BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Plagiarism is real

Plagiarism - An act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorisation and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author. (1)Real - existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious. (2)Since you stated that first round is definitions and you have not provided definitions, then I will assume that my definitions will be the eligible ones.My case is very simple, all I have to do is prove that plagiarism is a real thing rather than an imaginary thing. This website (3) provides a list of standards, which, if not met then a publication can be considered plagiarism. This is evidence that there are such standards that may at some point not be met and therefore plagiarism could occur. Now, my evidence that plagiarism is a non-fictional thing and has in the past occurred can be found on this link (4) which is a very long list of all past incidents of plagiarism. Therefore, I have proved that there are a certain set of qualifications which, if not met, result in plagiarism. Furthermore I have proved that plagiarism has in the past occurred, according to the definitions provided. Sources(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...(3)http://www.plagiarism.org...;(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Satanism is being promoted by the mass media.

Sadly my opponent has forfeited. As this is a no contest, I won't go on long, but i will just post a couple of quotes:GaGa "swears to lucifer"Katy Perry sells her soul to SatanBob Dylan sold his soulNicki Mingyass on her split personality "Roman", who "lives in me, and says the things that I don't want to say"Beyonce on her split personality "Sasha Fierce", who "does the things i can't do". The latter two are examples of demonic posession. I could go in to how this relates to the Monarch Project, and how that was inspired by Aleistar Crowley in his book "moonchild". But as the debate is over i will leave that to the more inquisitive among you to investigate yourselves.
Islam Is Not Only a Peaceful Religion, but a Reasonable Religion

I accept Pro's terms, and hope he doesn't mind if I focus on the "peaceful religion" subset of this debate. the likelihood of the truth of Islam can be mentioned, but seems too great a burden to add to an already complete proposition. I furthermore agree to use "Quran.com" for my holy book reference, although it should be mentioned it is clearly a Muslim-sponsored site which heavily censors some of the more controversial passages. Good luck to my opponent in this debate.
Islam Is Not Only a Peaceful Religion, but a Reasonable Religion

This debate is going to contest the popular Western perspective that Islam is a violent religion, and moreover an unreasonable religion. In support of that view will be Con, and in denouncement of that view will be Pro. This debate will presuppose the following items of interest:1. Anticipating already the tons of demographics concerning the recent violence of the Middle East and of countries yet more east, I would like all to please be aware that it is not enough to simply use statistics/demographics about violence in a region of the world and pin all or even a majority of that violence on the religion that is predominant there. This is common knowledge amongst the realm of philosophers and scientists alike, and any claims unsupported through this avenue are most likely going to get shot down.2. The terms "peace" and "peaceful," and any derivatives thereof, will be used within the confines of reason. Peace, therefore, will not mean that if a gunman, for example, threatens to kill your wife, that peace is a reasonable and just solution. Violence is not a crime if it is in a manner of self-defense, accident, or as a mechanism by which to remove clear immorality or tyranny from a population.3. This debate necessitates factual statements made about Islam, especially those that are derived from the Qur'an. Proper citations from the Qur'an, or any Islamic text for that matter, must be expressed. This is proper etiquette when discussing religious connotations, for often the source of each writing will be the core of the argument.4. For reference, all sourced text from the Qur'an must be taken from the following website: www.quran.com. The website hosts a number of translations of the Arabic text of the Qur'an, and all have been approved and are acceptable. They differ only very slightly in the sentence structure, in an associative manner, and do not change the meaning depending on the translation. Unless otherwise stated, translations are assumed to come from Sahih International, the primary translator of the Qur'an on the website. It is among the most reliable sources in this respect.5. "Reasonable" means that which is in the confines of common sense. The term "reasonable," therefore, will not mean definitive or indisputable proof of God, but rather that which is likely and logical.Guidelines:R1. AcceptanceR2. Opening ArgumentsR3. RebuttalsR4. Closing Statements/Rebuttals
The Government Shutdown Was Caused By The Japanese

