BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
nike Vs. adidas

:D Because my opponent never told us who he was for, I will start out by choosing Nike. From my opponent's statement, "Nike is boss" he has already conceded that I am to win. Now before I begin this round I would like to set up the definitions to create this debating atmosphere: Nike: In Greek religion, the goddess of victory, daughter of the giant Pallas and of the infernal River Styx. Nike probably did not originally have a separate cult at Athens. As an attribute of both Athena, the goddess of wisdom, and the chief god, Zeus, Nike was represented in art as a small figure carried in the hand by those divinities. Athena Nike was always wingless; Nike alone was winged. She also appears carrying a palm branch, wreath, or Hermes staff as the messenger of victory. Nike is also portrayed erecting a trophy, or, frequently, hovering with outspread wings over the victor in a competition; for her functions referred to success not only in war but in all other undertakings. Indeed, Nike gradually came to be recognized as a sort of mediator of success between gods and men. Adidas: Adidas is the modern god of flying footwear. He is interconnected to the great flying spaghetti monster and he cannot do anything but eat butter toast and say, "Cool bro, Nike is totally cool. " [1] . http://www.britannica.com... :)
Smoking is as bad a Obesity

Firstly I believe that obesity and Smoking as are worse they both depend on how you decide to treat it and how you decide to act on it. o if you choose to smoke because you want to then consquences will follow also if you deicide having macdonalds and KFC every meal time then again live with the consquences. your not going to ban smoking just because some people hate it more than macdonalds or KFC are you??????????
Earth would not have become the planet of the apes without the Simian Flu.

This debate will be about the Planet of the apes movie series (both old and new). I will be arguing that if the Simian Flu virus had never occurred the Apes never would have become the dominant species on the planet. Everything that occurred in Rise of the Planet of the Apes will remain the same with the exception of the ALZ-113 triggering a simian flu virus. In this alternate time line ALZ-113 has no effect on humans what so ever and Gen Sys abandons the ALZ project. However ALZ still causes Apes to gain heightened intelligence. I (Pro) will be arguing that (in this timeline where the Simian Flu never occurred) the Apes would fail to replace humanity as the planets dominant species and humans would remain in control. Con will be arguing that the Apes would have surpassed humanity and defeated it and that Apes would still become Earths dominant species. Good Luck.
God created everything

Oh father please help pastox for he is a lost soul. "Heh, this is a non-sequitur (1); such a rationale could be used to support the idea that satirical deities "created everything," as well." It could if other deities existed, but only the Catholic Christian God exists. It is logically impossible for any other deity to exist because they aren't all loving and all holy like God. "My opponent's premise can be used to support varying conclusions (existence of the FSM, for example), so this is a non-sequitur, too. Humans are fine-tuned to the earth -- but I fail to see how that affirms the resolution. The earth didn't adapt us -- *we* have adapted to the earth." We adapted to the earth? Obviously my opponent must be kidding. This isn't a game of pokemon: things don't evolve. I mean what, all of a sudden did a chimp get the experience and evolved into a human? You have got to be kidding me! As far as the premise supporting the flying spaghetti monster, it says in the Bible that God created man in His image. Does the flying spaghetti monster look like a man? No! So the perfect universe and our existence only serves as proof of the Christian God and not the FSM. "To be all-powerful is to be logically contradictory; to be logically contradictory means god can't exist logically; if god can't exist logically, then it isn't logical to think he "created everything." That which cannot logically exist cannot logically create." God created the logical and therefore exists above logic. Things that seem impossible are just things that our imperfect, inferior minds can't comprehend whereas the superior, almighty, all loving god exists! And yes, being all loving and all powerful does mean that god created everything because he loves us so much he uses his power to create us! :) In the name of the fatha, the son, and the wholy ghost, I pray that you vote PRO. For the fatha! Thank you :)
God created everything

Thanks again to deity. <"DNA is the proof. The code is like TCAGTAGTA: its so complicated. Only God could create something like that."> Heh, this is a non-sequitur (1); such a rationale could be used to support the idea that satirical deities "created everything," as well. <"Also, our universe is so pretty and perfect and what you atheists think it occured like that for no reason? Our planet is at an extremely perfect spot in space and that's because of god!"> My opponent's premise can be used to support varying conclusions (existence of the FSM, for example), so this is a non-sequitur, too. Humans are fine-tuned to the earth -- but I fail to see how that affirms the resolution. The earth didn't adapt us -- *we* have adapted to the earth. <"And God did create everything because He is Holy and all loving and all powerful. He loves everything so much that he used His powers to create it! See, I've proven to you that God exists."> To be all-powerful is to be logically contradictory; to be logically contradictory means god can't exist logically; if god can't exist logically, then it isn't logical to think he "created everything." That which cannot logically exist cannot logically create. ...but yeah, saying "god is holy, loving, and all-powerful; therefore, god created everything" is non-sequiturial logic, as well; being all-powerful, loving, and holy doesn't necessarily mean god created. (1) = http://www.merriam-webster.com...
God created everything

