BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Space isn't real

Based on your insulting words and demeaning manner, it is apparent to me that you lack the maturity and decency to debate properly, but I will not be acting as you are. If NASA is controlling what we see now, what makes you think they just now acquired the ability to do so? NASA is powerful, and very smart. They could have been controlling what we see for all of time, as if Earth itself is just a simulation. They can easily control what we see in the sky, especially if space isn't real. They have elaborate maps and systems designed to make us think that space is real, and portray these in the sky to make us believe there is something beyond what we see. NASA could easily manipulate sightings and patterns in the sky to make us believe there is a pattern to what we call "astronomy". People long ago were simply studying what NASA wanted them to study, and NASA itself remained hidden from the public eye.
Space isn't real

Many times I wonder whether or not space is real or not. I would like to think that the government cannot control what we see at all times, but at the same time, do they really have the power and means to do so? I say that we only see what NASA wants us to see, given that almost all images from "space" are provided by NASA itself. Unless we physically go to space ourselves, we cannot know that space is real. With modern technology, almost any image or video can be fabricated to seem "real" to the point where it cannot be disproved as fake. Many images and videos that we see of "space" are almost undeniably real, but how can we know for sure. I would like to know if anyone else believes that NASA can control what we see and that space is not real.
5a. Civil Unions

Any rights which the government deigns to give to the citizens being governed by that government must be given to all citizens. There are at present hundreds of rights which exist for couples by way of the government and they must be universally applied for gay couples as well. If a couple wishes to enter a civil union it should not be for the government to say that you can't have rights because we don't allow those rights except for parties of opposite genders. We can understand the arguments against marriage from the point of view of society. But, there's a significant issue when it comes to the rights given by the government to the citizens being governed. The fact that I could enter into a union with a woman and were I to die, all my affairs would be dealt with automatically. Children would switch custody, property would be transfered, decisions about my remains and care would be made. There is no excuse for denying couples rights you give to other couples. It is injustice in its purest form. We aren't talking about approval, acceptance or endorsement rather we are talking about the basic rights of every individual. The requirement of government is to be fair in all regards. Without granting the same governmental rights as marriage to every couple that fairness is violated. Civil unions are basic fairness.
ISIL represents Islam

ISIL does not represent Islam, the religion of peace. (Islam translates to peace in Arabic). I am ashamed that ISIL does evil things to people and masquerades as a religious platform that tries to make Islam the primary religion of the world. I do not want to spark a religious war, but ISIS/ISIL has many contradictions that make me despise the terror group. First of all, ISIL does not follow all of the Qur'an's words. I am no Sheik(Islamic religious preacher), but I know for a fact that Islam does not condone ANY killing except for a killing in act in defense of one's self or family. The Qur'an especially does not condone the killing of Muslims. 96% of all of ISIL's victims are Muslim. The Qur'an says that Allah (Arabic word for God) is the only entity that can inflict damage or pain to one who deserves it. The Qur'an does not allow anyone to play God for whenever and whatever they want. For example, the Jordanian pilot who was BURNED to death by ISIL was executed in a completely non humane way. Death/punishment by fire, the punishment reserved to use ONLY by Allah was used by ISIL. This is simply not was Islam stands for. Secondly, ISIL has destroyed Masjids(Mosques). This is an act of hate towards Islam. If one BOMBS the place of religious worship of ANY religion, this cannot be labeled religious. I am pretty sure that the Qur'an does not say that blowing up a Mosque is acceptable. This is not just Islam. If a Jew or Christian, or Hindu, etc. harms the religious establishment of worship, it is fair to say that they are not religious, and that is not representative of whatever religion. Thirdly, ISIL treats its prisoners-of-war very poorly, which is contradictory to Islam's teachings. For example, the Qur'an says that prisoners-of-war NEED to be treated nicely and with respect. There needs to be ample food and water, along with shelter provided to the prisoners according to Islam. ISIL tortures/rapes/abuses these prisoners, which is extremely sinful in Islam. This is another reason why ISIL is not representative of Islam at all. Lastly, Islam claims a freedom of religion and a call for no oppression for non Muslims. ISIL kills those who do not convert to the sunni sect of Islam. There is a famous quote from the Qur'an that states(in paraphrase) "You have you're own religion, I have mine." While it would be ok for people to attempt to convert non-Muslims to Islam, it is against Islam to force people to follow your own religion. In conclusion of my arguments made so far, ISIL is a false representation of Islam. A religion who's supposed "followers to the fullest"(What ISIL claims to be) do not kill its own members of faith, blow up its places of worship, or oppresses innocents who are stuck in the middle. I hope that my opponent would no longer support the path of ISIL, and would support the path of good Muslims who promote peace and work with people of all religions, backgrounds, and nationalities. http://irusa.org... http://content.time.com... http://thinkprogress.org... http://www.cnn.com...
ISIL represents Islam

