BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The Earth is flat.

I am so sorry for the forfeit and the lateness of this argument. I understand how pointless it can make a debate seem, however I really like this one. Thank you for the extension. To start with my opening argument, I will use your definition of 'flat.' I agree that the surface is wide, however, it is far from smooth. Because our world is three dimensional, things clearly stick out of the ground, such as the house or apartment you live in[2]. The earth definitely does not have little thickness, either. In fact, it is more than 4,000 miles deep[1]! This would also mean mountains and earthquakes would be unable to form[7]. Your definition of flat does not fit the earth. However, it is a lot closer to being spherical. From satellite images, we see the earth as a circle{1}. We can also see different countries on the earth depending on the angle, while the circle does not change size{2}. That would bring us to the logical conclusion that it must instead be a sphere. Rebuttals: If we lived on the flat side of the earth's circle, and not the curved edge, your explanation of the sun and moon's rotation would not hold up. Instead of the sun appearing to rise one way and set the other, it would seem to appear already in the sky and slowly rotate in one direction. It would be the same way with the moon. They would ever cross the center of the earth without having no sun at all for the rest of the planet either, and would completely invalidate our system of time[3] and make day and night nonexistent. This model also causes problems with the rest of our solar system. We have proven that the planets rotate around the sun[4]. If the sun rotated around the earth instead, the other planets would not have the same days of their own[5]. "Further proof that the Earth is flat is when we observe cosmic rays and that they travel the speed of light. Now if we look at the simulator that I have provided you we can see that as things approach the speed of light they are flattend. Cosmic rays called Muans are better known to collide in our atmosphere and we shouldn't be recieving barely any, however we get a whole lot more then expected, but since they're going so fast the Earth is flatter and the distance they have to cover is a whole lot closer. If you were a proton moving 99.999999% the speed of light you can see that the Earth would only appear to be 17 meters thick." That paragraph made little sense grammatically, but I think I understood the point. If I were zooming past earth at the speed of light, I of course would see nothing as our eyes can't process things that fast[6]. If your idea for gravity were true, then the water in the oceans would be forced off the planet because it is not contained. Sources: [1] http://www.livescience.com... [2] http://www.universetoday.com... [3] http://www.badastronomy.com... [4] http://csep10.phys.utk.edu... [5] http://www.telescope.org... [6] http://www.sciencedirect.com... [7] http://www.sciencedirect.com... Images: {1} https://www.google.com... {2} https://www.google.com... Thank you, and again, I apologize. This was fun to research.
Resolved: The Earth is flat.

This debate is impossible to accept. If you wish to accept please say so in the comments section. Note that I don't actually believe this, I just find it fun to debate. Definitions: Spherical: shaped like a sphere (1) Flat-having a wide, smooth surface and little thickness (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) If my opponent disputes this definition then he can do so in the comments section before round 2, I will then evaluate the contention. Structure Round 1: Acceptance & terms/definitions Round 2: Opening argument(s) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Final rebuttals and closing statements No profanity. No trolling. I look forward to a great debate! (1) Google: 'Define spherical'
Resolved: Saskue would win in a fight against Naruto

Naruto is strong indeed and so was the 4th hokage but just because the 4th hokage was strong enough to capture the 9tails doesnt mean that saskue isnt strong enough to kill naruto because if you think about the naruto side being able to capture 9 tails you also have ot think about the uchiha...Remember that OBito was the one who controlled the 9 tails in the first place which means that uchihas are just as strongSaskue has never lost in a fight against naruto that alone proves it Clearly naruto doesnt compare
Resolved: Saskue would win in a fight against Naruto

well yes he has all them goodies but naruto as you know he has the 9 tailed beast wich if you go back the uchiha clan was in the hidden leaf village when the nine tailed beast attacked and tey gcouldnt stop it only the 4th hokage was the only one to seal it and naruto master its chakra and power and he can now do sage mode and then yet he can sage mod and beast imagine all that power against sasuke and the speed and yet his summoning jutsu all this chakra and power and then the speed so take that against him see what happends thank you
Resolved: Saskue would win in a fight against Naruto

The first point is that Naruto is afraid to kill Saskue, as we can see in very first episode of naruto shipuden saskue was about to stab naruto yet naruto didnt move has about to be killed and had to be saved by said and sakura. second point is that saskue has sharingan with amaterusa and mangekyo sharingan and that means if naruto gets sucked into saskue's genjustu he is screwed because he doesnt know what to do and saskue has mangekyo sharingan thats stronger than itachis now. also saskue has the susano which is a badass armor sheild that's impeniterable. Think about how naruto could never beat danzo but saskue killed danzo
Communism is possible

