BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Doge is not kill

My ContentionsI can extend the arguments presented in my case throughout the refutation of those of my opponent's.So PhilosophyMy opponent argues that because the Doge meme is unsustainable, it is kill. This statement is both premature and innacurate. Essentially, what she's saying is that if Doge is dying, it is no longer alive. Dying things, nonetheless, are still alive, and therefore not dead.Furthermore, according to the Google Trends chart shown in the previous round, interest in "Doge" is still rising as of December 2013. Along with that, my opponent dropped the evidence from both Know Your Meme and NBC News declaring that Doge is the most popular meme of 2013. It is still 2013, therefore Doge is not kill, and that's by using philosophy.So, even if my opponent wants to value analytics over evidence, Pro still wins this debate. Very ThinkHere, my opponent suggests that we re-read her first area of analysis. After doing so, I can confirm that is says the same thing, and my refutation still applies.Much Death On this matter, my opponent makes to statements.1. Doge is at the end of its life.However, I refer once again to the Google Trends map in Round Two. Once again, interest for doge is still risig, and my opponent has provided no evidence that suggests otherwise.Plus, even if it was at the end of its life, that would not mean it was dead, or "kill." It would simply mean that is was dying.2. The meme has always been dead because it was stupid to begin with.While I personally find that Doge has a unique comical appeal (as do the sources which I have posted above), I can understand that people would find this meme stupid. However, this does not automatically imply that the meme is dead. Regardless of how stupid my opponent may think the meme is, it's still popular.Lack of Evidence My opponent's arguments come from personal opinion, whereas mine came from solid numbers and factual evidence. Voters should value the contentions in favor of Doge not being kill above those of the opposistion because evidence provides for a more stable argument and overall conversation[1]. Wow Vote Pro[1] http://neweducators.dpsk12.org...
Doge is not kill

I agree with my opponents definitions Now, I will provide the following arguments: so philosophy, very think, and much death. Contention one: so philosophy. Now, my opponent argues that at the moment, doge is not kill, but I will argue that it is kill if it is not live. (Live is the poorly structured way to say sustainable). You may have heard the saying "it was dead before it started." The same thing is true for doge. Why is this? Most memes get overused and die out within a month or so of usage,which means that doge is at the verge of his usage rates dropping. Now there will be those few people who come in late on it and overplay it past the point where it was already over played, but they can't be taken into account to make doge live. Anything will pretty much always be used by a few people, but it's not a valid way of defining live. Live stops when something becomes agreeably overplayed by a majority of people who make/look at memes. Contention 2: very think. Think about my first contention a little bit harder, because I get the feeling you started to glaze that. Contention 3: much death. Doge is in the period at the end of his life. Statistically the live state of things like this only lasts a couple of months at most after becoming popular. At some point it's just stupid, and doge was pretty stupid to begin with. Actually I think my IQ dropped when I wrote the tag lines to my contentions, which for me is pretty detrimental since it was low to begin with. Such summarize: Well, pretty much, I've just said everything that everyone knows. Doge has reached the end of its live state. Philosophically, doge is kill. Very sources. Wow. Why the crap do I need sources for basic facts of life?
Doge is not kill

Terms of the Resolution"Doge" refers to the current Internet meme. Judging by my opponent's acceptance, I assume that she's aware of this meme and will not bend the definitions of this word."Kill," in this instance, is an adjective as opposed to a verb. In the spirit of the poorly stucrtured grammar used in the Doge meme, I used "kill" to replace the word "dead." This is the explicitly stated intention of the thesis and will not be altered."Dead" can carry two meanings. While the real Doge is obiously not physically dead, this is not the thesis I am arguing (seeing as Doge might die in the middle of this debate, in which case I'd be in a poor situation). Instead, in this debate, "dead" will refer to the meme as opposed to the actual dog. While the fact is unfortunate, I will be arguing that the Doge meme is not dead.Doge is Still TrendingIn November of 2013, Doge saw in incredible rise in interest on the internet, and while that rise is somewhat smaller this month than the previous, this month's statistics are incomplete and regardless, intrest is not declining, and is certainly not "kill." Source: Google Trends [1]On top of this, the semi-official meme source Know Your Meme has this meme under the "research and evaluation" phase[2]. This memes that as of now, the meme is neither confirmed nor deadpooled, but since the meme is not deadpooled, it is not currently "kill." Plus, judging by the current trends (see chart above,) it is highly unlikely for KYM to deadpool the reference.Mainstream Mediaon December 13, 2013, NBC News confirmed Know Your Meme's meme of the year to be none other than the one and only Doge. Acclaim for Doge among not only the subculture of the internet, but the common people, has risen above that of the Harlem Shake, Wrecking Ball, and "Hadokening"[3].With Doge at the height of its popularity, while it's quite possible that Doge will fail within the next few months, it certainly has not failed yet, therefore making it anything but "kill."More points and sources will be provided later in the debate, but for now I will open the floor for refutation. Very Sources. Wow.[1] http://www.google.com...[2] http://knowyourmeme.com...[3] http://www.nbcnews.com...
People are racist because of Darwinian Evolution

