BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Biblical account of Noah's Ark is false.

In this debate, I take the affirmative position, or the pro/for position: I hold the viewpoint that the story of Noah's Ark, as described in Genesis 6-9 in the Bible, is false. First of all, there are millions of animal species that exist. They would not have fit in the ark, even if there were only 2 of each. There couldn't be 2 of each "kind" of animal, because then we couldn't get all the species there are today. Secondly, the story of Noah's Ark isn't even consistent. Genesis 6:19-20 says that Noah had to bring 2 of every animal, but this contradicts Genesis 7:2-4, which says that Noah had to take 7 of every clean animal, 7 of every bird, and 2 of every unclean animal. Thirdly and finally, the flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh is suspiciously similar to the story of Noah's Ark. The flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh was written c. 1800-1700 BCE, while scholars say that the story of Noah's Ark was written c. 900-400 BCE. It is illogical to assert that the flood narrative in the Epic of Gilgamesh is a retelling of Noah's Ark rather than the other way around, because the one in the Epic of Gilgamesh predates the story of Noah's Ark. (You can read the basic plot of the flood narrative in the Epic of Gilgamesh at wikipedia.org/wiki/Utnapishtim.) All in all, I assert that Noah's Ark is a false flood myth like any other, and I am willing to hear other's objections to the proposition.
should PUBG sue FORTNITE

I think fortnite shouldnt be sued because its not even close to being what the trash game pubg is. First off, 1) fornite has save the world 2) there is no riding cars around the map 3) its animated 4) there zombies 5) there are game modes 6) there is a battle pass 7) did u see the ending for season 3 thats go into season 4... yea go check that out too ( there's a trailer for the season 4. 8) there are traps, sheild potions, mini shield, medkits, bandages and launchpads
Astrology and Horoscopes are Real

I accept. I am a Virgo. I take that the burden of proof is on Pro. He will provide proof for this claim, and I shall counter his arguments. I'd say no, we do not have a connection with the universe. There is no evidence given for this claim. And no, the alignment of planets do not affect your life in any way. Try giving a reason how. I take that Pro does not believe in free will, since as stated our date of birth predetermines our destiny? Yes, the position of the stars are used to determine time and position, but since when and how does it have any influence to one's personality or destiny. And there is no evidence whatsoever to determine the accuracy of horoscopes. That's why you don't see people who have mastered these horoscope signs or whatever winning lotteries every week. For the claims about how someone's personality, the "predestined path", the opportune to marry, business deal advantages, the time to make a major life decision etc. is influenced in any way by the positioning of celestial bodies, I await evidence.
Astrology and Horoscopes are Real

****Outlaw Tournament Round 3*** Contention: Astrology is real. We have interconnectedness with the universe. From the moment of our birth the solar system and planetary alignments determine the course of our lives. Once a person taps into the knowledge of this cosmic connectedness one can maximize the planetary forces to develop our true selves and to optimize opportunities that are presented to us. Tracing as far back to the ancients of Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome China, India and Mayans, some form of astrology has been practiced to foretell terrestrial events from the position of celestial bodies. It has been used across multiple cultures to predict seasonal shifts and accurately predict the personality and traits of individuals. Astrological charts and readings can be used as a road map to keep a person on their predestined path. Alignments of the sun, moon, planets and stars clue us in to when it is opportune to marry, to broker a business deal or to properly schedule other major decisions in life. Alexander the Great, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Copernicus and Galileo to name a few, were practitioners of astrology. Definitions: Astrology: the study of how the positions of the stars and movements of the planets have an influence on events and on the lives and behavior of people. Horoscope: 1. a diagram of the heavens, showing the relative position of planets and the signs of the zodiac, for use in calculating births, foretelling events in a person's life, etc. 2. a prediction of future events or advice for future behavior based on such a diagram. CON will dispute the authenticity of Astrology RULES: 1. If you don't want to follow the rules move on; you're most likely a Leo anyway. 2. Round 1: Acceptance, CON MUST PROVIDE ASTROLOGICAL SIGN or birth date. Begin your argument. 3. Round 4: No new arguments or rebuttals, summary only 4. Calling me a dimwitt or numbskull is strictly prohibited.
Astrology and Horoscopes are Real