The all loving God will eternally torture you if you don't behave! And he says I don't have proof that God exists. I'll tell you the proof: DNA is the proof. The code is like TCAGTAGTA: its so complicated. Only God could create something like that. Also, our universe is so pretty and perfect and what you atheists think it occured like that for no reason? Our planet is at an extremely perfect spot in space and that's because of god! And God did create everything because He is Holy and all loving and all powerful. He loves everything so much that he used His powers to create it! See, I've proven to you that God exists. Is God not your everything? Is He not the way, the light, and the justice? Shame on you! I'll prove to you that god exists and created everything: God will bless me with winning this debate! There! Halyluya! Praise the lawd!
God created everything

Haha, thanks to deity for creating an amusing little debate. I'm sure it'll be rather amusing. <"We exist and worship him as he is the light and the love and the spirit and that is proof that he exists!"> Not only is the above reasoning fallacious in nature -- but it doesn't support the resolution; this debate isn't about god's existence; it's about whether he created everything. He can exist without having created; therefore, my opponent's rationale is irrelevant to the debate (God created everything.) ...to me succinct, my opponent hasn't in any way shown that God "created everything," and considering he's the claimant, the burden of proof is on him. I guess I'll wait until deity provides a relevant rationale to throw a retort his way...I'm definitely looking forward to seeing his reasons.
Gustavus Adolphus is the most fun name to say out of all the European Monarchs

"Say it once..." STALIN speaking: Gustavus Adolphus "...and then say it faster." STALIN speaking: Gustavus Adolphus STALIN speaking: Gustavus Adolphus STALIN speaking: Gustavus Adolphus STALIN speaking: Gustavus Adolphus STALIN speaking: Gustavus Adolphus "Then try to say it with a Swedish accent." STALIN speaking: Gustavus Adolphus
The American Enterprise System is the best form of economic system in the world.

I argue that the American Enterprise system is the greatest system, when implemented, in the world at our present time. It allows people the most meritocratic living they can have. Its perfect implementation simply would be optimizing freedom of opportunity to the highest degree by keeping barrier to entry into markets natural rather than artificially high or low causing market inefficiency with unnecessarily high product numbers, or inflated prices, or unneeded market scarcity. By letting the system naturally let suppliers meet their consumers demand, the system provides the best products at the fairest prices to producers and consumers. Government should only need to step in and alter this natrual flow if a company controls enough market share that it put down competition by raising the barrier to entry artificially high. When government steps in any other matter as a regulatory being, it should be simply to make sure that company's are honest about what they're selling, and only putting strict regulations on something as a last resort. Like say a food company starts selling food that's old and stale and continues to do so, the Governments job would be to make sure that this is known by the customers rather than forcing them not to sell and not to buy because they'd go out of business pretty fast unless people started liking it, in which case the fault goes on the consumer for getting sick. Now I'm sure you'll bring up workers, labor, and availability or at least point out I didn't mention that, but I'm tired and I'll talk about it in round three in response to whatever you bring up.
The American Enterprise System is the best form of economic system in the world.

For the sake of the debate, the American Enterprise System is not defined as the current system ran by the United States. It is instead defined as: A free market regulated in such a way that prevents monopolistic practices that unnecessarily raise ease of entry into markets and limits its own regulations on businesses and individuals. In essence a system designed to allow the most competition for all parties: workers, entrepreneurs, firms, and consumers a like. Rules, Round 1 Acceptance and Opening Statements, Round 2 Body and refutation, Round 3 Rebuttal and Closing. Post questions/clarifications in the comments.
homeschooling should be banned

Hello today we have four rounds.1. Acceptance, Definitions, Rules, Status Quo2. Arguments3. Rebuttal4. ConclusionRules 1. No forfeiting or 7-point goes to the opposition2. If not follow rules lose the debate3. No trolling/ flaking4. Have to follow structure.5. No comments in voting6. At least the ELO of 4000 to vote, or counted as vote bombs. It is everyone until m93samman but lannan13 can vote. 7. People have 0 loses can't vote on this debate.8. Pro has to say homeschooling should be banned.Defintions 1. Homeschool: to teach your children at home instead of sending them to a school2. Ban: to say that something cannot be used or done Status Quo1. Homeschooling or homeschool is the education of children at home, typically by parents or by tutors, rather than in other formal settings of public or private school. Altough prior to the introduction of compulsory school attendance laws, most childhood education occured within the family or community, homeschooling in the modern sense is a alternative in developed countries to attending public or private schools. Homeschooling is a legal options, allowing them to provide their children with a learning environment as an alternative to public or private schools in the indivisual's home.Sources http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...Debate Eduation SNT
There should be a minimum age for netflix and chill.