People are generally less and less racist as time progresses. Slavery has been abolished in the United States, and is far less prevalent on the planet than it was a few centuries ago. Integration is more of a thing now than it was even half a century ago. I would argue that evolution actually makes people progressively less racist. I would also argue that racism stems from a lack of exposure and a lack of knowledge, which equate to a lack of acceptance. In scientific terms, evolution is purely the survival of the fittest and the gradual adaptation of genes and physical attributes to fit the surrounding based on those who fit it slightly better than others surviving which, over millions of years, looks like an almost designed attribute when, in reality, it comes from the weaker of the species dying out and the stronger being more attracted to those who do better. Since there has only been an increase in all populations across the board, evolution cannot be blamed for racism.
Resolved: Overall, it is a better value to buy a PC rather than a Mac

"I urge the audience to refrain from giving Pro the conduct point; concession can be viewed as good conduct. It's a demonstration of honesty, and keeps things polite while avoiding pointless argumentation."Yes, I agree, that is what I said. Read my round 4 again carefully. " I ask all voters to give my opponent the conduct point for conceding."Thank you.
Resolved: Overall, it is a better value to buy a PC rather than a Mac

Hardware Choice- Macs aren't limited in choice anymore than a PC is; Macs and PCs use the same hardware. Both are equipped with the same Intel processor, hard drive, memory, and use a motherboard made by the same manufacturer. So in regards to hardware choice, Macs are at least equal to PCs. (1)Compatibility- Less software may be compatible with a Mac, but this is because of the same restrictions on programming that result in Macs being more secure and having less viruses than PCs. (3)Customizability- It's easier to to customize a PC, but the Mac is already perfect (4) so it doesn't need customization.Keyboard Shortcuts- There are so many keyboard shortcuts in Mac one couldn't possibly ask for more. (5)Linux- Pro already conceded that it's possible to install Linux on a Mac.ConclusionMacs are better quality than PCs. (2)I look forward to your next response.(1) http://computercareclnc.hubpages.com...(2) http://apcmag.com...(3) http://www.computerhope.com...(4) http://www.technobuffalo.com...(5) http://support.apple.com...
Resolved: Overall, it is a better value to buy a PC rather than a Mac

Thank you for accepting.ArgumentsHardware Choice- There is a wide range of PCs in the market for a buyer to choose from. Macs are limited in choice because they are all made by Apple. For example, if you are just using a computer for browsing the web and email, then a lower end PC is suitable. If you need a PC for gaming or programming, you can choose a higher end PC. There are no lower end Macs so someone who uses their computer for simple tasks would end up unnecessarily paying more. It is also easy to customize parts or build your own PC. (1) (2)Compatibility- More software is created for Windows, thus it has more compatibility. There is also a wide range of Mac software, but the range is significantly smaller. Just look at the software library for Windows at CNET, then look at the library for Mac. (3) This is extremely important for gamers, because many games are not compatible with a Mac.Customizabilty- Windows is so much easier to customize than a Mac. On Windows, you can change the desktop wallpaper, fonts, styles, themes, taskbar, and pretty much anything you want with third party themes.Keyboard Shortcuts- In any Windows application, you can access any menu with 2-3 keystrokes. With Mac apps you’re limited to the shortcuts chosen by the app developer. You can access any control or navigate windows with the keyboard.(5)Linux- Dual booting is extremely easy with a PC. You can install any Linux distribution and run it alongside Windows, or replace it. Linux distributions are free and easy to use. It is possible with Mac too but Linux is easier to install on a PC.ConclusionBuying a Windows computer would be more cost efficient because of the wide range of hardware to choose from. It is also more compatible and customizable. The wide range of keyboard shortcuts are very efficient when navigating Windows.1. http://www.buildyourown-computer.com...2. http://www.buydirectpc.com...3. http://www.cnet.com... 4. http://windows7themes.com...5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: Overall, it is a better value to buy a PC rather than a Mac

