BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Large Hadron Collider should be used as a water slide.

My quote is intact correct and I asked Stephen Hawking to prove it in a tweet, so I took a screenshot of it (http://www.debate.org...). I think the Hadron Pig Collider could be made more interesting if they rigged it so there was a one in 7 chance of consuming the world, this would create a good image of earth as if the planet did get blown up aliens would think we're really cool, fun and wild because we risked destroying the planet. The Pig Collider would also help obesity by stopping lots of pigs from getting eaten because they're being whizzed or used for the planning. Your point about it creating bacon is invalid because your logic doesn't make sense, a gigantic planet destroying collider is arguably much cooler than a piece of bacon and it is also invalid because the result wouldn't be bacon, it would be pig body parts and lots of blood.
The Large Hadron Collider should be used as a water slide.

I welcome Finlyfinn to his first debate.However, I'd argue that a water slide is sciencey enough, as my science teacher said that science was the study of the physical world and all that, and a water slide exists so it's sciencey. Also, I don't think any pig-related ideas are good as a lot of countries have an obesity problem, and pig-related things just make them shove more fatty foods down their gob.Also, we all know that Stephen Hawking never said that dumb old quote, and we know that because Con hasn't provided us with a picture with Stephen Hawking and those words innit. Submitting a picture in round 2 wouldn't help Con's case as he'd probably just fake a picture. For all those real reasons, my quote is CORRECT! Does Finn even know what he's blabbing on about? I say no cheese.Another reason using the hadron collider as a water slide is because it looks like one. However, the hadron collider isn't fat so it isn't a pig so my idea remains superior. Con also seems to have left my arguments from round one untouched.Also, if your piggy idea were right, then we'd be able to make tasty bacon out of the collider. However, everyone would much rather have bacon than some nerdy gizmo, and so you're idea can paradoxically not be correct because if it were then the hadron collider wouldn't exist.Also, it would be better for our reputation. The large hadron collider has the potential to zap the earth and make it explode. If we want to change it into something else, we'd better change it into something impressive. If we get blown up whilst the collider is a water slide, then aliens watching us will think we're hip and fun. If we get blown up whilst the collider is a pig mixer, then aliens watching us will think we're obese and mentally insane.Also, I know aliens exist because I saw one.I thank you.
The Large Hadron Collider should be used as a water slide.

I think that using the Hadron collider as a water slide would be fun but it is not sciency enough so to advance science we need to put 2 pigs in and whizz them together, then bang them into each other to see if it makes the Pigs Boson. I also don't think that quote is real as Stephen Hawking actually said: "Using the Hadron Collider to discover the Pigs Boson would be like well epic." Stephen Hawking
The Large Hadron Collider should be used as a water slide.

To any science nerd, the large hadron collider is some particle accelerator gizmo thingy, but to normal people like me, it's a potential water slide. What makes chavs want to ride a water slide? Danger, and the large hadron collider is certainly dangerous. I heard that it can kill you in one zap (or something like that).But, not all science geeks disagree with me. The more cool science nerds, such as Stephen Hawking, would highly agree with me. See? I have the most intelligent man alive on my side. Con may look a bit dumb in this debate.If you want to hear him say it, just go to google translate, type in those words what he said and click the button that does the sound.I hope for a good debate.I thank you.
The existence of a God is fundamentally impossible

