos or Pete Townshend's "windmill"). 2- Topping the charts does not equal being the best, it just equals being a fan favorite. People don't always like what is truly the best in terms of talent and technique. The fact that The Beatles monopolized music charts doesn't entitle them to be regarded as the best, just the mainstream's favorite. 3- The Beatles as individuals were talented, no doubt, but their instrumental skills were not mesmerizing. You wouldn't classify Ringo as the best drummer ever, Lennon and Harrison as the best guitarists ever, or McCartney as the best bassist ever. Exceptional bands have exceptional musicians, and that was not the case for the Beatles. 4- Great bands have great vocalists and frontmen (eg. Freddie Mercury, Axl Rose, Robert Plant). Once again, that was not the case for the Beatles. 5- Many great Rock bands played the stages after The Beatles. Just because The Beatles were pioneers in their genre doesn't mean they were the best, much less the epitome of it. 6- A great Rock band has a trajectory. Yes, The Beatles' music is still widely listened to today, and their faces are in half of the shirts sold at Forever 21 and Hot Topic, but their career only lasted ten years, and it was not due to anyone's death. Truly great bands know how to stay together and keep creating iconic music for decades (eg. The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, ZZ Top, Aerosmith). 7- The best bands give the best shows. Regardless if it's due to an impressive stage presence, theatrical stages, or the musician's energy, a good performance is worth a lot when weighing a band's greatness. The Beatles' had little to none of that as their performances were rather bland.
The Beatles are NOT the best band ever

Round 1: State your position. Round 2: State your arguments. Round 3: State your conclusion. The Beatles are over glorified pop stars from the 1960's and were/are NOT the greatest band to ever walk the stages. I am not saying they were bad, just that they are not worthy of the titles and appraisal they are given. Many other bands from their decade and subsequent ones have more virtuosity, showmanship, and trajectory than they do.
Theists do not have objective morality

Definitions: Objective: "(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts" [1] Morality: " Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" [1] Rules: Logical fallacies will be pointed out Kritik will be pointed out Round 1: Acceptance, state your position, agreement on definitions of terms. Round 2: Main arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Conclusion/state why you believe you won, no new arguments here. I am arguing that theists do not have objective morality, my opponent will be arguing that theists do have objective morality. Sources: [1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Liberals have become too extreme in their form of protest

Most of the examples stated were select occurrences perpetrated by radicals, in fact most cases have been thoroughly condemned by leading liberal voices. Sen. Sanders was livid and saddened by the tragedy, saying: "I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be: Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society." The restaurant escorting Secretary Huckabee-Sanders out was a private business exercising their rights as a private business, and it was an outlier. The incidents cited mirror incidents perpetrated by radicals on the right; the charlottesville riots and car crash, hate crimes soaring after Trump presidency (WaPo) and numerous Trump supporters starting fights during rallies everywhere from San Jose to Huntington beach. Sen. Waters only suggested her supporters speak with Trump officials, never incited violence. Donald Trump HAS many times incited violence at rallies (Snopes), saying things like, "Maybe he should have been roughed up" (in reference to a man who was beat up my Trump supporters) "Part of the problem is no one wants to hurt each other anymore" "I don"t know if I"ll do the fighting myself or if other people will" "The audience hit back. That"s what we need a little bit more of" "If you do (hurt him), I"ll defend you in court, don"t worry about it" "Knock the crap out of him, would you? I promise you, I will pay your legal fees" There's more, but I'm sure you get the point- it's impossible to make the sweeping generalization that liberals are getting out of hand, citing outliers and individuals while the most influential person in the right wing has been actively encouraging violence since day one. You could list an incident where liberals went way too far (the baseball practice shooting) I could hit back with a time conservatives did (the Annapolis shooting) it doesn't change the fact that there are bad people on all sides- but one side has their president literally ordering his supporters to hurt people.
Liberals have become too extreme in their form of protest

Maxine Waters, a Congresswoman from Los Angeles, encouraged her supporters to confront Trump staffers and to tell them that they are not welcome in public society. Protesters harassed Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen at her home and in a restaurant. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was forced out of a restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. Many Trump supporters were harassed during the election, some injured badly. A Bernie Sanders supporter shot four people during a Republican Congressional Baseball Practice including Congressman Steve Scalise (who was unable to serve on the House floor for 3 1/2 months; came back on crutches), a Capitol Police Officer, a Congressional Aide, and a lobbyist. Two other people were injured in the incident but not due to gunfire.
Hillary Clinton is honest.