Con has forfeited their round Saying: Netflix and chill Interpretation: Wanna come over to my place so we can watch Netflix then have sex? Just think about that interpretation and tell me that there should not be an age restriction on this saying since we would have little kids (11-17) would be having sex just by watching Netflix then having sex with their girlfriend/boyfriend. I'm only going to type that since I've pretty much made my point.
Sina's Challenge

(Debate currently impossible to accept, comment or PM me if you're interested). This resolution needs some explaining, so before I go into the rules, here's how the debate works. Anti-Islamic Activist Ali Sina pledged to give away 50k S Dollars to anyone that can disprove that Muhammad (pbuh) was among the following charges: -a narcissist -a misogynist -a rapist -a pedophile -a lecher -a torturer -a mass murderer -a cult leader -an assassin -a terrorist -a mad man -a looter This challenge however is inherently fallacious, as Ali Sina blatantly shifts the burden of proof away from the instigator of the claim to the one challenging it. So I will try to reasonably tweak his rules for the sake of the debate: -Burden of Proof is on Pro -Pro must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Muhammad was at least the 7 of the previous charges. -Be civil -Follow the format. -No semantics/Kritiks To clarify: Pro must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least 7 or more of these charges, Con must refute at least 7 or more of these charges. Terms: Muhammad: MuM17;ammad ibn F3;Abdullāh, in short form Muhammad, prophet of Islam who lived from 537 AD to 632.
Music Debate

It is, I always love to discuss music and especially to be shown a couple of new tracks that I like. Well, my final choice was a tough one but I chose it because of its complexity, the quality of the music and the originality of the song. Without further ado, this is Nine Inch Nails - The day the whole world went away. http://www.youtube.com... Thank you for the discussion, have a great day too! Thanks.
Music Debate

I'm not a huge fan of Florence and the Machine but that song was not bad. This next piece of music is an OST from one of my favourite films "Sunshine". This piece of music was also in "Kick A**" (it won't let me type it) but altered slightly. Great piece of cinematic music and one of the best things I've heard. When a piece of music rushes you full of emotion you know it is a winner. http://www.youtube.com... John Murphy - Sunshine (Adagio in D Minor). Enjoy!
Music Debate

Great first choice by the way, I was listening to Adele's "someone like you" earlier. Before I show my first choice, this discussion is going to be light hearted and a chance to explore some of the best songs we can think of; it's all subjective of course. That's the fun of it! Also I will try and get some variation but this is my personal music taste. http://www.youtube.com... I like all of their music so it was hard to choose. Enjoy!
It is economically illogical to pay for digital content.

I think it is abundantly clear at this point that my opponent has no interest in this debate. A pity. I suppose it is my fault for issuing an open challenge. I have thus far addressed my opponent's sole argument; he has offered no counterargument, nor has he addressed any of my own arguments. In consequence, I have nothing left to add. I would summarise my arguments, but the final part of round 1 is as good a summary as I can make given the lack of progress in the debate. Finally, despite my opponent's failure to actually debate me, I encourage voters to consider my arguments on their own merits and consequently vote Pro. Thank you for your attention.
Stop using Splenda

I'll pollute my body if I want and I'll put splenda in my coffee too!(Your sources were broken, only two of them seemed to work so I didn't get to assess fully)Your side-effects of splenda have no source and are only referenced as an ancedote in one of your sourcesLong-term exposure to splenda has been tested on humans:There is no indication that you can get adverse side effect from exposure to sucralose at the maximum anticipated levels of intake!http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...The effects of splenda on rats in the study by duke university (mind you was funded by The Sugar Association which is a chief competitor to splenda! ???) have not been observed in humans.http://www.nytimes.com...Sucrose is a 1= PRACTICALLY NONTOXICSucrose and Chlorine are "Not classifiable as a human carcinogen."so you are wrong that chlorine is considered a carcinogen.http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov...http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov...My other sources: http://ezinearticles.com...More:http://www.foodnavigator.com...http://www.gpo.gov...;http://www.gpo.gov...;vote me if you want...
Catholic Church should Marry Homosexuals