Seeing as my opponent has been concise here, I will attempt to do the same.The entire argument was based on the point that as God is logically impossible, God is entirely impossible. The argument, as I have pointed out, is like saying because Rambo is financially better than Rocky, Rambo is entirely better than rocky.He has ignored my entire argument in round 2, and very weakly touched on it in round three. He simply says "in terms of logic God is impossible". Therefore, he agrees with me. The disagreement was on whether God is fundamentally impossible, through things such as intuition, and emotion. For example, we can't logically prove something like suffering is immoral, or two is a number. They are intuitive, or semantical (called a "private language"). The claim that my argument relies on "all logic...is somehow inferior to emotions" is a false statement. In some cases logic has been inferior to emotion. For example, emotivism is a very popular moral theory, which places emotion as the guideline of morals. G.E.Moore, one of the most famous 20th century philosophers, believed that all morality came down to intuition. Keirkegaard's base values and base judgements - the ideas that we have a bedrock of intuitive knowledge - is one that is accepted by nearly all philosophers from all walks of life. I never claimed that logic is inferior to emotions. I never claimed that logic is superior to intuition. Simply, that if something is not rationally true, doesn't mean that it is emotively true, or intuitively true. My opponent's attempt at any reason why reason is better was "do not be ridiculous". Great response by the way.In conclusion, my opponent ignored my case, insulted my position, and put forth no counter arguments. His argument did not prove the resolution, while mine left room for doubt which, as per the debate of the resolution, makes there remain a possibility.P.S My opponent has failed to answer any clarification points. I wish I could have had an answer, so the quality could have been improved, but, alas, none was given.
The existence of a God is fundamentally impossible

In this conclusive debate I can but only rebut your one point that was raised. Your entire debate seems to rely on that all logic, reasoning and any method of telling whether something is true or false, possible or impossible is somehow inferior to emotions? Please do not be ridiculous! There are many schizophrenics who hallucinate sights or sounds or feel the presence of totally non-existent entities. They have paranoid thoughts of someone chasing them (similar to that of God guarding them) and can simply not understand that emotions are inferior to logic when judging possible or impossible things.In conclusion, it's all good for the whole world to have an imaginary guardian that they seem to not get rid of after childhood but fundamentally speaking, in terms of logic (logic is the only way to tell if something is possible or impossible unless you wish to hallucinate and say because it feels real, it's real) God is impossible!!!!!
The existence of a God is fundamentally impossible

Firstly, I wish to define impossible: Not able to occur, exist, or be done. Or, something that cannot be done.But, can God's existence be impossible? Well, let's look at this simply, I will use few words, because there is only one real argument that I hold, which prima facie goes above yours.God is rationally impossible. That is, we cannot show he is existent, or even possible, through logic. We can show that he is logically contradictory, but not generally contradictory.Let me use an example: If I was to say that Rocky is better than Rambo, then you could say, "well, Rocky has made more in the box office" (whether it has or hasn't is moot). This is a reason why financially Rocky is better than Rambo. But if I say that I think Rambo is better, that is transcendental of the financial aspect. It simply is true. In this way, God is logically impossible, because that involves the predicate that he stands by logical laws. God transcendes logical laws, and therefore cannot be 'proven' by them in the same way i cannot prove differentiation by first principle using literary devices, or prove gravity using Beethoven's Fifth. In conclusion, the proof of God's inexistence is not given, simply that, rationally, one cannot defend the premies. The intuitional value of the premise, however, is unlikely.Also, in anticipitation of any claims of "explained by science", I remind my opponent that if but one of these cases may be genuine, then God may still exist - even if they do not, then He may still exist. I require an inherent flaw in the personal experience argument. Disclaimer: I am not Christian, nor agnostically theist. P.S By God, are we using the word "God", or are we using "A god". If it is the latter, no random caps locks to state a deity. Thank you.
Is SocietyDebate.com better than debate.org

Debate.org is objectively better Used on site eta charset="utf-8"> Not supported with doc type - http://www.w3.org...; No end tag eta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"> Missing end-tag eta property="og:title" content="Society Debate" /> Still problem with the doctype ink href="http://netdna.bootstrapcdn.com/font-awesome/4.0.3/css/font-... Missing endtag
IVF Debate

It is problematic for couples to undergo IVF because the success rate for vitro fertilization isn't always 100%, meaning that there is a possibility that you will not give birth to a child. This rate steadily declines as the women get older, at the age of 35, there is only a 30 - 35% chance that the IVF will be successful, and will decrease as they age. It is also a very expensive process, with the cost as high as $20,000 and a "no return policy" once the process has started.
IVF Debate