Waalaikum assalam warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.... (peace mercy & blessings be upon you too) This is why I support ISIL: 1 It follows all Islamic teachings. 2 ALL the infidel (kafir) countries are currently fighting it. Imam Shafi'i rahimahullah (May Allah have mercy on him) was asked: How do you know the right people in time of strife ?! He said: "Follow the arrows of the enemy and they will guide you to them." 3 All other nations claiming Islam do not follow/ do not completely follow the Shariah law Waiting for your points.... Plz don't refute now... Refuting for third round only
Opinion on hunting

While hunting may help your family and their income, I believe that hunting is not a good activity. An overabundance of hunters will slowly decrease the amount of game in, let us say, the Colorado Rockies. (Please do correct me if I get any facts wrong: I do not live in the Colorado Rockies, and am probably grossly misinformed) As game grows scarcer and scarcer, the ecosystem is impacted in negative ways. For example, if hunters are hunting deer, then as the deer grows scarcer and scarcer, their natural predators will also begin to die out from lack of food. Aside from this, little ferns and grass that the deer would usually eat will begin to grow more and more, choking off the other natural life. And this chain reaction will go on and on. However, though I emphasize that an overabundance of hunting is detrimental to the ecosystem, I do believe in moderation. If the population of the deer begins to dip, then hunting must be stopped or at least lessened. If hunters cannot do that, then it is clear that hunting would be quite detrimental to the ecosystem.
The Case For/Against Biotechnology/Bioengineering

Haha. Yes, I know. Unfortunately, I have been engrossed in my studies as of late and really have no wish to continue this debate. Really, I think we see eye to eye. Your last sentence sums it up perfectly, "I think only an idiot would stop work on this technology, but definately wewould have to sleep with oneeye open." I feel the same way. Thanks for the intelligent discussion.
The Case For/Against Biotechnology/Bioengineering

Disclaimer:I have taken this debate up for debates sake it does not reflect my actual views. The problems of the world aside, we need to acknowledge a modern technological track record, that while modern technology has alleviated many problems, it has also unlocked more destructive capabillity than ever imagined. Even the benign aspects of our global economy and our modern society has put in place unsustainable systems (see factory farming and oil based economy) this has allowed human beings to evolve far beyond enviromental carrying capacity. The only pitfall is we have built our society ontop of unsustainable systems and every technological advance brings more and more destructive weapons. This ergo means we either have to effictively let modern society fall or redesign society or move up another tier in destructive power. "A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another. You can't get rid of the "bad" parts of technology and retain only the "good" parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can't have much progress in medicine without the whole technological system and everything that goes with it."- Theodore Kaczynski Basically what Teddy boy is saying is that it impossible to disassociate technology from its bad parts and the millitary-industrial complex. If we are going to make strides in genetics where it is possible to realize this plentiful food and disease free utopia, then the machinery will have to be abundant and cheap, making gene manipulation available to any government or terrorist group that sees fit to it. Gene technology will most likely be more abundant,easier to use, and with more professionals capable of using it, than nuclear technology, making it even more dangerous. It's bad enough if a terrorist group really wanted to reanimate smallpox they could easily find traces of it in say the corpse of somone who died from it (and there are plent of those). Imagine them with the genetic abillity to reengineer it to perfect contamination and lethality.We could easily expect casualties of over 200 million deaths(if not possibly a billion) against awidely unvaccinated society. one major reason for the agricultural decrease is climate change andenviromental destruction brought about by modern society (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Also, one of our leanest and most plentiful forms of meat fish are killed off because of fertillizers and pesticides used to prop factory farming up (http://en.wikipedia.org...(ecology)#Causes_of_dead_zones) What sort of unintentional consequenses could biotech have on our enviroment, especially if unregulated and mostly in the hands of corporations who care little to nothing about the earth. I await your response.
The Case For/Against Biotechnology/Bioengineering