Fox is controlled by absolute liberal conservatives! Of course they would say that Japan is going to shut down the government even more! They're just using that because Obama is from Japan and not Hawaii! Don't you understand, they're just straying you from the truth! You must understand that THEY are destroying you! THEY are pushing you away from the true truth! THEY don't want you to know about HIM! HIM and THEY don't like each other, but the followers of HIM will be forever in the great tree in the sky, where HIM will bring us nuts to eat for eternity! THEY don't want you to go to HIM! But HIM will come and protect us! HIM hates the Japanese, so THEY use them to distract you! Go to HIM, and we will help! Also, the Japanese eat white sticky rice.
The Government Shutdown Was Caused By The Japanese

Why? What does China have that the Japanese already don't? They have Asians, they have white, sticky, scrumptious, delicious rice, samurai armies, and anime! What could they want? I mean, what could Japan really want with anything? They just bring their culture over to us. They bring their weird game shows, lovely ladies, cool history, awesome anime, and California spring rolls over to America. What could they want? Unless, what they want is to have not as much as they have, but more of what they want to not have. Do they bring a new era into the life that we live, or do we only decide to dismiss it because it's different and alien to us? Do we know what we want, when we want it, or even how we want it? As Americans, I think not, for Japan is all we want to have..... But in any case, they didn't hack it because the Japanese are Asians and got rice stuck in their computers.
Resolved: Dating more people makes for a better marriage

I'm going to posit that dating more people before you get married actually helps a marriage to work. To argue in the negative doesn't require that you should have no dating experience, just minimal, or "the less, the better". I'm saying "the more, the better". Dating implies up to and including "relations" (I'm not sure what words we're allowed to use on this site) and co-habitation. However! My arguments are limited to dating, it doesn't apply to sleeping around, I will not be arguing that promiscuity is good for a future marriage. Also, saying "helps a marriage to work" means that (1) less likely to divorce (2) live happier lives (3) live together and focused together Assuming my opponent agrees to the terms, no acceptance round is needed... go right ahead and start... no so much structure this time... a "conclusion" is not necessary.. just hit me with your best shots and don't stop till it's over. Good luck!
Absolute Zero makes it impossible to exchange atoms

Many chemical reactions are exothermic Where breaking the previous reaction bond release energy from electron as the electron changes from a bond at a high valence to a low valence. Simply look up exo thermic reactions and you can find those. Absolute zero is unobtainable so we cant be sure of how the nucleus will react it may simply cease to exist or become a super atom. But i will explain how a system can react. This will be in simple terms to avoid a complex mathematical explanation I have two carbon atom. I place the carbon atom really close to each other. As the distance between the atom decreases the probabilty cloud of one of the electrons envelopes the second atom. Ok now let freeze Time Now let place. The carbon atoms very close to one another and synchronize their motion so it is absolute zerothe electron clouds ( also frozen in time) currently do not include the atom next to it yet but the position of the atom is that it is in the exact position it would be if the atoms were bonded Now start time as the electons circle in the cloud cross a point were it is a 50 percent chance do to charges that they will go in either direction so 50 percent of the time they go toward the second atom and create a bond simply because it was in in probabilty wave once time began again So the two facts that held that i preposed is that in an substance at absolute zero if electrons are present they don not need to be and nor can they be stationary And secondly in quantum mechanics the probabilty wave is king so if the position is prime to be included in the probability wave it will be regardless of velocity The banana was the whole nucleous the charges didnt matter it was an explaination of valence electrons Again i know the probability is not 50 percent it would really be some crazy fration but it was for explanation purposes
Absolute Zero makes it impossible to exchange atoms

No an electrons velocity can not equal zero unless you serve a standing wave were it is centered at zero according to the uncertainty principle. But as the temperature of a system does not necessarily need the input from the electrons. Therefore at absolute zero the electrons are still in motion and can change position connecting a system of atoms into a molecule without the atom itself moving there as in keeping the close system at 0k and it may even enter a lower energy level a releasing potential energy as a photon and create heat although this is not necessary. This proves the motion controlled exchange of atoms irrelevant as the exchange only needs position and exchange in electrons. Think of this " only for the temperature and positioning" There are two bananas and 9 fruit flies. Each banana can support 4.5 flies So one banana has 4 the other 5. And the bananas are positioned closely we will say butt to butt The 9th fly can feed were the bananas intersect for its meal The bananas never move so the system never gains any velocity and the position of the bananas allows for the transfer of the fly with no extra expenditure of energy. In A similar fashion two atoms positions primly. Can bond without motion or expenditure of energy as the electrons probability cloud envelopes the second atom.
Pro has a Heavier Burden Than Con When Debating on Debate.org if Pro Goes First in a Debate.