Some basic benefit of IVF is you will have a successful pregnancy and also a healthy baby. A reason why a woman might undergo IVF is because IVF helps woman who are unable to conceive a baby because they might have blocked tubes and IVF helps provide the best opportunity for having a child using their own egg. Also just simply if a person is older which means that they are going to have low ovarian reserve the IVF will use it's natural sense to create healthy eggs. Another reason why a woman might use IVF is because they might have Polcystic Ovary Disease (PCOS) which is a syndrome that leads to irregular menstrual cycles and the IVF can help it get to normal.
IVF Debate

But there are very many legal issues that revolve around IVF, particularly, the ownership of eggs. If a couple were planning on getting a divorce, than the issue rises with who is going to be the rightful guardian of the embryo, disputes such as these are very serious to the point of even going to court for it. The cost for having to do this is also at a very high price, there are no "refunds" once donated, the idea of having a dispute over a life of a child can go very far and can go against many ethics. IVF isn"t something that should be treated lightly. Source: http://www.cnn.com...
IVF Debate

The reality of doing the procedure of IVF is that women can have a baby even if they have problems with their body not allowing them to have babies, IVF can help that and produce a healthy baby even with the slight chance of birth defects but most of the time the results are a pure and healthy baby. There are two procedures that IVF can follow which are ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) which is specifically for male factor infertility but the most common one that women take is called assisted hatching. Assisted hatching is a technique called micromanipulation which means that the scientist put this solution called Tryrode's solution which creates a better chance of the embryo to hatch and better chance of implantation to the endometrium. There are many different ways to get the perfect, healthy baby everyone wants and can't have but IVF helps you get the true gift you've always wanted with the procedure of IVF.
IVF Debate

Couples are usually given 1-4 embryos to harbor but there is only a small chance of conceiving multiple of those births. For starters, having multiple births may lead to a birth defect in the second child, premature delivery and child defect, all of which may harm the child. Also effective for multiple births through IVF would be stillbirth, spontaneous abortion, pre eclampsia, placenta previa, and, to a lesser extent, cerebral palsy. Children born with this has a higher chance of low birth rate, which can cause birth infections to grow in the womb such as cytomegalovirus, rubella, chickenpox and toxoplasmosis. Source: http://www.resolve.org... Source: http://www.webmd.com...
IVF Debate

My response to women and man who want to be a parent to do IVF is a good idea but I know there are some bad reasons why to not take up the offer of doing it but there are also some benefits to doing the procedure. Yes it might be very costly but think about how much it is for a naturalized birth of your own child without the injection of IVF, it still adds up to the same price and also your baby will be healthy. It's also good for women who have birth defects of chromosomal abnormalities or genetic disorders or even if the woman's fallopian tubes aren't working properly, not only does the IVF let you have a baby but also cures your body to allow to get pregnant and have a baby of your own. Source: http://americanpregnancy.org...
IVF Debate

But as stated before, for what happens to excess embryos that are produced during IVF is that they will be kept preserved, or frozen indefinitely to keep up their viability until it can no longer hold on to that. For that reason, couples who are looking towards an IVF procedure should know that once paid for this expensive system, that there are absolutely no "refunds" for the embryo, one of which, if a person has at least more than one injected, that the percentage rate that all of the embryos will survive is slim. Source: http://www.cnn.com...
IVF Debate

a genetic screening of the embryo which another word for it is Preimplantation Genetics Diagnosis (PGD) is very beneficial to the parents because it shows if the baby has a genetic or chromosomal disorder. This can also be very beneficial to the parents to recommend (PGD) when either or both parents have a heritable genetic disorder, if either parent has chromosomal abnormalities, advance mother maternal age, or if the mother has a history of many miscarriages. Many clinics have gotten request from parents who want to use IVF and do the procedure of Preimplantation Genetics Diagnosis and turn out to have a healthy baby as a result of it. Source: http://www.pennmedicine.org...
IVF Debate

