BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Plagarism is sexy.

Major Point #1 Refutation:Who says bad isn't sexy? Plagiarism is naughty, and naughtiness can be very sexy!Example-There are two doctors, John and Sarah. John copies Sarah's cure for disease X, and Sarah finds out.This is most likely what would happen. Sarah: John, did you claim that you made the cure for disease X?John: Yes I did. Is this a problem?Sarah: Ohhhhh John, you're so sexy! Please, plagiarize everything I accomplish!John: No problem.John then proceeds to take credit for everything Sarah does. This causes John to become rich and famous, while Sarah is eventually fired, forcing her to move into the wild and kill prey for food. She creates her own language and culture. Eventually, she learns to coexist with the animals. They trust her so much they crown her as queen of the jungle. However, John eventually learns of Sarah's growing power, so he creates an army of robots he acquires with his massive wealth. And thus the battle of John and Sarah begins. Will Sarah take back what is rightfully her's, or will John get away with plagiarism? Vote Pro and you will find out. Vote Con and I'll spam you.(Just kidding)
Overall Xbox 360 is better than ps3 (not dependant on games)

Ps3 vs Xbox 360. Now I will show you why the PS3 is greater than or equal to the Xbox 360 1)Games Now the main reason why one would buy a gaming console obviously, to play games. -Game stability goes to PS3. "far less problems with PS3 games than with 360 games." Now although the 360 may have more choice or variety. This cannot be used as a comparing factor considering that the number of exclusive titles will change over time. 2)Price Now everyone wants something that's worth there money. -The Xbox is dirt cheap. Where an Xbox 360 ranges from 299-399$ and the "lower end" PS3 for a flat 399$. So first look the 360 wins hands down, but looking at features where the PS3 would cover your average 200$ Blue-ray dvd player, and the 100$ wi-fi add-on that you have to add-on for the 360. So at first the 360 may seem cheaper, but with the extra features whether you really need blue ray or wi-fi the PS3 would dominate. 3)Specs Since we are not just basing this off of games we must look majorly to the specs also. a)Graphics- Apparently the PS3 has a godly graphics processor, but it is noted that on the games which weren't created for the PS3 didn't utilize the full power of the PS3. Looking at exclusives the PS3 got better scores. b)Memory- the PS3 wins with the changeable hard drive and all the supported media compared to 360 c)Networking- While the Xbox 360 had a great amount of features such as being able to even connect to our own PC. The PS3 comes with built in wi-fi, and ability to surf the web. The 360 makes a comeback with their Netflix downloads, but the wi-fi is going to cost money. PS3 wins d)audio and video- Both Xbox 360 and PS3 process surround sound, but the PS3 has HDMI. e)Processor- "Sony's Cell processor wins from a brute power perspective." The Xbox 360 will last for the near future, but in the long run PS3 out runs it. 4)Looks- black-piano shiny PS3 wins 5)Multimedia- PS3 wins just by the blue-ray itself 6)Piracy, Hackers, Modders, or whatever else you want to call them- PS3 is still yet to be cracked 7)A big thing the RROD, Performance- Though the Xbox does have more games and other junk out there. The PS3 still wins without dying or having this power brick to run it. The PS3 is also much quieter than the Xbox I am running out of characters, but there are so many things that can be listed between this battle of PS3 vs Xbox 360. Overall the PS3 has better features, graphics, looks, performance than the Xbox. Xbox is keeping good pace with the PS3 but in the long run the PS3 will win. Both the 360 and PS3 are equally great therefore this resolution is negated that the 360 in fact is not any better than the PS3 http://www.gamespot.com... http://www.hardcoreware.net... http://www.product-reviews.net...
Overall Xbox 360 is better than ps3 (not dependant on games)

