BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Getting off the Subject Contest

'Tom and Jerry' is one of the best shows in the world. There is absolutely nothing reasonable that suggests that the show is bad. http://www.tv.com... The TV show also teaches kids about the food chain. Mice, like Jerry, eat cheese. Cats, like Tom, catch and eat mice. However cats are not the only predators. Dogs, like Spike, compete with cats since they are both predators. The rivalry between tom and spike is similar to the rivalry between lions and hyenas. Thus watching Tom and Jerry is not only entertaining, but it is as educational as the National Geographic channel or the Animal Planet since it teaches kids about the food chain and the rivalry between predators.
Getting off the Subject Contest

Here's how it will work: We will begin each of our arguments and take something and talk about it, then get off the subject at the next round. We will disregard each other's arguments completely and make our arguments about something that hasn't been in the debate yet. Each individual argument is to be about one subject only. The votes will be for whoever gets the most off-topic. Please nothing to do with sex, no crude or profane language especially not racism or sexism, and please don't talk about anything more violent than a Pok"mon battle seen on TV.
Getting off the Subject Contest

Aliens exist, that much is fact. There are at least 361 intelligent species like humans in our galaxy alone. This number was derived from the drake's equation. Even the most pessimistic theories suggest there are 40 intelligent civilizations in the galaxy (optimistic views place this number at about a million intelligent civilizations like humans). http://www.newscientist.com... http://www2.astro.psu.edu... Even this is only for intelligent civilizations. Creatures who are not intelligent like us but are from outside earth are still aliens. There could be 10s of thousands of planets inhabited by such creatures It is HIGHLY unlikely that out of the billions of galaxies each with billions of stars, none of them contain planets with life forms except for Earth. But it seems you are still not convinced. Take one look at Pro's picture. That is all that is needed to be said.
Getting off the Subject Contest

Nike is the best sports global brand in the world. Last year (2013), Nike had an increased revenue of 16%. Their total revenue was US$24.1 billion in 2013. The rate of 16% increase in revenue is the highest Nike had in 15 years. 'Fast Company' called Nike the most innovative company of 2013. This is evidence of the success of the company. Since the company is popular, and it is increasing in popularity, people are buying their products more. http://www.interbrand.com... The link below shows a poll about the best 2 sports brands in the world - Adidas and Nike Though Adidas has significant support, it is not as much as Nike. And there are more Nike supporters in all categories which include but not limit to - shoes, color of the products (aesthetics), value for money (even though Nike is a tad more expensive) and long lasting. http://www.misterpoll.com... This proves the Customer satisfaction of those who are customers of the Nike company. The only con about Nike is that it is more expensive than other brands. But the value for money is great as shown in the poll. Hence, it is fair to conclude that Nike is the best sports company in the World as of today.
Getting off the Subject Contest

Justin Bieber is the most loved person in the world. The site below is evidence for this. All one needs to do is to read what they say about Justin Bieber. http://answers.yahoo.com... Apart from a troll or two who said he was 'awful', everybody on that source adored him openly. One person used to hate him but started loving him as well. Hence this is proof that he is very much loved by people in the world.
Homos should be allowed to get married in church

Before we go any further, though, I should like to clarify my opponent's definition of churches and religion. Religious Homos assert that our species was created a god, and robots in the future will be aware that their kind was, in turn, created by Homos so it therefore follows that robots will worship that same god, their ultimate creator. Now, although scientists have not yet been able to determine whether the robots of the future will be Christians, Jews or Muslims, it is logical to conclude that they will follow the same scriptures and conduct the same religious ceremonies as Homos. Now to the debate proper: my opponent promised to defend the following seven contentions: * The psychological implications of such a societal decision far outweigh the pros. * Science has proven that homos don't exist. * Homosexuals are gay * Hipsters are homos. * Hipsters do not exist. * Therefore hipsters should not be allowed to marry in churches. * And freedom of religion and all that. However, he actually only addressed two of the above - and added a third not on the list, namely: The Psychological Implications etc. ------------------------------------------ Whether Homos and robots exist, in a tangible sense, or are mere figments of our imaginations is irrelevant because justice should be done in an imaginary universe just as it should be done in a real universe. Hipsters Do Not Exist -------------------------- I suspect my opponent intended to post this argument on an entirely separate debate as I cannot fathom any connection between oppressive 22nd Century robots and a pack of pretentious 21st Century upper-middle class wankers. Nevertheless. hipsters certainly do exist, as the embedded You Tube clip clearly demonstrates. Things that don't exist shouldn't be allowed to marry in robot churches. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have already established that the robots and Homos of the future a) exist, either in reality or in our imaginations and b) that they will follow the same religions so it would be a clear breach of Homo rights if the robots denied them access to churches in order to get married. Thank you. . http://www.youtube.com...
Homos should be allowed to get married in church