Beem, i wanted to debate anyone but you (no offense).You sure have lots of examples in that argument, so i'll give you some of mine. Here is how the rounds work in a standard 3 round argument when Pro goes first. 1A-Pro 1B-Con 2A-Pro 2B-Con 3A-Pro 3B-Con I will give two scenarios that prove Pro has a bigger burden. Scenario #1: Pro sets basic parameters of the debate during round 1A, and so loses a chance to give an opening point to support their position in the argument. This makes Pro's burden greater because it gives Con 3 chances to argue while Pro only gets 2. Scenario #2: Pro goes first, which always happens (in the terms of this debate), and Con goes last. This means that Pro is not able to refute any of Con's final points, therefore making Pro's burden greater. The second scenario, which always happens when Pro goes first (which is what we are debating about...) is always true in the terms of this debate. People reading this debate will feel more obliged to vote for Con because this is Pro's final argument, but not Con's. Therefore You don't have to sweat knowing that i have absolutely no chance of refuting your final points. So all Con has to do the last round is refute Pro's points, since Pro cannot make any more points after his last round (which is not the final round). This leaves Con with an advantage, making Pro's burden even bigger when he knows that the people are more likely to vote for Con than Pro. ---------------------------------------------------- Furthermore, Con does not have to make new points. Let me give you an example of why this is true. Standard 3 Round Argument: 1A-Pro states his/her points for the topic 1B-Con refutes them 2A-Pro states more 2B-Con refutes them 3A-Pro states yet more 3B-Con refutes them Meanwhile, Pro has to state more points, while all Con has to do is refute them, making Pro's burden heavier than Con's. In this debate, Con would win because all of Pro's points are refuted, making the Pro position on the topic obsolete and therefore the better choice would be Con. ------------------------------------------------------- When Pro has to argue two things, like "Pizza is Lovable and delicious", this obviously gives Pro a far greater burden than Con because Con only has to refute Pro's points, as stated in the example above. Even if the debate is changed to "Pizza is not Lovable nor delicious", the scenario is still the same. Pro says something like "In a recent study shown here,(insert link to wikipedia.com), more than half the population does not find pizza to be delicious". Con would then say something like "Wikipedia is an unreliable source, rendering your point obsolete.". According to the example above, Con has won that round, and this kind of thing will go on until the final round when Con wins. And according to the example, this would raise the burden on Pro. ------------------------------------------------------- For all who bothered to read all of that, I salute you. I urge you to vote for Pro, even though Con has the final word therefore raising my burden. Thank you for your time.
Pro has a Heavier Burden Than Con When Debating on Debate.org if Pro Goes First in a Debate.

First I would like to clarify on two things 1. By "Heavier Burden", I mean more to argue 2. I realize I am Pro and that according to myself I will have to argue more than Con to prove myself Now for my opening argument. Pro and Con have two different responsibilities as Pro and Con. Pro's duty is to prove his/her point by any means necessary. Con's duty is to Refute Pro's points, this does not mean proving the opposite of what Pro thinks/feels. Con has the ability to do this, but when only doing its duty and nothing more has a lighter burden than Pro. Pro also must refute Con's refutions in order not to render his/her own points obsolete and make it a point for Con. This brings up a question. What if Pro decides to take the round off? Wouldn't that ease his/her burden? The answer to this question is no. It doesn't matter if Pro takes a round off or not, that does not change what Pro must do in order to win. If Pro takes a round off, chances are Pro will probably lose the debate. And the same goes for Con. Con is no different than Pro when both decide to skip a round. Neither' s burdens are eased nor made greater. This means that Pro's burden will stay the same, so will Con's, and so Pro still carries a heavier burden than Con. I believe that this is all I can argue for now but that doesn't change the fact that I will refute my opponents refutions, as it is my duty as Pro in this debate.
The existence of the shark Charcarodon Megalodon

extend for ff bear in mind con cannot make any arguments in the last round. 1) Changing Temperatures and Global warming Changing temps and global warming is moving more and more unique species to places we have never seen. Recently their have been fish that were discovered that were though to be extinct. Its not a far shot that the megalodon would exist. 30 feet shark have already been found that are similar to great whites, and or great whites themselves. With the changing tides and temps, its reasonable to assume there are things that exist that we previously thought were extinct, as shown throughout the past few years.
The existence of the shark Charcarodon Megalodon