My argument is as follows: As a whole, the 360 despite its major downfall (the red ring of death) is what I would recommend to someone who could only afford one system. IN this first round I'll just list pros, cons and similarities and wait for an opponent. 360 pros: 1. cheaper 2. more exclusive titles 3.wider selection of games 4.better warranty and an optional extended one 5.xbox live is preferred by more gamers than p.s.n. (source: game informer survey.) 360 cons: 1. THE RED RING OF DEATH! 2. must buy blu-ray drive (may not matter to some but remember this is about the overall system.) which are discontinued and rare 3. bulky controllers with unreliable bumper buttons 4.awkward "power brick" is a pain in confined spaces accessories (Microsoft) : quality of wired headset is appalling keypad is ergonomically better with larger buttons (which are illuminated) than the ps3s (Sony accessory) however it gets its power from the controller which shortens its already less than stellar battery life ps3 pros: 1. p.s.n. is free 2. lighter controllers with longer battery life 3. Internet browser with built in wi-fi 4. built in memory card slots | 5. enough usb ports to charge four controllers at once ps3 cons: 1. EXPEN$IVE 2. price of controllers could be less if Sony dropped the utterly useless motion feature 3. weight, this machine has great heft 4. high gloss finish attracts scratches and fingerprints like nothing else accessories (Sony): headset is less comfortable than the 360 wireless (Microsoft) but being blu-tooth can be used with any compatible device (also any blu-tooth headset can be used with the system) similarities: Although technically more capable, game developers usually don't put in the extra effort into ps3 graphics so I'd call it a draw in that department. (multi platform games) Both will play standard DVDs as well as play music let it begin
Does the Christian god exist.

Yeah it has happened before, anyways let us begin, For my first argument I will recycle a previous argument of mine For my first argument I would like to use the theorem: Big Bang -> cause -> ??? Big Bang -> cause -> God -> cause -> ??? It was intended for anti-god but I will use it for pro-god. "Every Cause has its Effect; every Effect has its Cause; everything happens according to Law; Chance is but a name for Law not recognized; there are many planes of causation, but nothing escapes the Law." There has to be a cause for something to happen. Since this is so what "caused" god? My awnser god. God must have created itself. The reason being there was an intent. The universe is matter it doesn't think or do anything. But if there is a mind behind it there is both a reason and cause. Because there is a reason to exist there is a cause. 1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary. 2. Not every being can be contingent. 3. Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend. 4. A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what we mean by God. 5. Therefore, God exists. And so god exists. Argument 1 part 2-- Since there is a god (supported by part 1) I will now use a priori argument. This is the classic ontological, or a priori, argument. It was first articulated in 1070 by St. Anselm, who argued that because we have a conception of an all-perfect being "" which he defined as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" "" it has to exist. In his essay Proslogion, St. Anselm conceived of God as a being who possesses all conceivable perfection. But if this being "existed" merely as an idea in our minds, then it would be less perfect than if it actually existed. So it wouldn't be as great as a being who actually existed, something that would thus contradict our definition of God "" a being who's supposed to be all-perfect. Thus, God must exist. Therefore the god that exists must be perfect. Argument 1 part 3-- So assume there is another god (or gods) instead of the Christian god. Allah and Elohim -- the gods of Islam and Judaism have pretty much the exact same belief as Christians. It is compared here: http://www.answering-islam.org......... Now lets look at the greeko-roman belief -- they made them in thier own image so pretty much they literally made them up. The only difference between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity is belief in Jesus, and what happened in the biblical, tanakh, and quran times. God did not create sin Lucifer did in Christianity and Judaism, but what about Islam? Allah created sin. And his creation but cannot enter into the world. Allah is a kind god according to the quran though. I will argue the islam P.O.V. with if he could he would. Therefore the Christian god is the only perfect/pure god. Conclusion of parts 1, 2, and 3. Therefore the Christian god exists and is the only god. http://io9.com......
The Couple Consisting of Thett3 and RoyalPaladin is Cuter than that of LDF and TUF