This is my first debate, so I am doing this rather blindly. I am proposing that the Catholic Church should start marrying same-sex couples. It is against the core Catholic teachings of love and acceptance that Catholics are supposed to practice to not marry gays. The Catholic Church is in rapid decline and many Catholics are no longer practicing. The Church's stance on issues such as gay marriage are scaring away younger generations. The Catechism calls out against homosexual lifestyles and calls it unnatural, and claims homosexuality is a choice, both ideas are considered by many, including me, to be quite ignorant, and very incorrect. If the Catholic Church wants to exist specifically in western civilization in the coming generations, they need to release their ban on same-sex marriage, not only in the name of morals, but for the sake of the livelihood of the Church.
Evolution does not necessarily refute Religion

First: It is ESSENTIAL that for this argument you do not require a literal translation of the Bible, especially the story of the creation. If you argue a literal translation, you shouldn't post here. It's that simple. Now, I claim that the theory of evolution can be in harmony with religious beliefs. That is, one can believe both in evolution and God. All one would have to do is accept the possibility that God used natural, scientific means--evolution--to create man. I think it's really that simple.
Evolution does not necessarily refute Religion

"Do not assume anything, ALWAYS state it in your resolution" Yes, a weakness of mine, I confess. I have a habit of not clarifying myself to the necessary degree, and for that I apologize. Still, even if we were to take my first argument as is, I am still safe. All I said was that religion is not necessarily refuted by evolution--this means that in order for me to be wrong, any and all religion absolutely MUST not be able to go hand in hand with evolution. So, either way you take it, my argument still works. "...what Jesus teaches his followers, and what evolution teaches its followers are different in that evolution is science and Jesus and the Bible is faith." True, but just because one is a Christian does not mean that their beliefs must only be what Christ taught. For example, I believe that 1+1=2, yet nowhere in the Bible does He teach this. Does this mean that I cannot believe in math, then? As convenient as this would be for me, it's simply not the case. One's beliefs are not "either/or" when referring to faith and science. It is fully plausible--indeed, an actuality--that one can have faith for some things and have knowledge of others. "...they believe in is that GOD created man, not the fact that man spontanteously and SCIENTIFICALLY morphed from monkeys!!" Just because something happened scientifically does not mean that it was not done by God. Consider the possibility that God -only- works through science. At first glance, this seems absurd--all the many miracles Christ and the ancient prophets performed could never be explained by science. Well, this only pertains to the science that we know. There is still so much that we cannot even begin to comprehend; how can we thus say for certain that God and His miracles do not break and are not outside of the laws of science? Of course, one may say that if we can understand how God works, there would be no faith for him. However, knowing how something happened still does not prove whether or not there is a higher intelligence/power that is causing it to happen. Thus, even if we may find, as absolute fact, how every miracle and work of God was performed, we still have not proven that God exists, and thus there is still need for faith. "Therefore, Intelligent Design is man was created by a higher being (i.e. a God) and evolution is humans evolving over time, no higher being involved." What I'm arguing is why can't there have been a higher being involved? Why can't one believe that, perhaps, God guided evolution--caused the genetic mutations, allowed some species to survive while others died out--until man was created? If He guided evolution in such a way that He caused man to eventually be created, gradually over time, step by step, certainly we can still say that God created man.
Evolution does not necessarily refute Religion

"exactly what religion are you going by?" My apologies for not explicitly saying it, but from the immediate reference to the Bible it's safe to say that I am referring to Christianity in general. "the very idea of something based on science is completly out of touch with something is based on faith and things that you cannot see. By definition, merely just for point and case, faith means having a belief that is not based on proof." This is true: if we could scientifically prove that God exists, then there would be no faith. However, evolution proves nothing about God. All it does is suggest a possible way that mankind came to be. You do not need faith to believe that mankind came to be, because the fact that we are here now is proof enough of that. Simply determining a possible method that God may have used to create man does not eliminate any actual faith in Him. "It would be silly to look at such a theory and say that Intelligent Design does not refute Evolution" The definition of Intelligent Design is as follows: "The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes." (dictionary.com) Thus, all Intelligent Design suggests is that the universe was created by some higher being--saying, then, that evolution was the process by which a higher being created mankind would still be in tune with Intelligent Design. "If it were meant to be that way, then the debates over teaching such theories to children in schools would not be an issue to make headlines in the newspapers..." The reason people believe that evolution and religion--or, to be more specific, Christianity--can not go hand in hand is that they hold a creationist view; that is, they believe that God simply, and more or less spontaneously, created man. This would indeed refute evolution. However, as the Bible does not need to be taken literally--consider how prevalent allegory and symbolism were in the cultures that wrote it: just look at the teachings of Christ and His many parables--it is thus not necessary to hold a belief in creationism. "...if evolution didn't refute religion then we would have to classify evolution as a religion in and of itself..." By definition, evolution could not be a religion as religion deals with the creation of the entire universe, not simply speculation and theory as to the origin of life.