Summary: Astrology is over 5,000 years old and is still practiced today. Just because it has yet to be fully scientifically proven in the west, does not negate its efficacy; especially since several once thought of pseudo-sciences have been proven to be valid in recent decades. There have been statistical studies that have proven the correlation between planetary alignment with human traits and outcomes. NASA has also conducted studies that prove that planets in our solar system when in specific positions, affect Earth’s magnetic field, tides and by extension people. Although planetary influence prioritizes one’s destiny, we do have free will to attempt counter its force, but the end result is ultimately up to the cosmos. Astrology and horoscopes cannot lead you to win the lottery or to find the love of your life. It will guide you toward opportune times to undertake tasks or forecast events which outcomes may not be immediately recognized. http://www.youtube.com... My Virgo opponent is most likely preoccupied with cleaning his closet, forgetting this debate. Or over contemplating his belly button on why it is an outtie rather than innie. A little Letterman top 10 revival on Virgos Top Ten Reasons You’re a Virgo 10. Highly successful in writing critical movie reviews; everything is garbage except Citizen Kane 9. Personal motto. I’m ready, are you? 8. I must clean that again there’s a smudge 7. You don’t worry, I’ll worry for you 6. Standards man! Standards! 5. Knock, knock Who’s there? Virgo Virgo Who? The paint is chipping on your door, you should repaint it. 4. Bought stock in Pepto-Bismol 3. Feelings are a waste of time and energy 2. Not obsessive compulsive, detail oriented The number one reason you’re a Virgo………… Born under the sign of a Virgin and likely to stay that way. Is this debate over yet? How much BS does a person have to sling to win a tournament? What next, the Zombie apocalypse is inevitable? What?.... What…? Oh SH#T!! I’m still in the argument submission pane. Heck, why didn’t you tell me sooner. This is so embarrassing. Readers look into this hypnotic spiral and listen to the soothing sound of my voice…. http://www.debate.org... Astrology is real, astrology is real, astrology is real. Vote Pro, vote Pro. I think I'm good covered my tracks … WHAT! Still in the pane? DAMN IT! This has Pisces written all over it!
Rap Battle!!!!!!

You say your OG Bruh you don't even know me I'll steal your girl so quick you can't control me My clothes come from Wal-Mart but yours comes from the dollar store And all the girls you be gettin are them slutty a$$ hoers Im only 19 but I rap like 2Pac By the time i'm done your gonna be on dis Coc* (wow that sounded wierd) Why the fu*# you so dang hessitant I even steal girls that are muthaf&*&% lesbian Never gonna get a girl go back to your toys *scruba dub dub* Now you my bus boy (busgirl) I bet your so fat that you way a ton stop trying to rap Cuz I've already one (No offense) :D
Rap Battle!!!!!!

You really think you'll pwn me? (Ha!) I'm the real OG I'm all that you'll never be! Can't anyone agree? You best be worshippin' Bailey I hear you have practice on your knees This Biggie wannabe gonna get his a** beat If that's your first verse, you best be quitting Quit tripping You hear that uplifting? Cause it's just the beginning! Imma keep persisting When's the last time you've had a girl in your bed? I'm a little lesbian and I still butter their bread Even you and your sister won't wed "Hmm... back the f*ck off" she said "Stop rapping!" Um... where can I start? I'm fine art! You get your clothes at Wal-Mart You better hope I stop soon before fall apart What can I say? I'm only 17 Moves like Jagger, I'm a Dancing Queen From Mesa, Arizona, gonna come destroy ya I've got more balls than you've got in your head Oh, I'm crap, yes? That's not how it works miss! You've won one debate? How cute Where you really belong is a garbage chute You think you're TheChamp? Well, 'TheChamp' just came in second place ----------------- Well, that was fun. Never knew I had secret rapping locked inside me, but hey, there's a first for everything. I don't mean anything personally, just having fun. Thanks. -Bailey
Rap Battle!!!!!!