Ok, so there are a lot of reasons that we are a cuter couple.First, we have a more universal appeal. People from all ends of the political spectrum can point to us as an example of the ideal couple. Conservatives love us because we represent family values(we're married). Liberals like us because we are an interracial couple. Libertarians prefer us because we work hard to be the cutest couple on DDO. Communists adore us because we are equal in our marriage. Unfortunately for them, LDF and TUF are none of these things. They are not married, they are not an interracial couple, they are completely lazy (notice that I instigated this debate), and LDF dominates TUF all of the time, so their relationship is not equal. Thus, they have no appeal at all with any political groups. Second, LDF is not a whole woman. According to esteemed judge and mafia player F_16, LDF is just a foot. He writes, "You are a foot. That's all you are. You walked all over dirty streets, murky fields, and yucky trash. It is just not what I need. TUF can spend all his time licking you dry but it is never going to match the cuteness of Royal and Thett and their baby." How cute is a couple that consists of a Super Saiyan and a Foot? That's just horrendously ugly. Third, we are having a cute baby. Thett and I are haing a cute DDO daughter. LDF is just a foot so she does not even have that ability. How can someone like that be cute? Proof that we are haing a daughter: http://www.debate.org...Fourth, LDF and TUF are just dating in order to make F_16 jealous. Essentially, LDF started dating TUF when F_16 dumped her on April Fool's Day. This means that LDF and TUF are basically only a couple becasue they want to make F_16 jealous; they are not actually in love. Thett and I, however, were both single when we met while trolling on April 1st, and we have been together ever since. The fact that we love each other is proven by the fact that we have clandestine PMs entitled "Our Secret Soulmate Thread" and "Our Secret Soulmate Thread 2" In which we talk about each other's lives and support one another (Basically, we are nonsensically cute). LDF and TUF are dating for attention. Thett and I are driven by our passions. Fifth, TUF Cheats on LDF. TUF has a bad habit of cheating on his "love". He attempts to hit on me on Night Phase 1 of every Mafia Game by targeting me with this "Night Actions" (of course, I resist). This just shows you how depraved TUF and LDF are and also further demosntrates that they are not really a couple. Sixth, everyone knows that we are a cuter couple. This is evidenced by the fact that they like to tease me and troll me by naming Royal and Inferno as the cutest couple (I am not with inferno). This is because they are totally jelly and want to secretly acknowledge the fact that Thett and I are so cute together. Cheesedingo even admits this in the comments. Seventh, Thett and I have a profile picture of cats cuddling. The cats represent us! Look at LDF and TUF's picture and contrast it with our pic! They aren't even trying to show how cute they are!This is a pretty clear Pro win. :)
ANTIFA and BlackLivesMatter should be considered Terrorist Organizations

Thank you for asking the exciting topic. It is a very sensitive topic and I have decided to take it. I will be honest and I won't lie. I personally think that ANTIFA may be an terrorist group. That is because they do use violent methods as their main protesting strategy. But as for BlackLivesMatter I will have to disagree with you on that one. Having a few black citizens commit dangerous acts of terrorism and then saying they are representing the black lives matter movement does not make BlackLivesMatter a terrorist group themselves. That is because to say they you have to assume they orchestrated the attack which I doubt would ever happen. That is because the BlackLivesMatter look up to one of the greatest black lives leader in existence Martin Luther King. Obviously like you know he was a great advocate of the non-violence which is how he achieved equality for black men and women. Do I think that some black people use it as an excuse to commit violent acts, very possibly. But I do not think that the organization itself is a terrorist group.
It is easier to go to war than to achieve peace.

War has been around since the beginning of humans and continues to be a controversial topic today. Going to war is both a serious and horrifying notion. Most argue that if a country were to eventually surrender to its adversary after losing the war, why not make peace in the first place and prevent unnecessary casualties? This would seem ideal. However, it is a lot easier to go to war than to achieve peace. One of the main causes of war is that two nations or multiple nations are unable to come to an understanding with each other. In this case, trying to achieve peace without any conflict is difficult as both sides want terms that benefit them. There bound to be some violent leaders at some point. These people show aggression and the strength of their nation through warfare. Peace is such a difficult thing achieve compared to war. Look at the third world countries, rebels fighting government forces for example.
This site is Cancer

