BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The big bang theory is false

Thank you for accepting this debate and I hope to have an enjoyable debate The Big Bang is a theory that sounds impressive on the surface, but simply does not hold up to extensive examination. Here is how the Big Bang is often presented: Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the dot on a page. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it. There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions - Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from? If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together? If this "dot" spun rapidly until it exploded., then where did the energy come from to start the spinning? Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this "spinning dot" would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from. This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum. This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from. So therefore, all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction. However two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards. Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets. The Big Bang theory also ignores the First law of Thermodynamics, which says: "matter cannot be created or destroyed" Those who believe in the Big Bang theory are also either unaware of, or ignore the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" which says: "Everything tends towards disorder" And the list goes on and on about the problems with the big bang theory but I'm sure my opponent shouldn't have any problems answering any of my questions. Your Turn :)
The big bang theory is false

Thank you Con for your argument I would like to start of by saying please fix your spelling some of your words I couldn't understand so apologies if I misunderstand some of your arguments. Yes it is a mystery where the energy came from but I think the energy must have been created even though we don't know how to doesn't mean there is someone who knows how to. Are you trying to say all of the energy in the universe because I said something about it in the last argument and I don't think you argued it properly. And how does the big bang theory include God as a superior being because if so it contradicts Genesis. Thanks for the argument your turn
Washington D. C. Should be a state

I'll keep this simple, And am aware of multiple arguments against this. For one Washington D. C is a Historical monument which deserves more recognition than 'District' though this point is arguable, And debatable in terms of whether or not said recognition as a state. More accurately, Washington D. C should classified as a sort of 'city-state', In terms of having it's own autonomy of some sorts (Whether it be legislative autonomy, Or not). Now, To be clear, This is not actually my personal belief, Which is that it constitutes too little of the population to be considered a state, Or to be given state-level autonomy. With all this in mind, It's con's floor, As you said, Let's keep this debate civil. I hope for a productive debate.
can bananas walk

well to start off with as everyone with a basic year 4 knowledge would know that plants also are alive this means that bananas can in fact walk. In fact they are pacey walkers The reason that this debate will be a tough one is bananas actually only walk at night when they are still attached to their tree (as they are still alive when they are connected). Only a few lucky viewers have ever seen this occurrence but it is in fact been seen. My source will be the kid show 'banana in pyjamas' this is a humerus play on the fact that bananas can walk. If anyone can debate me i would be interested in debating with you because im actually a good debater, you've never seen me debate before :)
Israel is the major roadblock to peace, in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