There is so much wrong with the world at this point in time, disease, environmental destruction, agricultural problems etc. And many of these ills could be combated with the new field of biotechnology or bioengineering. I understand that the field carries with it potential risk, but there is the potential for huge reward. For example, medicine: biotechnology has the potential to cure/alleviate diseases like Hemophilia, Parkinson's, and Huntington's. Also, on the environmental front, the chytrid fungus is decimating the world's amphibian population. Scientists predict that the fungus, combined with deforestation, will cause a mass extinction in the frog population. But, biotechnology has the possibility to halt this extinction. Agricultural output has decreased over the years, proportionate to the amount of land used for farming. This needs to change, and biotechnology has shown that it can alleviate the problem by making crops more disease and drought resistant: two major problems. The crops can also be made more nutritious so that we have to plant less. I can understand why this can be scary. Big corporations have monopolized this new technology: patenting genes, hushing up failures and mistakes, etc. have all led to a bastardization of the true aim of this new field of research: helping other people and the world to be a better place for everything and everyone on it. The challenges are many, but the rewards are even greater.
The earth is flat not spherical

First thing's first; I would like to address your argument about the constant "descent" that should allegedly entail the flight-path of a plane across a round earth. The earth is far too large for a plane far too slow to travel along it with the nose noticeably facing down. Assuming it's travelling at a speed of 300 km/h, it would take it an hour for it the nose to shift barely 3 degrees, and no-one would notice that. 1. Flight paths There are many factors in deciding the specific flight pattern of a plane; especially when the distances flown are vast. Some of which could be the dropping and boarding of certain passengers in the middle-way stop, another could be weather (it's particularly apparent why it is the case in your example, as flying over the pacific ocean can be a death-wish in case a storm is present), and another could be re-fueling (not relevant in this case). 2. Argumentum ad curvatura. I will assume that the formula you've brought me here is accurate. "At three miles, the average human shouldn't be able to see the ground past this point." That's true; if both you and the object 3 miles away are neither higher than sea level. This says nothing about the fact that we can see objects further than 3 miles away, because either we or the object are elevated above the surface. 3. Distances sighted. The sighting IS a mirage, as even explained in the very citation you've brought to this argument. The superior mirage, caused when a layer of air that's nearer to the surface is colder than air higher up in the atmosphere; and results in the light "bending" around the curvature of the earth to give you the image. 4. Reflection of light on flat water. In your argument, you state that you could not see the straight line of reflection unless the earth was flat; but keep in mind that the ocean isn't a flat surface even if the earth is, causing the light to reflect in all different kinds of manners; yet still mostly in a line between you and the sun. Besides; the earth's curvature isn't significant enough for it to affect the reflection of the sun in the water. That's all for my rebuttals so far; and I'd be glad to hear your rebuttal of my arguments as well.
The earth is flat not spherical

Because the null set is believing that the earth is neither round or flat; I agree that the burden of proof is on both of us. I do; however, disagree with the notion that proving a flat earth will automatically prove a god; though I think it matters not... the earth is round. My opening argument is this: One thing the flat-earth community can never (or has never yet) explain(ed), is the fact that when navigating long distances, the only applicable type of geometry is spherical geometry. Another way of understanding this, is that if you travel the same direction for a substantial distance, you will always, no matter what, reach the same location. A good example of this, are the many flights between the pacific rim of the US and any major city in eastern-Asia; in which the aircraft does not perform any major turns. What I assume the instigator will answer to this; is that the earth is centered at the north pole, and its perimeter is the south pole (as described here: http://daseworld.com...). However, this model still does not explain why clockwise flights around the antarctic turn right, not left; and even if it could, there exists no imagery suggesting such a model to be true. Of course, there are countless other possible retutations, but I'd rather stick to one for the time being.
The earth is flat not spherical

My opponent would like scientific proof of a divine creator. I feel that if there were scientific proof of a flat earth, this would in turn prove the former. My opponent will argue that the earth is spherical with empirical evidence, and I will argue that the earth is flat. Burden of proof is shared. Any media currently available can be used as evidence until that media or it's producer is proven falsified or untrustworthy. Opponent may start in R1 with his argument and forfeit the last round, or accept in this round. I ask that respect be given by my opponent, as I will do the same. Good luck and i hope both of us gain knowledge and enlightenment with this debate.
The earth is flat not spherical

