BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
WORLD WAR TWO Trivia

Rules: I makes three ww2 questions. When making the questions I can use sources. Then Con answers. He can NOT use sources. HONNESTY IS KEY IN THIS DEBATE!!! After Con answers, he makes three questions and I respond next round. Reminder: Person making questions can use sources. Person answering those questions can't. Voters will judge according to who made better questions and answered correctly. Anyway, this is my first time trying this so lets see how it goes. 1. What was the codename for the German invasion of Greece? 2. Name the exact date that WWII in Europe ended. 3. Who was the German general in charge of the Kursk offensive. Sources looked at to make questions: 1
The city of Ottawa's name should be officially changed to Murple Surple.

I have stated many arguments to support my beliefs. And as you can see my opponent has failed to rebuttal. I am not sure if he was so Shreked that he was embarrassed or what because as you can see he forfeited the last round. I don't have much more to say so I will leave you with three things that you should always remember. 1) Do not invite a Communist into your house. 2) Beware the Illuminati And last but not least: 3) Always ask your parents permission before going on to Disney.com THANK YOU AND GOOD NIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The city of Ottawa's name should be officially changed to Murple Surple.

I don't feel you bro. I would first like to challenge you to a 1 v 1 battle on club penguin bro. 360 no scope headshots only. Now I did not state that Ottawa was the worlds largest maple syrup exporter. I said Canada is. Read it carefully my friend. And did you see the category of this debate. It is funny. The joker once said "Why so serious?". I ask my opponent that same question. Every one knows what Google is right. That word didn't exist 20 years ago. So you can name things that something that isn't a real word. Ya feel me bro?
The city of Ottawa's name should be officially changed to Murple Surple.

I don't feel you bro. Maple Syrup is not the most Canadian thing, the most Canadian thing is hockey. Universal healthcare is probably 3rd. And where are your statistics saying that Canadians are sorry 95.78% of the time? Why you gotta make up facts bro. You lie about the fact that Ottawa is the largets maple syrub exporter too. Quebec is. "The Canadian province of Quebec is by far the largest producer, responsible for about three-quarters of the world's output". Also, neither Murple nor Surple is a word. You can't have two non-words in a city name. Just don't work like that. Ya feel me bro?
The city of Ottawa's name should be officially changed to Murple Surple.

I believe that the city of Ottawa's (capital of Canada) name should be changed to Murple Surple because Maple Syrup is the most Canadian thing besides Universal healthcare and being sorry 95.78% of the time. Do you not agree that the capital of the country that is known for being the largest maple syrup exporter should be named Murple Surple? Ya feel me bro.
Border Fence

>>Now I assume, that Con would never adhere to a policy of allowing ANYONE at their own choosing to just come and go into the place they live eg. {Their personal home}<< This is a faulty analogy because, unlike a personal home, the United States is an open country where ideally everyone should have a chance to achieve their dreams. Our country was built on immigration. All the British men who initially came to this land and started the original 13 colonies came for many of the same reasons that Mexicans come today. They wanted a better life. Who are we to make the process increasingly difficult with a government test that would baffle most born citizens. >>Con may appreciate this point more if a bunch of strangers kept eating the food in their fridge and they slowly died to death<< The United States is in no danger of "starving to death" as we have the highest GDP in the world by far and certainly the financial issues we do have are hardly due to illegal immigrants. Now I'm going to present my own arguments. The United States will need the jobs that Mexicans represent. Women are giving birth to fewer and fewer children as almost every country moves closer to industrialization or post-industrialization. Children have shifted from being an asset from being a liability. Instead of helping on the farm they just spend their parents' money, over $200,000 before they're ready to move out. All of the world's systems, from job systems to health systems, are based on the fallacy that the world's population is going to continue growing indefinitely. So when, after a census, the US finds that the overall population has finally gone down, we're going to need immigrants, who won't be seen as competition for jobs anymore. So if we're going to need more workers and immigrants, it doesn't make sense to spend millions of dollars on this government boondoggle to keep them out. The immigrants are going to come whether we have a barrier or not and adding the problem of the barrier to the already daunting task immigrants have crossing the Arizonan desert is cruel. The fence irreparably damages the environment. The ocelot and the jaguarondi as well as butterflies are being endangered by the wall and it could "block river access and destroy essential vegetation for many native and migratory species," according to Wikipedia.
Border Fence