Thanks for accepting :). Ight...look...listen, when i start spitttin u should know im already winnin with yo mamma and yo girl and, i got them kissin if you fu*kin try me just know u gonna lose just start prayin to God like u a freakin Jew (im cristian) Got yo mamma cookin for me and she makin that stew if u fu*kin try me imma jump u with my crew Listen man you should just stop tryna rap cuz everyone one here, knows that your absolute crap Don't get mad and get all fu*kin moody u a loner and, i be gettin all the booty oooooohhhhhhhhhhhh (don't take this personal just for fun i bet ur mom is a beutiful woman :)) GOOD LUCK
Self Evidentiary Proof of the Spirits/Souls Existence

Namaste my friend. ~I will simply be replying to the specific things I have problems with. "As is Illustrated by your ability to See, Read, Absorb, Understand, Process, Comprehend, and Draw Conclusions from - this Thesis & this LIFE - and your Expression there-of." ~A computer can do all of these things. "The "Old" - "U Exist there-fore U R" - applies here" ~Can you prove that the "Old" me exists? I personally believe that "I" don't exist and the human brain creates a subjective framework *temporarily* to make processing information and stimuli simpler. This leads me to believe that the old "me" is not the same "person" as the "me" that is typing this message and once I stop experiencing this subjective framework this "me" will in essence cease to exist. "Now that we have established that LIFE and U Exist, [granted a very rudimentary understanding] lets move on to the core / essence of WHAT U R." ~I don't believe you actually have established that "I" exist, at least not as a subjective consciousness. If you mean "I" as in my physical body and brain then yes I do believe those exist. "U R - a Spiritual Being - That which existed before, exist during, will exist after - what we call LIFE" ~I don't believe you have provided any evidence for this one not even subjective evidence. "If in fact we agree on the definitions of Soul/Spirit listed above, than the following - R - "TRUE" - statements. "1 of the Aspects of your Being is your Physical Self or Being - that which Can & Does - DIE a 2nd Aspect of your Being would be your "MIND" [not your Physical Brain] - that which does NOT Die the 3rd Aspect of your Being is your Spirit / Soul - It has been defined as - "Eternal" - that which NEVER Dies -"" ~Just because something has a definition doesn't make it real. The definition of Santa Claus is a figure who brings presents to children if they are good. "So U see, as do I - that according to our own & our cultures accepted definitions - We R Triune Beings - Body, Mind, and Spirit." ~According to our cultures accepted definition of Santa Claus - He brings presents to good boys and girls. This doesn't make it true.
Every job should have the same wage.

Thankyou. You pointed out that if a lawyer made the same amount of money as a video game tester, why would anyone want to a ber a lawyer and so on... If i may say, that particular argument is hugely flawed. Just quickly before i carry on, who is to say that the wage for everyone is small? You pretty much said that people will not be motivated enough to do hard working jobs so therefore and i quote "everyone would flock to the easy jobs"... Another flaw. Actually if every job had the same wage people would just do any job they aspired to do, regardless of the money, because everyone would be earning the same amount. Here is an example: A man really wanted to be a doctor, but he was worried that the dump truck man was earning the same amount as him, so he decided to go for a somewhat easier job. Not likely. That is what you said in your argument. The message i am trying to portray is that if people really want to do a certain job, whether it be a librarian, a cleaner, an actress, a camera man or whatever, they will do that job, despite the fact that they may be receiving the same wage as someone in possibly a lower rank them them and do you know why? Because my friend, money isn't everything... Do you remember when you were little and you would be asked what you wanted to be when your were older, a mermaid, a princess, a moon walker, a doughnut taster, own a fish'n'chip shop, whatever the case, you weren't thinking about the money then were you, so why now?
Every job should have the same wage.