This being the last round and all, I would like to speak somewhat more conclusively, and also thank the instigator for the truly entertaining debate he had provided me with, it was a great one. 1. Flight paths. In his attempted rebuttal, the instigator says "The plane could make a stop for refuel in New Zealand.", completely ignoring the fact that I was not talking about stops for refueling. I don't think I should address this any further, because my opponent has even partly agreed with my statement. 2. Distances sighted. Not much to say here; the distortion still only happens when the air cools down, causing the visibility of the skyline to drop, further supporting my model. 3. Reflections on water. When I said "Heck, your sheet of metal example only works if you bend the sheet not to a flat surface, but to a CONCAVE.", the implication was not that the earth has a major concave, but that my opponent's metal sheet argument was invalid when considering the reflections of the sun on the earth. This is the third time I have to say this, because the instigator here will continue to ignore it. Waves cause there to be many different angles of reflection, meaning that even if the earth was 10 miles wide, you would still get the path of light. 4. Shifting the burden of proof. Empirical, definition - Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience. My piece of evidence is empirical, no matter how many times the instigator will deny it. It is based off the observation that the only usable model when navigating long distances is spherical geometry; and off the experience of every single sea-goer ever to leave the shores (for long distances). He then proceeds to using an ad hominem, how sad... but I still respect his opinions regarding me; and will consider what he has said throughout this debate (though it will probably have no direct effect on my views, because he is still mistaken). To conclude, properly this time; I will say no more than this: Let the voters decide whom has won, so we can finish this subject for once and for all.
The earth is flat not spherical

First I would like to address my opponent's misunderstanding of what a noticeable descent would be. He and I took somewhat different speeds for what a plane's would be (I took 300 km/h whilst he took 804); but even if you triple the number I stated (3 degrees), you still get 9 degrees per hour, hence 0.15 degrees per minute. Indeed, the plane's nose is always on the horizon, but the horizon is slightly below being parallel to the plane's vector of speed, meaning that there is a constant yet minor change in the plane's angle. Also, I got the three degrees using simple geometry, where an arc of a circle is directly proportionate to the angle it is taken from; and what's more, the instigator's math is bogus. One does NOT descend 378 miles after travelling only 500 on a 25,000 mile wide sphere; simple trigonometry disproves this. One would have to travel twelve times as far during the period of twelve hours to get the same descent. 1. Flight paths. Of course; the instigator completely ignored the the other factors of flight-planning and chose to speak only of one. The flight stops at a major city most likely to drop off/pick up other passengers, which will spare the company both time, available planes, and money. Moreover, do consider the following, a flight path which takes a trip which goes as follows: https://www.metabunk.org... On the flat-earth model: https://www.metabunk.org... On the round-earth model: https://www.metabunk.org... Why a flight would take a roundabout trip as bogus as this, the instigator will never be able to answer... unless of course, the earth is round. 2. Distances sighted. The instigator claims: "I challenge anyone reading this to research mirages, Google pictures of superior mirages, you will not find any pictures that aren't distorted, inverted, etc. as I stated before." But he ignores the fact that the Chicago skyline mirage can very well appear distorted at times, as demonstrated in the following links: http://www.wilx.com... http://www.aol.com... Of course, you CAN get images of mirages where the image is barely distorted, with the right (and possibly likely) conditions, as demonstrated here: http://talesofmi.net... The time-lapse brought here by the instigator says nothing, apart from the fact that the conditions that day were better than usual; and besides, it WAS distorted throughout the time-lapse; pause it at 1:26 and you will see a clear distortion. Oh, and you would have to be able to repeat this anywhere on earth, not only at lake Michigan. 4. Reflections on water. The instigator here does not even address my rebuttal here (that being the fact that the water is not a completely smooth surface, due to waves), and so there is nothing more to be said about the subject. And one last thing before I conclude this round: The reason I didn't bother bringing any more arguments is because: 1. No more arguments are needed. 2. The instigator has not yet addressed any of the already arguments already presented by me, so I do not see why any more evidence is needed when none has been countered.
Cutlery Should Go Handles down

Of course, I assumed you would group your utensils. This is a given. We have fixed the safety issue (btw, make your young kids unload the dishwasher? C'mon - only a kid once. Do you love your kids?). So use gravity... can't beat gravity it wins every time and be safe. Perfect solution. Most will be up as there are less sharp knives so I win by majority of down vs up.