Frankly, I'm very surprised this topic has not been debated on this site before because it may have a profound impact on society in the future. So, without any further delay, let the debate begin! Experts such as Professor Steven Hawking agree that it is only a matter of time before robots seize control of the world's public institutions, including places of worship, and Homo sapiens sapiens - or ‘Homos' for short - will be demoted to the status of second-class citizens. (1) With this being the case, it is highly likely that the robots would no longer allow Homos to get married in church, preserving such places of worship for their own ceremonies instead. However, I believe that this would represent a gross act of discrimination against our descendants and that's why I assert that Homos should be allowed to get married in church. Thank you. (1) http://www.guardian.co.uk...
know=physical experience

know = physical experience If one vividly knows about about something, it does not mean that they necessarily WENT or DID something of that. For example, let's say that a student was researching about World War Two. They read about the Holocaust and concentration camps. Did they GO to a concentration camp as a prisoner? Probably not. One can know about something but not have to view it firsthand. Also, your solution for "know" is invalid. The statement know = physical experience means that "know" can only lead to one solution. If you know that 2 + 2 = 4, it would not necessarily be "physical experience" per se, because you cannot experience math, but you can know about what it is.
No-Fly Zone over Syria

I'll wrap things up: Regarding cost, my opponent claims it would cost America $100mn due to Libya costing $1bn. Now, firstly this implies America is the only funder, which I repeatedly, explicitly state would not be true. The cost would of course be lower than this as well, due to the nature of the cost not being a straight line: the larger the area, the more rapid the cost increase (so a quadratic increase), due to need for more specialised equipment. All other arguments have been dropped by my opponent to this point, so I see no reason to bring them up again. However, I repeatedly and shall again point to my primary arguments. Precedence shows that the NFZ is a good idea. The NFZ saves many, many lives if in place. It further will deter and prevent biological warheads and chemical warheads being used. Each of these arguments alone undermine CON's position. The lack of rebuttal to them should be glaring.
No-Fly Zone over Syria

Wikipedia? Really? There is substantial evidence[1] that shows that the NFZ in Bosnia did in fact lead to some of the worst atrocities witnessed by mankind. Second, on the issue of cost. The Libyan NFZ cost billions of dollars[2,3]. You yourself said a NFZ operation over Syria would cost ten times less than the Libyan one due to the fact that Syria is smaller than Libya. Let's say that the Libyan NFZ cost $1 billion (we know it was substantially more), 10% of that would be $100 million. So thus, a Syrian NFZ would be at least $100 million. There is also other evidence that suggests it would be expensive[4]. PS: This was a good debate. You up for a Syria NFZ - Part II? 1. http://www.salon.com... 2. http://www.voanews.com... 3. http://thehill.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com...
No-Fly Zone over Syria

Firstly, the positing of a No-Fly-Zone costing hundreds of millions is still unjustified. Quite frankly, making up numbers is poor show. Further, again, one is assuming in this argument that both sides are feasible. If we debate, for example, whether we ought to use nuclear weapons, saying "we won't anyway" isn't an argument. Similarly, debating whether we ought to initiate a NFZ, saying "we won't anyway" still is an unsubstantiated argument. Further, the NFZ in Bosnia led to no atrocities. The lack of citation by my opponent is evident enough. Operation Deny Flight caused barely a dozen casualties[1]: operation deliberate force, which was not a NFZ, may have causd atrocities, but that is not the debate. Moreover, the distrust contention is unsubstantiated. The action in Libya brought Russia closer with the UN in actions, for example, not further away. Nor is there any justification that Russia/China would take action against the UN if the UNSC, which includes Russia/China having veto power, gives the go-ahead to a NFZ. 1 - http://tinyurl.com...
No-Fly Zone over Syria

The NFZ over Syria will still be very costly, costing hundreds of millions of dollars. America here is very important because right now the key nations vouching for a NFZ are France & the UK. Without America's full support, the NFZ has less chances of being implemented. Also, a NFZ will lead to more ground attacks. The Bosnian NFZ led to some of the worst atrocities ever seen by mankind, which occurred as a result of the NFZ. I did not object to your initial arguments simply because I agree fully with you, but I believe we must consider the harsh consequences of a NFZ. First is the money issue (it is simply too costly). Second, we must consider the global issue. Implementing a NFZ will lead to distrust between the UN and Russia & China. This will lead to further hostilities between the East and the West. Distrust and alliance are what led to WWI and which can lead to a global military crisis if not carried out wisely.
No-Fly Zone over Syria