Hmmm, Apparentally my debate wasen't posted. Thank god for autosave. Alright, onto the next part. You say the Http 500 error dosen't happen often? try browsing debate.org on a school computer, mate. Jokes aside, this site is glitchy as hell. There are at least 100+ times the Http 500 error has come up. What does this have to do with anything? Well, a site that is glitchy(which is rare on the internet tbh) is generally something that turns off new people, and annoys long time users. Nothing else to say, ON TO VOTING
This site is Cancer

I don't think this site is cancer. There are SOME sites that are cancer, such as nsequeira119.wixsite.com/everybodysnovel, tinyurl.com/entryfive, and others. But this site is very well organized, the design is aesthetic, and those annoying HTTP 500 things only come up so often. There are lots of idiots on the site, but others are OK. Those 2 debates you provided, I'll admit, are pretty good evidence, but the first one is spam, and those spam things are chucked out at about 20 per day. The second one is from the perspective of an imbecile. I think all the debates on here are fine.
This site is Cancer

Hello. I will be taking the side that this site is cancer. In acceptance of this debate, CON agrees to the following definitions: Cancer: When a site is hated/terrible, in multiple ways Debate. org: This site POINT 1: Spamming To start, Every few days, there are tons of debates made used to advertise, troll, or otherwise flood the servers with debates that are pointless and are, frankly, ****(selfcensored) Example: . http://www.debate.org... POINT 2: The community While I do admit there are a lot of good, educational, and fun members of the community, the vast majority of the people on this site are either A)trollers B)Memelords C)Idiots who believe in nonscientific things(such as this thread: . http://www.debate.org...)
minecraft

Okay, again medieval* (do you not use spellcheck?) Next, no! That would take a tremendous amount of time to complete, and if this was a presentation would you go to the front of your classroom and download and login to your Minecraft account and show your class your medieval town? Or if it was a homework assignment would you coordinate with your teacher to join your Minecraft server at a random time of the day to show it to her? This would be extremely inefficient plus controls can be confusing.
minecraft

I have used Minecraft many times over for personal entertainment. In no way would this have helped me at school to get a better grade, or to increase my knowledge in science class. This may be a good use for spare time, as it is probably the most addictive game that you can possible gain any knowledge from. Another problem would be, what if they get sidetracked and just start to mess around and play instead of work? It may be fun, or mildly educational, it still should not be used in schools.
Is God real

Due to the 4000 character limitation I will not be able to be as detailed as I’d like. The first mistake Pro made was to ask the question, “who else could make the universe? ” I should clarify that I am assuming this is a question since no punctuation was used, but it’s the only context that makes sense. The mistake is in the word “who”. Pro is presupposing that the creation of the universe was created by an intelligence. I think the proper question would be “what”? The rest of Pro’s argument is nonsensical discourse. Pro makes the claim that a well established fact is false when he/she called The Big Bang Theory untrue. Pro follows that statement with an inaccurate description of what the Big Bang Theory demonstrates. The fact that Pro’s only case for the existence of God is based on scientific ignorance that entails an erroneous description of The Big Bang Theory shows a lack of credibility of his/her argument. I must point out Pro’s incredible case of special pleading. He/she falsely claims that TBBT is nothing making something, and that all matter magically appears. That’s not what TBBT asserts, but even if it did it would not be proof of God’s existence. If anything, it would raise more questions? Where did God come from? Did nothing make him? How did he create everything? Is magic an acceptable explanation in this case? All of these questions must be answered for his/her argument to hold any weight. To be completely honest, it was hard to decipher Pro’s opening statement, but I interpret the very last part as a direct request for why I do not believe in God. If I’m wrong please correct me, but the way I read it is “tell me why you don’t believe. ” It is not necessary for me to answer this, as it does not pertain to the resolution but I will comply anyway. There is insufficient evidence for any deity existing. My default mindset is that of skepticism. I believe it’s the logical starting point when seeking the truth. I could elaborate on this in more detail, but it is not the topic that we are debating. Pro has the burden of proof. He/she made the positive claim, so positive evidence is warranted. There clearly was no evidence in Pro’s opening statement. Pro used his/her lack of understanding of TBBT and used “God” as the only other possible alternative. It’s the god of the gaps fallacy. ‘I do not know; therefore God. ’ Pro did not use any sources and I do not feel compelled to either.
Organized Religion is Harmful and Corrupt