I will be arguing that generally it would be better to buy a computer that is a PC rather than a Mac. (Definitions below) Rules and Consequence if Broken No semantics- Any debater who violates this rule will automatically lose No trolling- Any debater who violates this rule will automatically lose No plagarism- Engaging in plagarism will result in loss of sources and conduct point No harsh language or cursing- Engaging in harsh language or cursing will result in loss of conduct point Nothing that relates to flaming, trolling, or changing the debate from its original intent- Any debater violating this rule will automatically lose Definitions PC- Generally refering to a computer running a version the Microsoft Windows operating system. A computer running a Linux based operating system will also be reffered to as a PC. Mac/Macintosh- Computer built and sold by Apple Inc. Any other unclarified term will be defined by Bing Dictionary. (www. bing.
god is not real

god is not real i want you to show me proof i want some hard evidence that god is real. if god was real how come bad things happen to the world. how can every religion claim to be the only one, how can they preach love yet fight each other holding guns. evolution makes more sense then a big guy in the sky creating the world in "his image" how can people find faith in a guy who kills people that are close to them how can they believe that the guy in the sky love us all it just doesn't make sense. the bible has so many flaws like why hasn't there been second coming yet why does god say he loves every one then say that people that love the same sex as them can not be loved????
There is evidence for creationism.

Cell theory isn't really a theory anymore than there is a theory that humans exist. It might have once been an impressive thing, but our understanding of cells and how they work are such that nobody learns cell theory... rather they are taught about cells. It isn't that spacetime is exactly net-negative but the universe has a lot of net-negative energies and net-positive energies and seems to sum to about zero. http://www.astrosociety.org... Further, even if this weren't the case, the fact that it's a possible case is enough to show your argument fails. Your argument is based on the concept that it could *only* be God. Beyond failing as an argument from ignorance, there's a pretty good explanation. Again, your "evidence" wasn't evidence but two really bad arguments from ignorance. Even if nobody knew anything about cosmology, that would be no reason to conclude a god did it. I can't stress this point enough... you haven't offered a lick of evidence for creationism. You need positive evidence in SUPPORT of the claim. Further, if there were evidence it should be trivially offered. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no evidence. "Energy explosion into matter still could happen", "Newton's first law"... I hate to point this out because it has no bearing on the argument (nothing you've said has any bearing whatsoever on the argument save some evidence which is yet unoffered (two flawed arguments are not evidence)): inertia has nothing to do with "energy explosion into matter" it has to do with tossing an object and watching as it keeps flying the direction you threw it. Your understanding of physics is horrifically inadequate, further deficits in how you express those inadequacies makes for a difficult argument to follow. One could be compelled by a reasonable argument. A flawed horrifically bad argument does not offer evidence. These are two ways to approach the same end point of a reasonable belief; I require the latter. I am not arguing that something specifically happened or that the Big Bang is true and creationism is false. I am arguing against one specific premise: There is evidence for creationism. As I can't prove the negative the burden is on you to trivially provide some evidence. With no evidence you fail your argument. Suggesting that it's either God or fairies... and fairies don't exist therefore it's God... is amusing to no end. That's the oddest false dichotomy I've seen in a while, but it still isn't evidence for creationism. You don't have to convince me of anything at all. You have to provide a tiny shred of evidence. Thus far, you've failed. Try again. You have two more posts in which to provide something suggestion the truth of creationism.
There is evidence for creationism.

First of all, what do you mean there is no cell Theory?! The cell theory is one of the most basic concepts in biology. how can you claim to know of all of these complicated space time notions and not know cell theory look it up in fact i did that for you http://fig.cox.miami.edu... http://www.infoplease.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://staff.tuhsd.k12.az.us... next of all i would like to know where spacetime is net-negative came from, the expanding state of the universe would show that the energy you claim is disappearing is on the edge of forever. if you want to say that the energy explosion into matter still could happen see my good friend Newton's first law. and these arguments do in fact give evidence. Evidence is something that furnishes proof. With no evidence what so ever any thing could have happened but with even these two facts we can see that the possibilities are limited to two possibilities. one god and two faeries. when you have eliminated the impossible what is left must be truth, and to deny the validity of scientific laws is pointless all that eventually leaves us with is believing in nothing, sure we could assume there is something superior to god and so on forever but that's a different debate. The evidence is here weather or not i can convince you is not part of my job.
There is evidence for creationism.

First i would like to say hello to my worthy opponent and secondly to say I'm only debating this for the sake of debate. alright, third, firstly of all i would like to submit a few definitions. Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis http://www.merriam-webster.com... Evidence : something that furnishes proof God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. (all from same place) i have two arguments, first being the third piece of the cell theory that all cells come from other cells. Scientifically this is true, thus where did the first cells come from? only a omnipotent being could violate and make exception to a scientific law. Secondly, that matter cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged. with the same origin argument matter cannot come from nothing, even with the big bang theory, what created the spark of energy, the only way to explain is an omnipotent source.
There is evidence for creationism.