But to preserve the embryos that have been donated, they must be frozen to remain viable for the years to come until they are to be brought out again. And as those years progress and the embryo begins to lose their viability, is it going against ethical circumstances? Many people see it as potentially, "killing" the child, or the embryo, if no one were to claim it and to just keep it preserved and frozen until someone does. Another ethical issue that this stirs up would be the problem with the "ownership" of the embryo once a couple has decided to split and one or the other would want to keep the embryo for themselves. This can cause severe cases that may in fact lead to a court case pertaining to this. Source: Reproductive Technology: Ethical Issues - In Vitro Fertilization And Surrogacy
Ben Affleck will make an okay (if not good) Batman.

I don't get how a chin is such a big issueIts not because he has a bad chin; its that he has a DISTINCT chin. Which may become distracting._______________________________________________________________________________I highly suggest you watch more of his movies,Did you forget All About Steve?I mean, he has done good, but he's been around for --what?-- twenty years? In this time, though he has done good, there is a reason why he is widely considered a better director than actor.____________________________________________________________________And to the most pressing issue:Everyone has chins.I only have one chin. And it is quite offensive of you to just assume that everyone has even one chin. My great cousing on my grandfather's side (twice removed) lost his chin is the alpaca attack of '68!
Ben Affleck will make an okay (if not good) Batman.

Haha no. I'm not calling you all of that. I'll just call you Fruit. 1. Ben is not a stinking plastic bag of jerk-weeds. He is not going to try to help Zack. No sane actor would do so. Ben has had experience in the field of acting for quite a long time now, and he, as anyone should, has definitely come to know that actors and directors should mine their own business and do their own job. The director's job is to tell people what to do and tell when to start and stop scenes. The actor's job is to DO what the director tells them to do, and either start or stop acting when the scene starts and stops, respectively. 2. I don't get how a chin is such a big issue. Everyone has chins. You have a chin, I have a chin, Ben Affleck has a chin, and Batman has a chin. At least Ben HAS a chin. The chin shouldn't even matter. I'm sure no one will mind or even pay attention to a CHIN. 3. Most times, an actor's acting is not their fault. Their acting abilities are set by the directors and producers, by writing the script and telling actors what to do. Actors try their best to do good with what they have (most of them), but sometimes, since the directing is bad, the acting seems bad. Also, most will tell you that Ben acted very well in films like "Argo" and "Good Will Hunting". 4. If you have seen no indication that he can, I highly suggest you watch more of his movies, read more of his statements, and watch some of his interviews. That will better will help you see what Ben is like as a person, actor, and director.
Ben Affleck will make an okay (if not good) Batman.

Mister Sir Kumquat Jr., (or whatever you told me to call you)I prefer you refer to me with my full title:His Llama-ness Mister Sir Kumquat the Awesome Jr. III 1/2 FROM 'MERICA! I forgive you for your ignorance._________ However, you need to realize that Ben is the actor and Zach is the director.I realize this, but I fear that Ben might want to "help" Zach. This could become catastrophic.______________________________________________________________________________About the Affleck Chin: I like it. It looks cool. However, it is a very distinct chin. Even with make-up, it will be noticeable as Affleck's chin. With his rather dubious acting career, it may become distracting to have Superman VS. Ben Affleck in a cowl.___________________________________About acting: I do not believe Affleck is a bad actor per se, but his acting is well known as hit-or-miss. Daredevil? Miss. Town? Hit. All his roles exhibit this. People seem split on his acting, but everyone agrees that he is a talented director.Now. I have heard that the town was a good example of him playing a more "violent" character well. I will take peoples' word on that. However, he has also has to be a playboy billionare, and an angsty character all in the same movie. Can he keep these multiple facets of Batman straight?I have seen no indication he can.
Ben Affleck will make an okay (if not good) Batman.