"If I may, I urge my opponent to present one mainstream religion that says violence is encouraged and warfare against all others is mandatory." How is jihad a misconception? And why did you mention "in the past"? Look around you. Violence is everywhere and everyday as commanded of those practicing Islam, a mainstream religion. Innocents- women and children ARE being harmed. You mention that jihad has many meanings. When, why, and how do people just decide that a word has a different meaning in a holy book? A book that is supposedly their law. It just speaks more to the fact that religion is a quagmire, being molded and transformed daily. The Book of Matthew, you mentioned, was written years after the death of Jesus, and canonized by religious power and influence. Take a look at the Old Testament. Look at the violence celebrated against the Egyptians, Philistines. The Old Testament is a book of war and bloodthirsty, conquering, religious nations. That same gospel claiming "make disciples" was fuel to the fire of the machine that was the Roman Empire and it's expansion in the Middle Ages. Martin Luther had to hammer his 95 thesis on the church door because people were being robbed blind to line pockets and expand borders. This price at the sake of redemption. And redemption from what? A man-made construct: hell. Why do you think Constantine made churches tax exempt? The church had political sway and ultimately power over empires. Constantine didn't rule, the church did. The new covenant you speak of is the Trinity: the father, son, and Holy Spirit. Which isn't biblical. Holy books must just have "many meanings." I shouldn't have cherry picked that- you're right. I just new you'd go read all the opinions of his. Religion is made by man. I am not incorrect. It's a comforting notion to the only thing we have in life: question. Who wrote holy books? Man. The same race of man believed the sun to be 17 miles away and the earth to be flat. But that is neither here nor there. But to speak to asking a professing religious person about their belief, let me ask you this: I don't believe in god or heaven. How can their belief in a god or heaven hold any weight?
Organized Religion is Harmful and Corrupt

Organized Religion is Harmful and Corrupt. I am not against spirituality. Hope and Faith are driving factors in some people's life. They are able to overcome obstacles in the belief that they are ultimately pursuing "good". However, when it becomes more about meeting and the offering plate being passed around, problems start. What is good for one- is it good for any other or all? Organized Religion is Harmful. The more we learn about our natural world, the more we know that we are fundamentally connected. Religion is divisive. It isolates and causes war and hostility towards other groups of people that do not follow one set of religious standards. Organized Religion is Corrupt. Religious organizations are tax exempt. And tithing, a percentage paid, is central in Catholicism. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, abuses those who violate these religious standards under their "law". Dr. John Juedes speaks to the problems organized religion brings up: "First, not all organized religions have a healthy philosophical and moral base. Those that do, like the evangelical Christian examples given here, should be supported while unhealthy religions should be rejected." This world contains thousands of languages and with it, thousands of religions. Who says what is healthy? Who says which god is a true god? Religion is a man-made construction. It is ever-changing, molding from one generation to the next. Those who do not adhere to religious standards of one group are oppressed. The human race is one. Organized Religion is divisive. It is harmful. It is corrupt. http://empirenet.com...
5 rounds represent the limit of admin intelligence, motivation, lack of sense, failure to recognize

My opponent thinks "5 rounds represent the limit of admin intelligence, motivation, and lack of sense". A good debater may not need five rounds if they fully understand their opponents view however debate. org caters for every type of debator which is intelligent, as more people can enjoy the site. I don't believe 5 rounds reflect the limit of admins intelligence and motivation, or think that 5 rounds is like limiting a boxing match of the most excellent skilled fighters to 4 seconds in the ring. Debators can set the size limit and time limit of debates, they can also report spam, insults etc to admin so the site can be improved. This shows staff are highly motivated, and resourceful. All the best in future debates d: )