To start off, as con, for this round all I can say is that there is no irrefutable evidence that the Megalodon shark still exists in today's oceans. As someone who doesn't believe in a set template for a debate, I'll leave each round up for your own decisions. Please use correct grammar and spelling to the best of your abilities, and thank you for your interest in the debate.
Legalizing Openly Gay Soliders in the Military

If I'm gay, then I have the the right to be in the military just like any straight person. All I want is to serve my country and be able to be me at the same time. It isn't fair for anyone to tell me that my sexual orientation is okay, but also tell me that I don't have the same rights as a straight person. It is unbelievably discriminatory. The military has the "Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy". They allow gay soldiers in, but you can't tell anyone. They classify it as a mental illness, but don't investigate pontentially gay soldiers. It has already caused severe conflict. Our president, Barack Obama, said, 'The only thing that should be required is patriotism and love of ones country." I know of a few people who are gay, but are afraid of a discharge from the military, or want to live thier lives without persicution. Even if it is a mental illness, it isn't one that you would go around hurting people, so it isn't fair to discharge openly gay militants, especially since they did not bother to find out the sexual orientation in the first place! I await my opponents defense. (I would like to modify the resolution. By "military", I mean the USA's military.)
Legalizing Openly Gay Soliders in the Military

I apologize openly to the audience and my opponent for my. .. tardyness. However, I still believe that if I can successfully disprove my opponent and carry my burdon of proof, I can win this debate. I will follow my opponents system of 1. 2. 3. I will rebut first, then reaffirm my case. 1. "Openly Gay Homosexuals are barred from the military for their own protection and safety. " - They are not barred from the military, unless they are openly gay. However, they are allowed in if they use discretion. So they are not banned for safety, or else they would all be banned. Secondly, what are we being protected from? Our fellow soldiers, who are trained to fight the enemy-to uphold justice? If a problem lies within the military, it is not the gays who should be penalized for it, it is the military itself. Our government (including the military) is designed to reform to the specific needs of the people. If our country needs protecting, then it is only logical that we need to reform this law. 2. "Openly Gays Homosexuals are barred from the miltary beaucase they lack proper disciplane, and cannot wear high heel shoes on the battlefield. " -Allow me to first point out that the military requires use of a uniform, so there would be no high heels for the cross-dressers (not every gay is a crosser you know. .. ). Secondly, a persons sexual preferance has no reflection on their disipline. My homosexual friend has more integrity and displine than I do, that's for certain. So, that point is no longer withstanding. 3. "Openly Gays are not COMPLETELY allowed to marriage so service in the military is futile and illogical" - That point is irrelivant. Just because I can't marry, doesn't mean that I want to marry. Besides, it is legal in some states. If you get married in that state, then it is still legal in all states. It isn't COMPLETELY allowed because marraige rights are not in the Constitution, therefore granted to states. Homosexuality is not widely socially acceptable, so it prevents states from passing the Gay Marraige Law. Besides, this goes back to my point that we first need to know the cause of homosexuality before we convict it itself. 4. "Barring Open Gays IS NOTdiscriminatory if its for their own good. " (Main Point) - Observation 1. If this is my opponents main point, and I can disprove it, I should win this debate. -- My opponent believes that it is not descrimintory, and it's for their own good. But what good is that, when you deny someone the right to serve their country? I have disproved and successfully rebutted all of my opponents points. I am on the AFF, so I fail to see the good of banning them, and in this statement, he does not say WHY it's for their own good.
Legalizing Openly Gay Soliders in the Military

Its a shame my opponent was not able to post his arguments as a result my own arguments stand and maybe he will be able to rebut in the near future. To the audiences and my future judges I will summarize my arguments and rebutals to my oponenets opening arguments. Rebuttals 1. Openly Gay Homosexuals are barred from the military for their own protection and safety. 2. Openly Gays Homosexuals are barred from the miltary beaucase they lack proper disciplane, and cannot wear high heel shoes on the battlefield. 3. Openly Gays are not COMPLETELY allowed to marriage so service in the military is futile and illogical Main Arguement 1. Barring Open Gays IS NOTdiscriminatory if its for their own good.