For my closing argument i would just like to say the following throughout this debate i have given logical steps leading up to the conclution that creationism is true that makes it evidence. Through and through the debate my opponent however has produced nothing but a long list of complaints while everything i say is either ignored, patheticly repelled in a manner not unlike attempting to block a cannon ball useing styraphome, or grossly misinterpreted. My opponent will simiply not accept what i say for its value. I have attmpted to debate this topic while all i have recived in return are "no its not"s, "nuh-uhhh"s and insults. this is more similar to a quarrel with a small school child than a debate. The cell theory is real, and true cells come from other cells this is undisputable, and all my opponent has said in return is that its untrue and not real scince, judges everything i have shown has been backed by scince and logic. Nothing on my opponents side of the cell theory argument can even be concidered a rebuttal. cells come from other cells, 4.5 billion years ago there were no cells, to day we are made of cells somewhere inbetween cells came into view thats my argument. To refute that my opponent would have to prove there would be a way for scintific fact to be violated short of divine intervention. Both sides have a burden of proof my opponent has given no proof in this argument and only a single peice in the creation of the universe argument which it admits itself is unlikly and unreliable. Conservvation of mass is real it is not phisialy possible to get something from nothing even matter and antimatter the universe is not a math question when matter and antimatter colide they explode and release energy, thus to go back into existance you would need.... ENERGY and lots of it plus that energy would have needed to be focused on creating matter and antimatter. since you cant get something out of nothing guess what you need some sort of god to do it. THere WE GO YOU LOSE this is the last argument and you have done nothing but whine about how my arguments have ground your insesant rablings into the dust. (As an aside, you don't know, or apparently understand Newton's Laws. An equal and opposite reaction is actually the third Law, not as you state the second Law.) even try to bring to the table a deffinition battle which my opponent has refused to take part in. Judges as my final statement i would like to say forget what you belive and read this debate and tell us who acctualy won i have given you arguments and evidence that has been refuted with basicly nill, nothing not a real shread of backfire, my opponent will only belive he/she has lost if i can convice him/her personaly, that i dont care about. I have given evidence he has not, i give you conclutions he has not i have given you a debate he has not, i have won this debate he has not.
Opponent picks topic.

Please ignore my opponent's round 2 arguments. We changed the BoP to the following:It is very likely intelligent, communicating life exists. ==c1: Size of the Universe== The size of the universe is billions (if not infinite) of light years across. Scientist estimates suggest that there are about 1e+12 galaxies in the observable universe alone [1]. Per each galaxy, there are 1e+11.5 stars [1]. This means the amount of stars in the universe are estimated be about 1e+22 to 1e+24, which is out of our normal number zone. Now, we must look at which stars have Earth-like planets. An official Observatory station puts the amount of stars with an earth-sized planet in the life zone at about 20% [2]. This means about 2e+23 planets are in the habitable zone of life in the universe. Take Kepler 22, for example [3]. It is in a spot where it is not too hot nor too cold for life to exist and weather can happen. If there is 2e+23 planets in the KNOWN universe alone that can contain life, there must be higher than a 90% chance that life has existed or is existing. If my opponent states that it has to be "Homo Sapien," then there is still a higher than 90% chance that an intelligent bipedal creature has, at one point, existed. In fact, we recently found a new planet that may have a "100% chance of life [4]:" "The chances for life on this planet are 100 percent," Steven Vogt, a UC professor of astronomy and astrophysics says. "I have almost no doubt about it." ==c2: Adding the stats==Now, let's say that out of the 2e+23 planets that can contain life, 0.5% of it evolves [5]. Note this is the lowest estimate (estimates range from just above 0% to 100%.) Now, we have 1e+22 planets with evolving life on it. Now, if just 0.000001% of this life turns out to be intelligent, we have about 1e+15 planets with intelligent life. If just 0.0000000001% of this life can communicate, we have about 10,000 planets with communicating life. Note this is one of the lowest possible scenarios.With the lowest possible scenarios still coming out as over 90% chance of intelligent, communicating life existing, I feel as if I have met my BoP. The math I used is shown below:1e+24 planets in universe(1e+24)(.20) (20% of planets similar to Earth and can contain life)= 2e+23.(2e+23)(0.05) (0.5% of life evolves)= 1e+22.(1e+22)(0.0000001) (the percent chance that life turns out to be intelligent) = 1e+15.(1e+15)(0.00000000001) (the percent chance that this life will communicate) = 10,000.Thus, we end up with 10,000 planets with species that are smart and have the ability to communicate.I await my opponent's arguments! [1] http://goo.gl... [2] http://goo.gl... [3] http://goo.gl... [4] http://goo.gl...[5] http://goo.gl...