I thank Con for instigating the debate. I would like to mention that I am not am American, so my support of a border fence may not be exactly what you are expecting, but rather my justification for a border fence will include arguments that can be used not just for America but many nations seeking to justify like measures. What is at the heart of the issue of the border fence ? simply it is who decides who can and who can't come into the USA. This question of who decides who can and can't come into a nation is hardly a question that only the USA asks of its self but pretty much every nation. Now I assume, that Con would never adhere to a policy of allowing ANYONE at their own choosing to just come and go into the place they live. Con would reserve the right to determine who can and can't came into their place of residence. The reasons are obvious such as safety issues regarding life and property and use of resources. Now why would Con think that these same issues don't exist on a national level ?. Just as Con would not allow people to just come and go in their own place of residence because of safety issues and use of resources (Con may appreciate this point more if a bunch of strangers kept eating the food in their fridge and they slowly died to death), thus on a national level the USA should not allow people to just come and go because of safety issues and the use of resources. Thus the Mexico fence as part of trying to address these issues is justified. I would also note that Con has not provided any reason why the fence should NOT be built. I look forward to Cons reply.
For el Presidente'!

Obviously if you are just going to sit there and insult me, this debate is pointless. I never said or tried to prove that was all better, but that doesn't mean I have to either not have a preference or like the Bushes better. Opinions can not be proven, it is your opinion that those ways are not better, and I actually don't have an opinion on that subject. I don't know why I accepted this debate, as it is not in proper format and the original cause was pointless. However, I can prove that George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush did horrible things for the country and the world...
For el Presidente'!

I will add Jeb Bush, I was in a hurry. As for the debate, what I see, is George H. W. Bush screwing the nation up, Bill Clinton cleaning it all up, and then George W. Bush comes in and screws everything up again, and then Obama tries to clean it up, even though he did worse than Bill Clinton. I actually don't think Clinton sucked. However, Bushes suck. I don't actually think you can edit your poll settings, it would be great if you can (if you can, someone message me how please, lol)... I would love for another Clinton in the White House though.
The Vow is better than The Notebook

The Vow has not even been out for a month yet and it already has more promise than The Notebook. People will begin to loss interest in The Notebook. Channi8ng Tatum proves he is one of the top rising stars in the movie business. He is a great actor and this is a great movie. The Vow shows real love and emotion. Rachel Mccadams is her usual great self. The movie is a masterpiece. There is even a fight scene where Channing punches a guy in the face. This is a great movie. The Vow is better than the Notebook.
The Vow is better than The Notebook

I picked The Notebook to prove just how bad it is and that The Vow is better. Channing Tatum is a lot better than Gosling. Neither of them won major awards for these two movies. I also pointed out Channing's awards to show that the past awards by actors for different movies do not matter to these two films. The kiss scene is considered a great scence but it is really not that good. There are many kisses in many great movies. Dear John has a kiss scene in the rain also but that does not mean that that one kiss makes it the best romance movie ever made. Just like how the Notebook is not great from this one scene. The Vow also does have many great scenes. They are married in a museum. They have that one restaurant that they are always at. Channing punching the exboyfriend. Channing fighting for his wives love when she does not even remember him. Channing stepping back when he has to to protect the one he loves even though that could have meant him lossing her. That is very romantic and shows strong will by the character. Also The Vow is based off of a true story so that makes it that much better that this has actually happened. The Vow shows the real strugglkes of the real couple.
The Vow is better than The Notebook