I will agree that I made some historical errors there, but I stand by my my idea of the fear of attack leads to hostility. We must remember that Israel is not the only one at fault in any war. Just like in any car accident, it takes two faults to make the accident happen. With each war, both Israel and its enemies have been at fault. Israel has treated its non-jew occupants with little to no humanity in mind. However, they are not the only ones. Palestinians often carry out terrorist attacks on the Israeli civilians. The Hamas (a terrorist organisation according to the U.S. and the legitimate government of the Gaza Strip to the Arab world) have repeatedly launched attacks on Israel and they have responded in kind. In any case, all the hostility over the years has led to terrible war crimes by both sides. The harsh words, constant attacks, and seemingly imminent annihilation (both the Israelis and the Palestinians believe this) has fostered fear of the other party. Israel sees the Two-state-solution as a strategic disaster. The country would lose all of its hard fought land (despite the illegal occupation of it) and more and more attacks would become impossible to stop. A two-state-solution, while making sense, would require trust that neither party has for each other. However, Pro is right. Israel is A major stumbling block to peace. There are others that are just as formidable, but it appears that the nation with the largest most powerful army has not pursued peace as it should. Even if the terrorist attacks continue until the end of time, Israel should know enough to understand that it has to be the better man and step up to the negotiations. If they could put aside their old differences with each other, the Palestinian/Israeli conflict would be over. In debates like these, I mainly come to learn more about the subject and see if my perception of the events is the reality. This debate has proven that this is a good tool for doing so. I will look further into the history of the Israel/Palestinian conflict just so that I will not be so ignorant of the subject in the future.
Israel is the major roadblock to peace, in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Two main responses. . There are quite a few historical inaccuracies in the summary you offered. I"ll deal with the most serious of those errors below. . The main question I have though, is so what? Is your premise that since Israel "feels" threatened, it should be able to flout international law, and the entire world"s verdict? If you"ll permit a strained analogy, Nazi Germany attempted to legitimize its destruction of the Jews, because its society "felt" threatened by the Jewish people. "Feelings" are irrelevant. Morality and the rule of law are what counts, and in these areas, the official Israeli position has not a leg to stand on. To the historical inaccuracies. Your position is that the 1948 war was instigated by British troops, moving native Palestinians to the "Palestine" side of the UN partition. This is false. The war of 1948 was caused by Israeli troops going through the Palestinian side of the partition, carrying out mass executions, expulsions, and then burning the houses so they couldn"t return. This led to 700,000 Palestinians fleeing their homeland, at which point the Arab armies attacked Israel. You were fairly accurate on the 1967 war, although we need to make clear, that Egypt mobilizing its forces and enforcing a weak blockade on its territory, aren"t real acts of war, while Israel"s preemptive strike that started the conflict is. Not to mention the stolen land Israel then acquired, which it then proceeded to cleanse of Muslims/Christians, to make way for Jewish only settlements. The other major war was the 1973 war. Israel refused negotiations with the UN and Egypt over recovery of stolen Egyptian land, so Egypt attacked Israel. The two sides eventually reached a peace that lasts to this day, but ONLY after Israel relinquished the Egyptian land it occupied. Israel never "gave" Gaza to Hamas. They removed settlements, but kept in place the illegal blockade that strangled the economy, and military roads/check points. A ceasefire was brokered by Egypt in 2008, although neither side fully adhered to it. However, the relative calm was broken when Israel launched a strike killing 6 Hamas members in Gaza. At THAT point, Hamas began the rocket-fire in earnest. So this is what we have. Israel"s "fear" of attack is not only illogical, but completely false. THEY are the party that instigated nearly every hostility since 1947. They know how to achieve peace, as they achieved it with Egypt. It requires giving back occupied land. However, Israel refuses point-blank to adhere to this international standard, and thus, we have no peace. Before questioning the source material, make an effort to read the link below. http://www.ifamericansknew.org...
Israel is the major roadblock to peace, in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

"I will be arguing that Israel is not the only roadblock to peace" - Con I'm not sure that's the proper Con position. My original position is that Israel is the MAJOR roadblock to peace, not the ONLY roadblock. I'll try to respond to a few points you made, and begin with a few of my own. The creation of Israel isn't particularly relevant to today's peace process. Whether anyone likes it or not, Israel exists as an internationally recognized state. Furthermore, neither the Palestinian nor the Israeli position on the current peace-process, is affected by how/why Israel was created. The same is essentially true for the Arab response to Israel's creation. We can debate over the merits of it all day, but it holds little bearing on the relevant positions of both parties today, both from a moral and legal standpoint. My main argument is the following. Nearly every year for the past 30 years, the UN has voted on a measure called, "Peaceful Resolution of the Palestine Question". The stipulations are as follows. FULL Israeli withdrawal from occupied Palestinian lands, including the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, as well as a just settlement of the Palestinian refugee problem, based on the right of return. In case anybody views these terms as controversial, consider the following. These terms are endorsed by every major Human Rights Organization on the planet, and the International Court of Justice (with two judges being self-described Jews). The vote every year is basically the same. The whole world on one side favoring the Resolution (170 nations), and the United States and Israel on the other side, rejecting it (along with 3-4 small island nations looking for US aid money). The OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) which represents all 56 Muslim/Arab nations, drafted an initiative that mirrored the UN plan, but went a step further, in offering to establish normal ties with Israel, once peace is achieved. The radical but democratically elected Palestinian government of Hamas, has gone on record since 2007, as approving of a peace-deal based on the legal Pre-67 borders (the borders utilized in the UN/World-Court/OIC initiatives as well). There seems to be a broad world consensus on what a "just peace" entails, and yet Israel (backed by the US), rejects these simple terms. Thus, I dub them the major roadblock to a peace settlement.
Israel is the major roadblock to peace, in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

I will be arguing that Israel is not the only roadblock to peace, but the Palestinians, Arab countries, and Religious history has a lot to do with the conflict. My only credentials on this debate is that I did a high school research paper (10 pages long) on the conflict. I went in fully supporting Israel and came out hating the creation of Israel in the first place, and also hating the Arab reaction to the U.N. decision. Good luck.
Israel is the major roadblock to peace, in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

The Israel/Palestine conflict is one of the most compelling issues in modern history. Despite decades of attempted peace initiatives, an argument can be made that things are as bad as ever. Based on the "objective" evidence available (not strictly from Israeli or Palestinian sources), its clear that Israel is the major roadblock to peace. Try and keep it civil, we all want the conflict to end in a prompt and just manner.
Resolved: Economic freedom should be a higher priority than economic equality.