I misjudged how much I could handle, and spent too much time on one debate. And so, as a result, I will have to forfeit this debate, as well as another one in the process as well. Hopefully in the next few days, when I'm less busy, we can re open this debate, or even change sides for fun :D Please vote for my opponent, as I haven't been able to fully articulate my argument. , and she has put a lot of effort into this debate, and deserves the win. Thank you :D
War. HU! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing.

As Pro, I am going to be defending that war (the fighting killing kind) is good for absolutly nothing. I'm going to try something different, and take all my points from War's (the band) song "War". It will be up to my opponent to rebutte all of these points using logic and examples, not just subjective opinions, and if they are good they will also give reasons why war might actually be good for something. This isn't an attack on the current war, World War 2, the 7 years war (etc), directly; just one on war in general. I'll highlight (with ***) the main points that should be specifically adressed: War, huh, yeah What is it good for Absolutely nothing Uh-huh War, huh, yeah What is it good for Absolutely nothing Say it again, y'all War, huh, good God What is it good for Absolutely nothing Listen to me Ohhh, war, I despise ***Because it means destruction Of innocent lives*** ***War means tears To thousands of mothers eyes When their sons go to fight And lose their lives*** I said, war, huh Good God, y'all What is it good for Absolutely nothing Say it again War, whoa, Lord What is it good for Absolutely nothing Listen to me ***War, it ain't nothing But a heartbreaker*** ***War, friend only to the undertaker*** Ooooh, war ***It's an enemy to all mankind*** ***The point of war blows my mind*** ***War has caused unrest Within the younger generation*** ***Induction then destruction*** ***Who wants to die?*** Aaaaah, war-huh Good God y'all What is it good for Absolutely nothing Say it, say it, say it War, huh What is it good for Absolutely nothing Listen to me War, huh, yeah What is it good for Absolutely nothing Uh-huh War, huh, yeah What is it good for Absolutely nothing Say it again y'all War, huh, good God What is it good for Absolutely nothing Listen to me War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker War, it's got one friend That's the undertaker ***Ooooh, war, has shattered Many a young mans dreams Made him disabled, bitter and mean*** ***Life is much to short and precious To spend fighting wars these days*** ***War can't give life It can only take it away*** Ooooh, war, huh Good God y'all What is it good for Absolutely nothing Say it again War, whoa, Lord What is it good for Absolutely nothing Listen to me War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker War, friend only to the undertaker ***Peace, love and understanding Tell me, is there no place for them today?*** ***They say we must fight to keep our freedom But Lord knows there's got to be a better way*** Ooooooh, war, huh Good God y'all What is it good for You tell me Say it, say it, say it, say it War, huh Good God y'all What is it good for Stand up and shout it Nothing
My profile picture resembles the Statue of Liberty

Some of the aueince say that this is a attempt by Pro to get an easy win. I also believe this, and so the reason I accepted this. I would also like to thank the audience for reading. I will break this down into three different parts. I can not get heavily into it because the charrater limit is 4000. DEFINITIONS ===================== Resemble: To be like Statue of Liberty: A monument commemorating the centennial of the signing of the United States Declaration of Independence, given to the United States by the people of France to represent the friendship between the two countries established during the American Revolution ARGUMENT: ===================== One. My opponent claims that his profile picture resembles the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty resembles freedom, peace, and friendship. The french gave it to the USA as a gift. If my opponents profile picture is like the Statue of Liberty, it would also have to stand for freedom, peace, and freindship. It is simply a flame. The flame was not given to the United States by the French. Two. One could say that this looks like the Statue of Liberty. . http://s197.photobucket.com... It looks like it because, 1. The overall shape of the flame resembles the Statue of Liberty, being tall and thin. 2. There is the shape of an arm extended above the main part of the body. 3. The very top of the flame in my picture resembles the actual torch that the Statue of Liberty is holding. 4. The arm holding the torch is on the correct side. 5. What resembles the head on my picture actually has a few spikes on it to resemble the crown of the Statue of Liberty. 6. There is a small bump protruding from the right side of the body of the flame, resembling the book that the Statue of liberty is holding. But in fact, it could look like the devil, or a bug. Same thing with your picture. It only looks like what you want it to look like. I could look at the sky and say it looks like the ocean because it is blue. Three. My opponent claims that his profile picture resembles The Statue of Liberty. In the future he may change his profile picture to something that does not even look like the Statue of Liberty. He does not know the future, so he does not know if he will change it or not. So one can not say that their profile picture looks like something. He could have said, On 1/31/10 my profile picture looks like the Statue of Liberty.
My profile picture resembles the Statue of Liberty