Good luck to my opponent. While I do agree that many jobs are neglected as essential jobs, and I am a firm supporter of trade jobs and blue collar work as that what I grew up around and as, I disagree wholeheartedly with your opinion. The reason various jobs pay more than others depends on job quality, skill, the worker's ability and experience, and competition for employees in the job market. Your example of a trash man is actually somewhat flawed as well, trash collectors are actually paid quite well due to the hazards of the job. In some states in the US, they can make as high as $75k annually. Regardless of that though, there is a flaw in your argument on one truck vs one lawyer. One truck not working involves multiple employees, usually at least three in the US, along with that there are others to compensate. Either way, yes there may be problems but companies are prepared for things like that, a better example may be an entire company not working vs a law firm, but then you have to consider the type of law, the location of the company that stopped, trash levels, could another company take the workload etc. It's a hard example to grasp. If you do consider that though, why ALL jobs paying the same? If a McDonald's fry cook stopped working would that really hurt society? If a Starbucks barista quit? What about college degree style jobs, if a computer programmer for Apple quit? Or as you mentioned a lawyer? Jobs within companies are much different than service industries provided by the government or companies contracted by the government to provide societal services. All employees are not equal, what about advancement in a company? Promotions? Bosses? Should a manager make the same as his employee? Should someone that works at a company for 20 years make the same as the new guy? In a world where everyone makes the same there is no progress as there is no incentive for doing good, excelling at your job, or doing anything beyond the mundane. If a lawyer made the same amount as a video game tester or a beer taste tester why would anyone be a lawyer, or a trash collector, or a janitor. Everyone would flock to easy jobs and no one would put in the effort to learn, excel and get a better job. Also, you're forgetting one thing, this was tried before, it was called communism and it failed.
Every job should have the same wage.

Every job should have the same wage. Whether you are a doctor or a rubbish collector, all jobs need doing, so why are some paid more that others. Who works harder, the rich lawyer, or the humble, hard working rubbish man that is up every allocated morning to do the dirty work for you. Just think what would happen if for one year, one rubbish truck didn't work and one lawyer didn't work. What would have more of an impact on our society.
Top android smartphones have better hardware than the iphone 5

Galaxy Note 2 Specifications Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... Iphone5 Specifications Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... 1) Benchmark Scores. The Galaxy Note 2 consistently outperforms the Iphone 5 in performance tests such as the Geekbench benchmark. (Higher is Better) The Galaxy Note 2 Scores 2154 (http://forum.xda-developers.com...) The Iphone5 scores 1601 (http://9to5mac.com...) This shows that the Iphone5 hardware cannot perform as well as top android phones, well portrayed by the 34% difference in performance 2) The Galaxy Note 2 has a processor that can be overclocked to 1.8 GHz, bringing even more performance to its monster hardware. (http://androidcritics.com...), the Iphone 5 is stuck at its stock 1/1.3GHz(Depending on CPU temperatures) thanks to apples draconian software. 3) The Galaxy Note 2 features a 5.55 inch HD Super AMOLED S-Stripe RGB (3 subpixels/pixel) (non-PenTile) screen with 1280×720 resolution whereas the iphone5 only has 4-inch (100 mm) diagonal,(16:9 aspect ratio), 640 × 1,136 pixels. 4) The Galaxy Note 2 has 2gb of ram for immense multitasking ability whereas the iphone5 only has 1gb of ram for meager multitasking ability. 5) The Galaxy Note 2 can be outfitted with up to 128gb of storage, versus the Iphone5 which tops out at 64gb. This is a whopping double amount of space for games, movies, tv shows or photos. 6) The cameras on both of these devices are equal, the only difference being a .7megapixel advantage to the Galaxy Note 2’s front facing camera (Not too Noticeable, but still an advantage). 7) The Galaxy Note 2 features a 3100Mah battery for 2-day battery life, as compared to the iphone5’s measly 1440Mah Battery. This is a whopping 215% the battery power of the Iphone5. The Galaxy Note 2 also features a removable battery offered in up to 6400Mah, for an immense 444% battery power compared to the iphone5. (http://www.mugen-power-batteries.com...) 8) The Galaxy Note 2 is also so powerful that it is able to run 2 apps on its screen at the same time, can an iphone5 do that? The answer is no. (http://gigaom.com...) Now since this is a debate about hardware, the ergonomics (size/weight/feel) of the device is irrelevant and the operating system (IOS 6 vs. Android Jelly Bean) is irrelevant. Good luck to con!
Race is a Biological and Genetic Construct caused by microevolution and segregation