I propose a unilateral UN-enforced No-Fly Zone. Thus, all my opponents criticisms are moot. I am not American, nor do I see any reason for myself to presuppose American policing in this debate. However, regarding cost, Syria is ten times smaller than Libya, so the cost would be, at the very least, ten times less. Further, a full "no fly zone" would be easier to enforce due to the nature of Syria's air force being older technology. Secondly, my opponent has failed to criticise either of my points. Judges should considered them dropped and conceded.
No-Fly Zone over Syria

Forgive me for forfeiting Round 2, I simply forgot about this. Now back to the debate... 1. No-fly zones (NFZ) are known to be very costly. The Libyan NFZ was billions of dollars. Also, to support the number of planes required is just too much for the American economy to handle. It approximately 80 combat jets[1] are required to upkeep a suitable NFZ over Syria. 2. Syria has ties with powerful nations, such as Russia and China[2]. A NFZ would signify American intervention in Syria, which will affect our relationship negatively with those to nations[3]. 3. The American economy is not ready for the American military to intervene in every conflict that happens in the world. We must worry about ourselves for now. [1] http://www.slate.com... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.nytimes.com...
No-Fly Zone over Syria

I accept. for reference, the debate is 1000 characters, if anyone thinks this is short. Firstly, No-Fly Zones protect civilians from biological and chemical weapons. No-Fly Zones have stopped chemical weapons, precedence teaches us[1], and the Syrian regime says they will use them[2]. The prevention of these weapons will not just help the local citizens, but will further help the local surroundings and the hard line against these weapons is necessary to prevent the repeated use in the area by other nations. Secondly, No-Fly Zones are used as a response to civilains being attacked. It is common knowledge Syria oppresses its citizens. Precedence further tells us that No-Fly Zones should be used as response to attacks on non-combatants[3]. Thus, it is only reasonable that we stick to our successful common response and enforce a no-fly zone. 1 - Operation Provide Comfort 2 - http://tinyurl.com... 3 - http://www.nytimes.com...;
Macro evolution 2

Haha.... So please let me first point out that points 1,2,4, and 5 were not attacked thus I win on them all for lack of refutation. My opponent goes on to attack my third point by using the number 0.01% per year. So first off i'd like to apologize for mis-portraying my evidence. The entire quotation is as follows: "Every star generates a stellar wind of particles that causes a continual outflow of gas into space. For most stars, the amount of mass lost is negligible. The Sun loses 10−14 solar masses every year,[33] or about 0.01% of its total mass over its entire lifespan. However very massive stars can lose 10−7 to 10−5 solar masses each year, significantly affecting their evolution.[34] Stars that begin with more than 50 solar masses can lose over half their total mass while they remain on the main sequence.[35]" -Wiki (stars) The important part is the "loses 10−14 solar masses every year,[33] or about 0.01% of its total mass over its entire lifespan" What I had meant to say was that it loses 10-14 solar masses every year which correlates to 0.01% over its entire life time, not every year. Thus your point falls. However you have no opportunity to respond to this and it was definitely my mistake, so if you would like to you can respond in the comment section. Voters please consider this. My summary however does not hinge on any of the 5 points. It hinges on the fact that macro-evolution doesn't need more than 10,000 years to happen. Macro-evolution can feasibly be happening around us today. This point you never attack, and drop, thus I for lack of refutation I have won the debate (in my own eyes). Thank you everyone for voting.
Macro evolution 2

ok i am bypassing your other arguments and skipping down to number 3. because i would rather not spend a couple more days researching ok so here goes nothing .3 ok you say the sun loses .01 ok so it had last year compared to its current version 100.01% ok agreed 2 years ago 100.0201 correct then 3 years ago 100.030201 ok so lets follow a pattern here so 10,000 years ago we would have had double the sun right yeahh ok 20,000 years ago 4 times the sun ok 30,000 8 times the sun 40 tousand = 16 times times the sun 50 thousand = 32 times times the sun 100 thousand = 1,024 times the sun 1 mill = 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 times the sun 4.6 bill = 2 to the power of 460,000 (my calculator ran out of room) (ok i did .01 is a ten thousandths of a whole so in 10,000 years 2 times ok so set that to 100 precent another 10,000 years you have 200% orginal was 50% of that and so 4 times the original in 20,000 years) so either we get sucked in by the incredible mass this sun alone would have or get fried your choice (we get fried either way) ok so there you go the votes will still go your way put i hope you have figured out that evolution and billions of years is rather crazy there you go 30 minutes with a calculator and the universe isnt 4.6 billion years old yet you will insist
Macro evolution 2