I have been wondering if anybody noticed that my profile picture resembles the Statue of Liberty. I took the picture myself. It's from a bonfire at my 18th birthday. No one has commented yet so I am using this to bring to everyone's attention how sweet my picture is. For comparison, here is a nice picture of the Statue of Liberty http://www.aviewoncities.com... Arguments: 1. The overall shape of the flame resembles the Statue of Liberty, being tall and thin. 2. There is the shape of an arm extended above the main part of the body. 3. The very top of the flame in my picture resembles the actual torch that the Statue of Liberty is holding. 4. The arm holding the torch is on the correct side. 5. What resembles the head on my picture actually has a few spikes on it to resemble the crown of the Statue of Liberty. 6. There is a small bump protruding from the right side of the body of the flame, resembling the book that the Statue of liberty is holding. For these reasons, it is clear that my picture resembles the Statue of Liberty (as much as a bonfire can).
All Governments are Criminal Organizations

" Law enforcement is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of the goal of obedience. "I disagree, law enforcement coming from the government comes in the forms of fines, penalties, and maybe an arrest if the crimes are severe enough. Not through intimidation and violence.... This then dismisses the next argument about contradiction and arbitrary exemption since law enforcement doesnt come from violence and intimidation. " if you move past a claimed boundary on the earth, the corporation claims the "right" to use the above-mentioned violence and intimidation in the pursuit of its goals."You are allowed to move beyond boundaries between governments though, they are called passports and it happens all the time. "We can also not call being born into a geographical area as "consent" or acceptance of the legitimacy of that claim any more than being born into slavery is consent to being a slave."But if you dont like your country youre allowed to leave it. You cannot legally leave slaveryPeople dont voluntarily pay taxes but people do understand that the government has the right to collect taxes and use those taxes to pay for services to help the people. So taxes may be involuntary, but they are a necessary evil because people know that without taxes the government wouldnt function. "The core difference between 'government' corporations and other corporations is the idea that these claims are somehow "legitimate", ie, that other corporations can not do these things without being in violation of the law, but institutions which are perceived as 'legitimate", or labeled as "government", can do these things without being in violation of the law."If government corporations mess up they are liable to laws though, they most certainly are not immune. There are laws to regulate government agencies to keep their power in check at a certain amount or laws to maintain how ethical their actions are. Governments uphold laws in ways such that the unalienable rights of people are not violated and government corporations that do break laws are liable to penalties because the government is not all powerful and immune. That being said all governments are NOT criminal organizations because governments are liable to the laws they pass, they do not use intimidation and violence as law enforcement, and because things such as taxes are involuntary but are accepted as necessary evils by people. Now then here are a list of governments that are not criminal organizations. The Monarchy in NarniaThe government of Panem (Hunger Games)The Ministry of Magic (Harry Potter)The Volturi (Twilight)The government of Danistann (Nationstates.org)Those governments are not criminal organizations because even though they create laws and enforce them, have rights over a region, and collect taxes, they are fictional governments and thus are not criminal organizations even though they count as governments.
All Governments are Criminal Organizations

This argument contains definitions which clarify my position. If you provide an example of a corporation, agency, institution or other body which does not meet the below criteria (ei, at least one of the three attributes listed are not present), or define "crime" as excplicitly including "arbitrary exemptions" (ie, a "law" that allows the state to violate other laws), then you are arguing against a straw man, EVEN IF such institution is accepted as a "government" using OTHER CRITERIA. When I am using the word "government", I am describing any number of institutions, with variations in size, scope, complexity, culture, laws, and location. However, I assert that all of these institutions have very specific characteristics in common, which I will sum up into three behavioral attributes: The creation of Laws and Law enforcement. The claim of monopoly rights over a geographic area. The collection of taxes. While there are many variations of structure and organization of such institutions, I will use these attributes to define government. Something labeled a "government" may not meet this criteria, and is therefor exempt from this . I define "Criminal Organization" as any organization which inherently commits crimes. Here, "crime" means a violation of applicable criminal law (if applied consistently to all moral actors regardless of arbitrary exemptions giving members of that organization the exclusive right to commit such crime). I contend that it is axiomatic - that the very same attributes which I here use to define a government are crimes, even within the scope of the very same laws that same government provides and enforces, and that arbitrary excemptions are necessary to cover up this obvious inconsistency.
All Governments are Criminal Organizations

