BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for existence

"However, I am only conceding based on my own part not because CON's objection were actually valid or that I did not refute them." My objections were valid, and you didn't refute my arguments successfully regardless of your reasons for forfeiting. "In fact, if the topic was on philosophy, It would have been obvious who won the debate."Yes it would have been obvious who won the debate, the same person who actually won this one.
The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for existence

Unfortunately, after careful examination of my hypothesis, I realize I need to modify it in order to fit the data more accurately so I will have to concede this debate. However, I am only conceding based on my own part not because CON's objection were actually valid or that I did not refute them. In fact, if the topic was on philosophy, It would have been obvious who won the debate. Nevertheless, I concede under this debate topic.
The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for existence

I expect you to debate and argue under this context: I am arguing that the God Hypothesis indeed qualifies as a scientific explanation as well as the best one for several reasons. It is a rationally conceived hypothesis, it does not violate occam's razor compared to other theories, there is enough evidence that would describe the nature of this cause from connecting the data points, and most importantly its falsifiable. Moreover, since my approach is scientific in nature, the burden of proof is mainly on me. It needs to be five rounds for me to have enough ground to work under so I can adequately respond and address everyone of your objections However, if five rounds is too long for you, then You need to be the instigator while I become the contender. I have the burden of proof so I need to have the last word.
Slaughterhouses Should be Illegal

You had stated that animals are physically abused and taken advantage of in the slaughterhouses but not all slaughterhouses are the same. Five years ago Ben Eisendrath posted on article on the Atlantic.com that states, So what we had was a slaughterhouse that was gleamingly sanitary, complete with the USDA on-hand, processing local lambs in such a way that they appeared to have no inkling that the end was nigh. This an example of a slaughterhouse that is not cruel.
Slaughterhouses Should be Illegal

As stated by yourself slaughterhouses only provide half of the countries chicken. Meaning there is alternatives to slaughterhouses. While it's not the best way an example I can come up with at the top of my head is just shooting the animal so it's quick and painless. A Germ"n farm tested this idea as they believe the animals should die in the same place they were raised. Every morning they kill 2 cattles and with bullet shots so that it would be quick and it didn't even seem to bother the other cattle. When the shot rings out the other cattle lift their heads to see where the noise came from but almost immediately go back to their business. Ella Ornstein of the website Speigel also reported that thanks to people knowing that the animals were able to live a stress free life and died peacefully the sales for the German farm inscreased dramatically.
Slaughterhouses Should be Illegal

Slaughterhouses should not be illegal because they provide the meat millions of people eat. Without a slaughterhouse people would might even have to do the slaughtering themeselves. According to the article published this year by grace communication foundation on the website sustainable.org states, "Additionally, the four major companies in broiler chicken processing provide over half of the country's chicken supply." It is clear that some people will buy meat regardless of how it comes because they are buying it now.
Slaughterhouses Should be Illegal

No one wants to talks about it or think about it. Specially at the time they are ordering their food. Whether you're ordering from McDonalds, Burger King, Jack in the Box or many others like KFC. Chances are you are eating from a restaurant that has a slaughterhouse. Animals are physically abused and taken advantage of in these slaughterhouses as well. There is so many turning a blind eye to this situation. Even popular charities such as Susan G Komen have partnered up with industries such as KFC and for what? Just to make a little extra money for their cause. Komen did this even after it was made public of the conditions on how chickens were treated in KFC's slaughterhouse in West Virginia. Workers were caught on film breaking the beaks off animals, spitting tobacco in their eyes, spray painting their face and pressing on their bodies so hard that the animal would drop feces all over the place. All this done while the animals were still alive as reported and recorded by PETA. Not only that but they were also caught stomping on them and throwing them violently against walls and floors. As reported by Sara Farr of OneGreenPlanet, slaughterhouses cause of the one of the biggest environmental concerns annually. She reports that the United States alone has 32 slaughterhouses responsible for dumping 55 million pounds of pollutants into the waterways. This water of course is not going to be the cleanest it contains all sorts of repulsive material. Such as grease, fat and manure
Harry Potter could beat Percy Jackson in a duel