Hello. I am arguing in favour of the scientific fact that race is a biological, rather than only a social, construct. Before I start, I must define some basic terms: Race: A separate group of people within a species that has obvious, heritable phonotypical variations. Species: A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. Social Construct: Social construction is how society groups people and how it privileges certain groups over others. Biological Construct: A construct that is based on genetics, rather than society. Gene: A unit of heredity that is transferred from a parent to offspring and is held to determine some characteristic of the offspring. Phenotype: The set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment. Now, an obvious question that might be raised is: "What races are there then, and how are they classified?" My answer would be as follows: "There are 3 major races, which can be further divided into several sub races. They are classified by phenotypes such as skin colour. P1: Races exist biologically, not only socially P2: Races originated through microevolution, specialization, and segregation over millions of years. P3: IQ and crime are partially genetic. C: The notion that races do not exist biologically and are equal mentally and/or physically is illogical. In order to have this debate, we must argue under the assumption that evolution is correct. Rules: 1. Any forfeit will result in an automatic 7-point deduction. 2. Keep a sense of civility (No cussing, name calling, etc) 3. Must cite sources 4. All arguments must be based on science rather than personal opinion.
Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school.

Alllllright then… Here goes: "This would be the "moving the goal post" fallacy at work if we are to look PRO's stance in it's entirety." In accordance to my first round, I merely dropped those arguments. There is nothing at all wrong with dropping arguments. And adding arguments (provided it is not the final round) is generally acceptable as well. And my "objective," I would argue, is still the same: it is to demonstrate that the resolution is true – that is all. DEFINITION OF TEACH: 4 a: to instruct by precept, example, or experience b: to make known and accepted "To make known or accepted": This still fits into where I'm going with my argument. That is, I am arguing that patriotism should be taught. And to be "accepted" is still not persuading any students. If the word were "acceptable," then yes, persuasion would be in play. But it is only ‘accepted." And if something is "accepted," it is only taken in account. That is how it is distinguishable from "acceptable." Either way, however, the definition provided by my opponent is lower on the list (#4) than the definition I found (#1), in accordance with Merriam-Webster. I did not "cherry-pick" the definitions I used, but even if I did, the higher up on the list the definition is, the more critical the definition is. Essentially, such a definition has more authority and is more prominent. Nothing in the resolution suggests which specific definition we use, and thus, it is only right that we use the one highest up on the list of definitions (i.e. one with the most authority). "Rather, it is the process of having students KNOW certain information. In other words, students are being coerced into arriving at a conclusion. In this case, they are being coerced into arriving at the conclusion that they are to love their country or nation." I see nothing to suggest that "to know" would necessarily mean or lead to being "coerced into arriving at a conclusion." Again, referring to Merriam-Webster, the first definition: 1 a (1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of (3): to recognize the nature of : discern b (1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of [.] "Causing students to "know" patriotism is against the practices of free thought [.]" Again, to "know" patriotism is merely to be informed about it. And that is what happens in school all the time: people are being informed about things. Ergo, I continue to affirm the resolution as it stands: "Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school." Vote PRO. I would like to thank my opponent for the fun debate. And good luck in the tournament thing, or just debating in general. It has been an interesting interpretation of this much-debated topic. Cheers, Oboeman