This debate will focus strictly on economic freedom vs economic equality. To avoid confusion, we will presume that both scenarios are to take place in a politically free society. Round 1) There is undoubtedly a connection between political freedom and economic freedom. If a society places equality above freedom, then it must infringe upon the liberties of individuals. For one man to be equal to another man, only two options exist. One is to reduce the wealth of the richer man through coercive means of taxation, in this case a legalized form of theft. Furthermore, a society of economic equals requires a robust state to manage the citizens as if they are chess pieces. These people are human beings, all with real hopes and desires. It is immoral to deny a person his natural right to the fruits of his labor. The concept of rights is also an aspect in this debate that must be observed. A state may be required to protect the rights of the people (to protect property rights, provide courts of law for fraud and/or abuse, to provide legal recognition of intellectual property and patents). This is an example of a proper understanding of the social contract, in which individuals of a society form a government to protect these rights from other individuals who would seek to undermine them (i.e. thieves). Wrongly understood, the social contract may be used as a justification to diminish the rights of the people by creating "positive rights," or rights that are invented and promised to people. Positive rights are not legitimate rights because a positive right would necessarily require that one's natural rights be violated as a means to achieving the fulfillment of the positive right. In order for one to receive his or her "right to a minimum income" (a positive right), the natural rights of fellow citizens to their own properties must be violated. This is immoral, as the means to achieving the positive right involve a loss of liberty. This is immoral because the loss occurs coercively via the state, but it is perfectly moral and even desirable for individuals or charitable organizations to volunteer to donate the fruits of their labors to those who are less fortunate. However, it must be noted that this type of transaction usually occurs as a way to relieve poverty rather than bring about an abstract virtue of "equality."
A game without rules is impossible

Lol how silly it may look, as long as it makes sense, its accepted as argument. Arguments why games with rules is impossible: 1. Everything is allowed is a rule! Yes, the rule that says everything is allowed is a rule because the rule says everything is allowed. It does make sense :P 2. Theres no rules is also a rule! Even if it may contradict itself, the fact that there is no rule is a rule itself. The rule says that theres no rules so there is a rule that says that theres no rules, plain and simple. I await my opponent :P
Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong

I will make this brief as I am running up against the deadline. My opponent's argument in a nutshell is that, if democracy was introduced to Hong Kong, the majority of people would benefit from the creation of a full welfare state and would vote for politicians promising such a measure. Firstly, I have shown that it is unlikely that the prosperous, industrious people of Hong Kong would, en masse, give up their well-paid jobs to live a life relying on state benefits. Secondly, I have demonstrated that politicians opposing a welfare state would highlight the costs of such a scheme, not only to individual taxpayers, but to the wider economy, and we mustn't assume that the electorate would be incapable of understanding these arguments. My final argument is that, in a democracy, the will of the majority should prevail over the vested interests of a few. That means that even if a pro-welfare state government were elected, by poorer people who would benefit directly and also by richer people who wanted to live in a fairer society, the people would benefit from enhanced public services but there might be a price to pay in terms of higher taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations, which may have a wider long-term impact on competitiveness. If the electorate considered any such negative impact too high a price to pay, they could vote for an alternative government at the following election which might dismantle or scale back the welfare state according to the voters' wishes. The fact that a Chief Executive (from a shortlist pre-approved by China) may be elected is not enough, the people of Hong Kong are entitled to determine their own future by voting in a government of their own choice in free and fair elections.
My Opponent Likes The Food of McDonald's