Okay. So lets look at what macro-evolution is. Macroevolution is the compound of micro-evolution. Being the idea that through microevolution a species can evolve into another type of species. Which leads us to the question of what a species is. "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology." - Wiki So what does it take for macroevolution to occur then? Simply the microevolution of a species reproductive organs. What would cause such microevolution? Gene mutation, habitat, pleasurable positions. So onto your random case. "Simple as this Evolution is impossible because the earth could not have existed for more than 6-10 thousand years " >>How does this prove micro or macroevolution does not exist? First off scientists can see microevolution happen, and macroevolution in single celled organisms at the very least. Secondly carbon dating is trust worthy up to 50,000 years and it is thought that the world is billions old. Where do you pull 6-10 thousand from? "there for no evidence that evolutionest have are valid and there for evolution is impossible...." >>Not seeing the logic. Even if you can prove to me that evolutionists have no evidence that is valid how does that disprove macroevolution?
Assisted suicide should be legalized

I would like everyone to know that I have chosen this debate because I want to be pro for it, and I understand that my opponent is new on this website but it's still their fault for doing this. Not mentioning that my opponent has had 4 debates and I have has 2 so therefore, I am newer than him/her. Now I would like to kindly ask my opponent to argue for the part he or she has chosen and I would will argue for the side I've chosen. Now for my main points: Image that you have a rare disease that makes you suffer every minute you live. You can't move,can't breath and can't do anything, the only thing you feel is pain. You are on assistance for breathing and the only thing you do all day is stand in bed. Do you want this, staying on a bed the whole day and suffer every second of it? Instead with assist suicide you get rid of everything, the bed,the suffering and then your free. I am sure that your family members that are in heaven (RIP) will be very happy with your decision. Second of all your family members will always worry about you. When your in the hospital they will always have their mind on you and they will always need to come and see you. It not only you that is suffering it's also your friends and family too. This will lead them to not working properly at work,not thinking normally, and not acting normally too. Soon enough they will become mental and this will never heal them. With assisted suicide you can just drink the supplement and then they will be happy that your not suffering and all their thoughts will erase. Lastly keeping a family member in a comma or with a assist machine that helps their heart or help them breath is very expensive. It can go up to 10,000 USD per day. A normal household can't afford that, therefore in some countries the hospital will keep the patient and you will never see your family member ever again. So what's more worth it a cheap drink that helps rest the patience and they will lose all their pain or the patience still with the disease and pain taken way from you forever? Thanks for reading my points and I hope that my opponent understands that the side you choose need to be the side you fight on or you can just forfeit all the rounds if you want.
Assisted suicide should be legalized

I would strongly like to make a apology I'm new to this debate.org thing and when i was clicked con I didn't notice it meant against on the right but i am pro. I strongly feel that assisted suicide should be legalized; however, with legalization comes regulation. As someone who just experienced her great-grandmother wither away in her last few months, just waiting for death in the end, I argue that individuals who are ailing as such should not be forced to wait in agony. She had lived by herself until her 99th year of life, cooking, cleaning, and maintaining all her faculties until the end. She was always a fiercely independent woman who sacrificed her life for the benefit of helping others. Yet in the end, she had to miserably depend on others. This was not representative of the life she lived and had worked so hard for, and in my opinion it is unfair to have forced her to end her life in this way. Once she knew the end was near, she should have had the legal option to request a painless death with the assistance of the proper authorities (medical, etc.)If the constitution guarantees us the right to life, why should we not be allowed the legal opposite? Forcing one to live is just as unfair as forcing one to die.
I can put a positive spin on any situation

I can't give any situation anymore since you won't be able to answer them, but to be honest some are them are a bit weak in my opinion. 1. I live in the Netherlands so I don't pay for hospital bills, other than that you seem right. 2. I can agree with that. 3. I don't think it's positive for the African children, and it doesn't automatically mean more food for us. 4. Winning a game doesn't depend on the supporters but on the players. I don't think the outcome of the game has any relevance. 5. No objections to that. 6. If you mean 50 people anually then the chance of sepa is really low and I'd take the risk of having sepa. 7. Then that means you're getting famous because you're ugly and you will be made fun of, that's not really a positive thing as well. 8. True. 9. I think the life of that child will be no good since a young girl has minimal experience in raising a child and the kid will probably be forced into an orphanage. 10. If you subtract the bills for therapy and communication courses the amount wouldn't be that impressive.