When the world was confronted with the observations of Copernicus, and the theories of a heliocentric solar system, it was a dramatic shock to the existing world view that the entire world would be fundamentally different than what people had accepted for centuries.When the world was confronted with the protestant movement, it was a dramatic charge that the "one true faith" could be called into question, that alternatives to such a ubiquitous and powerful institution could be created simply by asking those questions, and formulating alternative answers.When the world was confronted with abolitionists, it was a dramatic realization that slavery was wrong, yet some stuck to their existing perceptions, and ignored the obvious immorality of the institution.When the world was confronted with the woman's suffrage movement, it was a dramatic and scary thought to some that women be given the same rights as men.When the world was confronted with such scientific breakthroughs as the theory of evolution, or Einstein's theory of relativity, it was a dramatic paradigm shift, which left many people dazed and confused.Yet, we all accept that these things were correct, and the dominant paradigms of the time were wrong. We all accept that truth marches on, and that the future MUST, as well, be filled with surprising revelations about the ideas and institutions we take for granted.Is it really hard to accept that the next to be called into question is the dominant institution of our day? Is it really that far of a stretch to think that institutions (governments) which killed nearly 300 million people in the 20th century may not be rational? Is it really hard to accept that using an institution which steals nearly half the nation's income is not a good strategy for protecting property rights? Is it hard to figure out that the more soldiers "fight for our freedom", the less freedom we actually have, as measured by the massive amount of legislation coming out of Washington, from SOPA and PIPA to the NDAA and the Patriot Act?We can either choose to be on the right side of history, or we can choose to indulge in the delusion that the status quo is always correct - a delusion that, history has shown, will almost always be wrong.
JCats should be treated like regular cats.

There are a few things I need to bring up this round. 1) My opponent makes the claim that the music is terrible, however, he does not provide any evidence for this claim, not even a sample of the music for us to make the determination. As such, this is an unsubstantiated claim. 2) My opponent then claims that this makes those listeners a different species. This is, of course, a logical fallacy. While it may potentially indicate that they lack reasoning and so lack personhood and the rigs associated. They are still genetically people and members of our species. Let my finish by pointing out that my opponent has not presented even a sample of this terrible music nor any sources to back up any of his claims. Thank you.
JCats should be treated like regular cats.

Have you ever heard of a scientist that was a JCat? No, precisely, because they're not capable of rational thought. So what species is a JCat, and what species should we treat a JCat like? Well, seeing as they're definitely not human, it seems fair and reasonable to assume and treat them like cats, seeing as that's their name. That would make sense. The resolution hath been affirmed, hurrah! I thank you.
JCats should be treated like regular cats.

A quick set of definitions before beginning. JCats - Fans of the musical group, Union J (as defined by my opponent in his R1) Union J - A British boy band [1] fan - A person who has a strong interest in or admiration for a particular sport, art or entertainment form, or famous person [2]. feline - A cat or other member of the cat family [3]. I will now begin with my arguments 1) Human rights We can extrapolate basic human rights from our own self ownership, which can be shown by Hoppe [4]. From this, all things capable of rational thought and self awareness are persons and have those rights. Since cats are not capable of rational thought and self awareness, they are not allowed rights, while the fans of Union J are. Because of this, "JCats" should not be treated like regular cats. Thank you, [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . https://www.google.com... [3] . https://www.google.com... [4] . http://mises.org...
JCats should be treated like regular cats.

JCats, fans of Union J, are often treated as if they are superior to other species of cats - with the way they're treated you'd think they're human. There's no reason why they deserve such good treatment, they're just like any other dumb feline.They get to eat human food, be accepted into human schools and even not being subjected to uncomfortable collars and patronizing nicknames, such as 'Tiddles' and 'Mr. Pickle Wickle'.So that's what I'd like to debate today, whether JCats should be treated like regular cats. I hope for a good debate.I thank you.