The Notebook has better acting than the The Vow. This is proved by the fact that mutiple actors featured in the film have been nominated for Academy Awards. The better the actors in a film, the better the acting, the better the film. A Teen Choice Award for Channing Tatum doesn't surmount the the honor of being nominated for an Academy Award, as Ryan Gosling has. But sure, Ryan Gosling has won five Teen Choice Awards, coincidentally all for The Notebook. A review from a user from the Internet Movie Data base hardly constitutes The Vow as being a good film. Now, if an actual film critics were to say that, it'd be different. But they haven't. In fact, The Vow has gotten, for the most part, horrible reviews, reflected in the Rotten Tomatoes ratings. The Vow made a good box office debut because it was released the week of Valentine's Day, strategically. I work at amovie theatre, and saw as the weeks went by the vlomue of people coming for the film dwindled. There were not other romantic movies out of Valentine's Day this year, so of course people would go and see the ONE that was out. The Notebook didn't need tricks to make money. The movie came out in June, and still had an impressive debut, making 13.5 million dollars it's first weekend. If the film had come out a few days before Valentine's Day, it too would've had an even stronger debut. Also consider that in 2006 movies were less money than they are now. The amount of money a film brings in has nothing to do with if the film is good or not. Breaking Dawn made $281,287,133. Does that make it a good film? Certainly not. The Tree of Life was nominated for an Academy Award this film season and only made $54,303,319. The amount of money a film makes doesn't warrant the conclusion that only films hat make money are good. There is nothing memorable about The Vow. There is, however, an iconic scene in The Notebook: http://www.youtube.com... The kiss has become a modern day romantic cinema iconic moment. The Vow has already begun to fall down the box office list, while, 6 years later, The Notebook is still revered and talked about, as evidence by this debate itself. You could've chosen ANY movie to debate The Vow is better than, but you chose The Notebook, which came out 6 years ago, proving its longevity.
The Vow is better than The Notebook

All of those awards for the actors in the Notebook were awards for other movies. Mccadams is in both and Tatum has won awards for other movies but that does not matter to the movie of The Vow. Tatum has won awards at The Sundance film Festival, Gijï¿½n International Film Festival, and Teen Choice Awards. He has won awards before. The actors might have learned from being in other movies but that does not really matter to the topic of The Vow being better than The Notebook. The Vow is already considered an instant classic. Also it is more than just a chick flick. Men as well as women enjoyed this movie. I have a quote from Imdb. com to prove this point. "More than a Chick Flick 3 February 2012 | by Rola2 (United States) When I went with my two friends to see this movie, I thought we were in for a ladies night out and a teary chick flick. I was pleasantly surprised. The drama and dialog were very believable and realistic, and it was pleasingly funny in places. The fact that the setting was clearly Chicago without any effort to try and hide street signs and restaurant placards only added to the charm and believability of the movie. Quickly into the film I was wishing I was friends with this couple and could hang out with them and be part of their lives. When the credits started rolling I desired our relationship to continue. O.k. maybe I had a couple of tears, but I would definitely see this movie again and take my husband. After seeing the number of men in the audience who enjoyed it, I think he would feel comfortable attending and glad that he went." Men clearly have enjoyed this movie and it is more than a love story. You can enjoy the people as people not just lovers. The Vow brought in 12.5 million dollars on its first day in theatres. This is a lot of money for one day. imdb.com http://www.hollywoodreporter.com...
The Vow is better than The Notebook

The Notebook has better and more able actors than those featured in The Vow. The lead male, Ryan Gosling, has been nominated for an Academy Award for lead actor for the film "Half Nelson (2006)". He has also been nominated for four Golden Globes, for the movies "Lars and the Real Girl (2007"), "Blue Valentine (2010)", "The Ides of March (2011)", and "Crazy Stupid Love (2011)". His performance in "Drive (2011)" has also garnered him critical praise. Channing Tatum has not been nominated for any of these prestine awards. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and neither of the men's level of attractiveness determine whether or not they are good actors. Though Rachel McAdams is featured in both films, her performance in The Notebook basically launched her career, with her being nominated for various small awards for the role, as well. Sam Shepard, also in The Notebook, was nominated for an Academy Award for "The Right Stuff (1983)". Gena Rowlands, also in The Notebook, was nominated for two Academy Awards for "Glora (1980)" and "A Woman Under the Influence (1974)". Joan Allen, also in The Notebook, was nominated for three Academy Awards for "The Contender (2000)", "The Crucible (1996)", and "Nixon (1995)". Kevin Connolly, also in The Notebook, has been nominated for a Golden Globes for his role in the Television Series "Entourage". Because of a plethora of critcally recieved actors, it is safe to say The Notebook has better acting than The Vow, for it features better actors. The Vow has a 6.5 rating on the Internet Movie Data Base, while The Notebook holds a 7.9. Also, on Rotten Tomatoes, The Notebook holds a 52% rating, while The Vow holds a 28%. Contrary to your argument, The Notebook does in fact beat Dear John, for it's rating on Rotten Tomatoes is a 29% (actually better than The Vow itself...) and a 5.9 on the Internet Movie Data Base. By audiences and critics alike, THe Notebook is perceived to be the better film, and the ratings prove it. The Notebook features better actors, therefore featuring better acting. http://www.rottentomatoes.com... http://www.imdb.com...
The Vow is better than The Notebook