I shall ignore your comments on conceded mind and shallow thought Stupefy, or the stunning spell, knocks the victim immediately unconscious (as you would know if you had read the books). what can percy do to block it? Percy's power is limited to if there is water in the sorrounding. Harry could preform a vanishing charm on all water in the sourrounding area, and Percy would be defenseless. As soon as Percy is defenseless, Harry could perform his stunning spell, knocking Percy unconscious. If Percy tries to cause an earthquake, Harry could perform a levitation charm on himself and wouldn't be effected by it.
Whether Apple is Better Than Microsoft

Wh-!?"I rest my case."I hope you realize that there are still two rounds remaining. However, if it really is your intention to simply end your arguing there, I believe you'll be leaving me very confused. So, you're arguing two things. Simply so I may understand what you're saying, I will list all the claims.What the Almighty Apple Products Have the Capacity To DoVerbatim "impossible to get a virus on, even if you code a virus on the computer" "won't let you run the program" "silent switch actually built into the phone" Interpreted The claim here is that Apple iMac's default OS is impervious (or at least significantly more so than Microsoft's Windows) to viruses. If you code something, and the Operating System doesn't like it, it automatically refuses to run it. I believe my opponent is referring to a switch on the side of the phone that allows you to turn down the volume. Now, my opponent is arguing that Apple is progressed ahead of Microsoft in two categories. I will now rebut all the functions in both these two compartmentalizations, created by Pro (thus, having me argue what Pro is telling me to argue). Unique Functions No viruses. Disallowing the ability to run programs. Silent switch. 1) A Mac's immunity to viruses is not quantifiably better than any of Microsoft's OSs.[1][2][3] 2) Microsoft's Windows has UAC[4], which can disallow you to run programs if you tell it to beforehand. Most people don't. Because it's redundant. I believe that my opponent may also be referring to Sandboxing. I know tons of Sandbox applications available for Windows. In fact, here's one.[5] 3) Wh-? I don't even think I need a source for this. Everyone get out their phone right now. Does it have a silent switch? Does it have volume controls? The answer for most of you will be yes, even if you don't have an Apple phone. I really don't know how my opponent got the idea that this is a unique function to Apple products. User Friendly Functions No viruses. Disallowing the ability to run programs. Silent switch. 1) According to my opponent, it's security is just stopping you from running programs. That's not what's conventionally called User Friendly. 2) See 1. 3) Although this is a User Friendly function, it's not any more User Friendly than a silent switch on a Windows phone or any other phone. Rebutting the Rebuttal Now, my opponent states that "Windows 7 and 8 have made most of their profits out of laptops that ONLY come with Windows 7/8 and/or PC games" which actually doesn't rebut my point at all. This is a random tabloid fact that has no relevance to my argument. As such, I think it should be governed that it be disregarded. [1] http://www.baselinemag.com... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [3] http://www.securelist.com... [4] http://winsupersite.com... [5] http://www.sandboxie.com...
Whether Apple is Better Than Microsoft

For the first part of your post, i meant that Apple have a high amount of good quality products, such as the iMac, due to the fact it is nearly impossible to get a virus on, even if you code a virus on the computer, for the computer, it recognizes this and won't let you run the program. As for the User-Friendliness, I find that Apple makes products according to the needs of the user, such as the silent switch actually built into the phone which I find useful when you are suddenly in a place where the disturbance of a phone would not be permitted. And, for the final part of my argument, Windows 7 and 8 have made most of their profits out of laptops that ONLY come with Windows 7/8 and/or PC games, that move on because some of the software is improved, but, if you don't want Windows 7/8, then you would have to get a different operating system, or cope with an older laptop, which may be outdated or full of viruses. I rest my case. Your Move.
Whether Apple is Better Than Microsoft