---COUNTERARGUMENTS--- My opponent has clearly misinterpreted my R2. He believes that I believe that he is Johnny Depp. This however is not so. It is clear that I believed him to be Johnny Depp's biggest fan--NOT Johnn Depp himself. Regardless though, he does affirm his liking of Johnny Depp by saying, "My opponent assumes that I am Jonny Depp, though if that is quite a compliment..." Just as the user Jigsaw likes "The Dark Knight" and Heath Ledger's performance as the joker, we must assume that my opponent Protagoras likes Johnny Depp. In fact, in trying to convince the audience of such false logic, he blatantly lied. User Scorpion Clone's profile picture while most definitely being a picture of Barack Obama, is a picture that depicts him very negatively. Why would Scorpion Clone do this to his "idol"? He does this because he is supporting Mike Gravel in the 2008 US Presidential elections--NOT Senator Obama. In following with my flawless logic, we understand that Xera enjoys fantasy, that PublicForumG-d likes dogs, and that theLwerd enjoys "The Boondocks". Otherwise, why would they pick their respective profile pictures? Thus, my opponent's counterargument must be dismissed because it relied on the assumption that I believed him to be Johnny Depp. I did not. However, I have again confirmed that he is his biggest fan. Again, nothing in my opponent's R2 hold any meaning because it was derived from an incorrect assumption about my own statements. ---ARGUMENTS--- As can clearly be seen, all my arguments still stand. Despite how "stupid" they may seem, my arguments at the end of the day are still arguments. Because my opponent has not provided even one argument that indicate that he dislikes the food of McDonald's, the audience must vote CON. Thank you.
My Opponent Likes The Food of McDonald's

To be honest, I just wanted to start the most ridiculous (but still arguable) debate I could think of. I do not expect to win. Oh well… ---Argument--- Johnny Depp, the idol of my opponent (as proved by his picture), is highly affiliated with McDonald's. In October 2006, Johnny Depp was awarded the "Courage to Care Award" along with McDonald's CEO.[1] Not to mention, two months ago, McDonald's manufactured a Johnny Depp action figure for their Happy Meals.[2] There is no question: Johnny Depp loves McDonald's. He even acknowledged the possibility of a future career there![3] Because My_Opponent=Johnny_Depp and Johnny_Depp=Loves_McDonald's, we must conclude that my opponent loves McDonald's. Therefore, my opponent loves McDonald's food. My logic is undeniable. Any attempt by my opponent to deny this should be absolutely ignored. And kittens. ---Counterarguments--- Thus far, Johnny Depp's biggest fan has yet to post any argument whatsoever as to why he does not like the food of McDonald's. Thus you vote for PRO. ---References--- [1] http://www.primenewswire.com... [2] http://www.yelp.com... [3] http://johnnydeppfan.com...
My Opponent Likes The Food of McDonald's

I'm not sure whether this is a joke or a trick, but, either way, I find this interesting considering the fact that I am repulsed by the sight of that stupid golden arch. Here we go. _________________ Definition: My opponent: The term "my opponent", as given by the framing of the topic, is referring to myself, Protagoras, as that would be the intuitive understanding of the topic. Do not allow him to come back in his next rebuttal and claim some semantical reason for as to why I am not his opponent, or something to that extent. ________________ Analysis: I can only provide you with a counter-claim, fortunately enough for me, the burden of proof lays in the hands of my opponent. My claim: I do not enjoy the edible products of McDonald's. I look forward to my opponent's response. _________________ Overview and Conclusion: To the extent that my opponent has not met his burden of proof, meaning, he has yet to prove the resolution true, you must vote CON. I ask my opponent to offer evidence for his claim. - Protagoras of Abdera
My Opponent Likes The Food of McDonald's

I strongly affirm the statement: "My opponent likes the food of McDonald's". My opponent's position shall be: "I dislike the food of McDonald's". Definitions: - McDonald's is the largest chain of fast food restraints in existence today. - "Likes" shall be defined as "To find pleasant or attractive; enjoy". - "The food of McDonald's" shall refer to the many edible products of McDonald's. - Ronald McDonald is the mascot associated with McDonald's. - The "Golden Arches" refer to the logo of McDonald's. Assumptions: - The many products, slogans, and trademarks of McDonald's shall be assumed as common knowledge. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to the above positions, definitions, and assumptions. They may be debated in the comments before the debate is accepted. ----- In a conventional debate, I would post a summary of my main arguments in my opening statement. However, the debate topic is far from "conventional" as I do not even know who my opponent will be as I post this. Thus, I will hold off and allow my opponent to make the first move.
Should all jews be shot

I, Masterdrave, Have been musing over this one for days. At first I thought - a Jewish boy shot up a school. Where"s his medal? But then I tracked back to where you had mentioned their big noses. And their greed. I started to feel something deep within. Something that felt as though it had been lying dormant for 70 odd years (74 to be exact - if you don"t get it I"m talking about 1945 the year that ended the best time when NAZI WORLD was almost a legit thing, Cunt that would have been sick, Bloody Nazi world haha anyway). As you can probably gage, I have some conflicting and complex views. I"d love to see you hanging from a low beam, For instance, But I"d also love to see Jewish noses hitting the floor. Ah well, When life gives you lemons! This has been Drave.