First, unless you can read people's minds you can't prove she was lying. The best you can do is prove she was telling a falsehood. Then, it comes down to probability if she was knew she was telling a falsehood or not. Let's look a the claims one at a time."1. According to James Comey (FBI director), "a total of 113 emails contained information that was classified at the time the messages were sent or received."" jays_slayerFirst, she was sent thousands of emails. It is very possible she simply messed up and didn't notice they were classified. [0]"Let’s unpack that. Out of 110 emails that Comey testified contained classified information (which constituted only 0.2% of Hillary’s 55,000 emails), only three had any markings indicating the presence of classified material. And Comey conceded that those three were improperly marked." [0]Out of 55,000 emails 110 emails had classified emails, of those 110, three had markings. Out of those three all three were improperly marked. [1] Was Hilary telling the truth? Almost, she missed 110 emails out of 55,000. Was she lying? Almost certainly not, this can easily be attributed to human error. Impact, Hillary made an honest mistake on .2% of emails and thus was honest, despite telling a falsehood. As for the server, as you can see she only used one server. Also note, a server can be multiple machines. Impact, Hiliary was telling the truth. Without a falsehood, my opponent cannot hope to claim she was lying. "CLINTON: The FBI has the server that was used during the tenure of my State Department service." [1]"3. "as demonstrated by CBS News video that shows Clinton arriving on the tarmac under no visible duress, and greeting a child who offers her a copy of a poem."" jays_slayerThat was just be a mess up. She was probably tired. Campaigning takes a lot of energy. Honest mistake.""A few weeks before they left the White House, the Clinton's were able to muster a cash down payment of $855,000 and secure a $1.995 million mortgage. by 2004 Hillary was ranked the 10th wealthiest member of the senate, with a net worth between $10 million and $ 50 million"" jays_slayerBill Clinton was president of the USA, which virtually guaranteed income the mortgage sounds correct. As for the $855,000 that was probably why they were broke. Notice the cash down payment was made before they were broke. Thus, it is reasonable to assume they were broke because of the cash down payment. Remember the president and first lady live within the White House, so they needed a place to live after leaving office. As for 2004 being 10th wealthiest member of senate, this was three years later. I ask for you not to make any new arguments in the last round, since I will not be able to respond to them. Thanks for the debate.Sources0. http://bluenationreview.com...1. https://verdict.justia.com...
Hillary Clinton is honest.

yes innocent until proven guilty, but innocent doesn't mean you are not or have not lied. there's a lot of instance where she lied, I'll try to keep it short. Here's a list of 4 I can remember on top of my head Claims by Hillary Clinton 1. "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email" 2."I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two" 3. During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Clinton claimed she landed in Bosnia "under sniper fire" 4. In an interview, Clinton stated that she "came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt". Proof that she lied. 1. According to James Comey (FBI director), "a total of 113 emails contained information that was classified at the time the messages were sent or received." 2. "Clinton used "multiple devices" throughout her four years as the nation"s top diplomat, according to the head of the FBI " 3. "as demonstrated by CBS News video that shows Clinton arriving on the tarmac under no visible duress, and greeting a child who offers her a copy of a poem." 4. "A few weeks before they left the White House, the Clinton's were able to muster a cash down payment of $855,000 and secure a $1.995 million mortgage. by 2004 Hillary was ranked the 10th wealthiest member of the senate, with a net worth between $10 million and $ 50 million" Reference. 1. http://thehill.com... 2. http://www.zerohedge.com... 3. https://www.washingtonpost.com... 4. http://www.politifact.com...
Happiness is a right.

Pro fails to refute my argument. Pro merely dismisses my argument by claiming that people would disagree with me. This is a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad populum", in which one argues against a point by saying other people disagree. [1]Pro also claims that I have committed the "Godwin's law fallacy." Goldwin's law is an Internet adage asserting that if an Internet discussion goes long enough, sooner or later, Hitler will be mentioned. [2] I refute this by claiming that the Godwin's law is not a fallacy if used appropriately, like how I used it in a proper analogy. Furthermore, I don't even have to use Hitler. I can give you names of random murderers and rapists who murdered and raped for their own happiness, and it would still effectively prove my point. Pro has not made any arguments, so I'll choose to not make any arguments and extend my previous arguments. Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...'s_law
Happiness is a right.

The pursuit of happiness is certainly not a right. Hitler pursued happiness by killing millions of Jews. It made him happy to kill Jews. Pro stated that life and liberty are undeniable rights. In his pursuit of happiness, millions of Jews had those rights taken away from them. If happiness is a right, did HItler have the right to kill and imprison millions of people, thus taking away their rights? The thing about pursuing happiness, is that it is selfish, and often times can affect others negatively. In pursuit of happiness, robbers steal, murderers kill, and rapists rape. Happiness is certainly NOT a right.
Happiness is a right.

To some up the debate:1. Pro claimed happiness is a right.2. I explained that happiness is not a right, and I provided an explanation with anecdotes.3. Pro says I am wrong because certain people disagree with me.4. I explain that just because certain people disagree with me, that doesn't make me wrong.5. Pro kept saying I committed fallacies, when I didn't, and in fact he was the one committing fallacies.6. Pro claimed I was dishonest, when I wasn't, in fact he was the dishonest one by trying to change his resolution in round 4.7. Pro forfeits a round.Other than his claim that the founding fathers would disagree with me, which I refuted, Pro hasn't made a single argument in this debate.
Happiness is a right.

You are the dishonest one. No where in your previous rounds have you said that people have the right to be happy if they are not hurting anyone. You simply said that people have the right to be happy. And I am refuting that by saying that many people hurt others in their pursuit of happiness. Pro is simply discrediting my arguments by claiming fallacies I supposedly made. This is fallacious in itself, and doesn't make my argument wrong.