The Vow has better acting. Channing Tatum is much better than Ryan Gosling. Channing is bigger, stronger, and just better. He is also much better looking than Gosling. The main actress is the same in both movies so I will not talk about her. The Notebook is taking place in the past. They are both old people and the movie goes back in time to explain it. The Vow takes place in the present for the movie. This makes The Vow better because you really do not know what to expect. The Notebook has only been a good movie for longer than the Vow simply because it came out before The Vow. The Vow will be a great movie and a top romance film but it only just came out. The Notebook cannot even beat Dear John so I do not see how it will ever beat The Vow.
The Vow is better than The Notebook

I will argue that The Notebook is better than The Vow. The Notebook features better actors and has proved longevity, for it was released in 2004 and is still regarded as one of the best romantic movies of all time. The Notebook has a pleathora of critical acclaim and has been referenced, positively, a number times in other avenues. The Notebook is better than The Vow for it provides better acting, storytelling, and has proved longevity.
My opponent exists.

Thank you for your response. I accepted this debate under the false pretence that we were acting under the assumption that I could use all empirical evidence possible to show that I exist. You have not made any point in your first round limiting the debate to a hypothetic situation where I can only have contact with you over debate.org. It is therefore possible for me to prove to you that I exist through the empirical evidence that could be provided if I travelled to wherever you are and touched and talked to you ect. I find that you have sprung this on me rather unfair; however, although I have already made points that have in my view, won this debate, I will continue to attack your arguments. Even if you had limited this debate to me not being able to use most empirical evidence you already conceded when you said "In conclusion, based off mine viewpoint of never hearing, seeing, feeling, hearing, or tasting (that would be weird) my opponent, or his being able to prove he is a living sentient being, there is in the 90% chance range that my opponent doesn't exist." Remember that I only have to provide any evidence at all that I exist. My opponent has basically stated that I have given a small amount of evidence that I exist. I'd also like to point out that your statement that there is a 90% chance I don't exist is not founded in statistics and completely incorrect. If I had to estimate I would say there is about a 60% chance that I do exist from your point of view as without any proof for either side there would be a 50% chance i do exist and a 50% chance i dont exist. My opponent also stated "I cannot prove to a point beyond any doubt or chance that my opponent does not exist". Octavian has just conceded the fact that he has no proof at all that I do not exist. As for Octavian's statement that I could be a computer. I researched this statement and found that this was impossible with the current level of technology. I would also like to add that I seriously doubt a computer programme made to debate exists as it would lack the ability to think for itself. Hans Moravec from the Robotics Institute of Carnegie Melon University said "Computers have far to go to match human strengths" http://www.transhumanist.com.... So as we see the human brain is still far superior then any computer and it is ludicrous that I am simply a computer. A computer is only programmed to perform whereas the human brain can think for itself and react accordingly. computers also have no sense of self, no ego, no emotion and will not stray from the task they have been given to perform. I on the other hand can show all of these things. I am amazing and I am happy that I am winning this debate. XD
My opponent exists.

Now, the burden of proof does rest upon my opponent. For I cannot know if he exists if I have never experienced him with any of my senses, and one should require empirical proof to know if something exists. It is entirely a possibility that my opponent exists, just as it is possible for Flying Unicorns and the Monster in My Closet. As for the statement, "I think, therefore I am," this holds no real significance now, as there are computers and computer programs that are close to being sentient and can think and reason. (Based off of this definition of think: use or exercise the mind or one's power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments. Source: . http://www.google.com...) Now, that I have never experienced my opponent empirically, that the argument about thinking constitutes being is entirely false, this makes it very likely that his existence is false. Even if I had met him in person and he was not a computer or a figment of my imagination I could not know or he could not prove to me that he exists unless technology was developed that I could go inside his/her mind. I cannot prove to a point beyond any doubt or chance that my opponent does not exist, however since no real proof has been presented for his existence. In conclusion, based off mine viewpoint of never hearing, seeing, feeling, hearing, or tasting (that would be weird) my opponent, or his being able to prove he is a living sentient being, there is in the 90% chance range that my opponent doesn't exist.