Mister Sir Kumquat Jr., (or whatever you told me to call you), your argument is filled with opinions. You say, "his acting skills are average." This is only an opinion, bro. While I will even admit that my arguments can be full of opinions, other people's opinions are the ones that really count. And those people cannot make solid and worthy opinions until they actually SEE the movie. In your second paragraph, you also bring up onions. I have already explained what really matters in opinions. You agreed with me in the third, so I can't really argue there. However, you bring up the Director's Cut. That is just editing of the original material, so in a way, it is just the same as Daredevil. In your fourth paragraph, you state that a conflict between Ben and Zach may arise. However, you need to realize that Ben is the actor and Zach is the director. Therefore, their skills should not conflict. And, given that Man of Steel is taken to be fairly good, Batman VS. Superman won't be a flop. Finally, you argue about Ben's chin. I must say, that was a little funny. However, a chin cannot spoil a part. I understand that Ben has some kind of beard-y facial hair (full beard or whiskers, I don't know which one he currently has). This is an easy fix. Have you ever heard of shaving? It's a thing people do. You know, to get the hair OFF of chins. It may also be the butt-chin you are referencing (if you don't know what I mean by butt-chin, it is a more immature way of saying "chin dimple"). Butt-chins can easily be healed, by this thing called movie Make-Up. Just about EVERY actor in EVERY movie has to wear movie make-up in order to further resemble the character they are portraying.
Ben Affleck will make an okay (if not good) Batman.

Ben is known to be a good actor and director.Ben is a good DIRECTOR, but his acting skills are average. He has done good acting, but think of all the bad acting he has done. Because he is working alongside the likes of Amy Adams, Russel Crow, and Henry Cavill, average acting is not good enough.Ben has had ten whole years to better up his acting and directing skills in the superhero genre.Being Batman requires acting in 3 roles: Bruce Wayne, Batman in the Batcave, and Batman.He hasn't done much in the playboy/carefree acting, and his dramatic acting is OK at best. Can he do both acting together? I haven't been showed that he can.Also, the failure of Daredevil wasn't really Ben's fault. Agreed. While his acting wasn't the best, he was NOT the downfall of that movie. Watch the Director's Cut. I would say that the Director's Cut was a GOOD movie.The director of Man of Steel was Zach SnyderThis might be a problem. The conflict may arise between Ben (experienced director) and Zach.My argument: THE AFFLECK CHIN! THE HORROR!
Ben Affleck will make an okay (if not good) Batman.

First of all, Ben is known to be a good actor and director. Take recent successes like Argo and The Town, for example. Secondly, you might argue that Ben was bad as Daredevil. I am not disagreeing with this, but what is needed to be realized is that Daredevil came out ten years ago, in 2003. Thus, Ben has had ten whole years to better up his acting and directing skills in the superhero genre. Also, the failure of Daredevil wasn't really Ben's fault. Ben did the best with the script and director he was provided with, and neither of those did very well. The movie Ben is set to be Batman in is the upcoming 2015 crossover film, Batman vs. Superman, which is the sequel to Man of Steel. The director of Man of Steel was Zach Snyder, and we know he can and will be a good director. We also have producers like David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan that we know can make it great. Well, that's all I have for now, next I will just counter Con's arguments.
Ben Affleck will make an okay (if not good) Batman.

1. What's the big point about this chin thing? Dude, your seriously the ONLY person I've known internet or real-life that seems to care so much about his actor's chin. 2. You say that Ben is better at directing than acting. People do better in different roles. His Batman could be great with a solid script and direction. Remember Heath Ledger being announced as the Joker? People thought that would be horrible, and everyone was like, "He's not gonna act well". Well look what happened there. 3. Cousing? What's a cousing? I believe you meant "cousin". And you are meaning to say that you have more than one chin? What planet are you from? In 1968, there was no alpaca attack. Study your history, bro.