For my argument, my proposition will simply be as simple as one would expect antithetical to your's: Apple is NOT better than Microsoft based on the reasons you made in the thesis. As such, I'll simply skip right to a rebuttal.However, you've either failed to put forth an argument that works in favor of your thesis, or you've failed to make it clear how your argument works in favor of your thesis.Seemingly, you're implying that having an "amazing amount of products" in comparison to Microsoft means that Apple has "increased user-friendlyness and unique functions." I'm not sure how. I think you'd best clarify this in your next round.Also, you expressed the idea that Microsoft "hasnt made a worthwhile leap since windows vista," which is very false. Worthwhile (which is pronounced /G2;wərTHG2;(h)wīl/ and is an Adjective, in case you wanted to know for whatever reason) denotes that it must be worth either the effort, time, or money. So, since you said it's not worth the money, the only one of those that can really be quantified in any way valuable to this debate, I decided to see what the market seems to be implying."Windows 7 helped drive Microsoft to record revenue during its fiscal third quarter, with profits increasing by more than a third versus a year ago."[1] Record revenue. With profits being in the billions, while the loss probably being somewhere in the mere millions.[2]And that's just Windows 7. Since the release of Windows 7 in 2009, we've had Halo 4, the Kinect, the all in one XBOX, Metro, and that's just to name a few.So far, your argument doesn't seem very well informed and doesn't seem to be working in favor of your thesis at all.Simply so this isn't JUST a rebuttal, I'd just like to say that Apple did try something much like Microsoft's XBOX all in one setup known as the Apple TV. There are plenty of reviews, but here's a quick, fair review weighing both the Pros and Cons of both VERY evenly. You can look up your own reviews, but I PROMISE you that this one isn't blatantly biased.[3] Long story short, XBOX wins, despite the price.[1] http://www.pcmag.com...[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[3] http://gizmodo.com...
gun control

'assualt weapons are weapons used for merly for medium to long range. So try to protect your house in close quaters is up to the job for pistol and shotguns'Again, criminals will still have the upper hand on law abiding citizens since they will have access to assault weapons through black-market activity. Not only that, but if you ban assault weapons for ALL people, and not just those who don't have a lisence to use them, then criminals will have the upper hand on private security personnel in public places aswell.
gun control

'Look im a teenager living in texas(where it is crazy to not own a gun) And am not looking to ban all guns. I see it fit not to have military grade products like ammo that is made to go through chest armor or guns that are semi automatic weapons. Plus I dont think that you need that kind of stuff to protect your house. I hope that you will agree with me for at least this part'My opponent has made the argument that we should ban semi-automatic weapons, and armor-piercing ammunition. This falls under the same arugment I made regarding black-market activity.However, my opponent has provided no basis to his argument other than 'I don't think you need that kind of stuff to protect your house'. Well, if someone came into your house with an assault weapon, and you can't own one, how do you expect to defend yourself?This is all I can provide at the moment, for I am quite busy. I await my opponents next argument.
gun control

I accept this challenge.Opening Statement:I will argue on the grounds that gun control would be detrimental to society.First, I will define the term 'gun control'[1]:Gun control: 'Regulation of the sale and use of rifles and handguns.' Opening Argument:The Idea that we have to regulate firearms makes sense, however, it can lead to various unwanted effects.For instance, crime rates would increase. Not necessarily the murder rate. As an example, let's make up a scenario. If I were to break into your house, and you were unarmed due to laws preventing you from owning a gun. But I have a gun that I gained through an illegal market (note this, I will come back to the illegal market concept), how are you going to defend yourself? The fact is, you wouldn't. I would be able to steal everything you own, then leave without the cops suspecting a thing. I wouldn't have any need to kill you, which is why the homicide rate would be so low. However, in a country where there are tighter gun control laws, you are more prone to a variety of other forms of crime.However, if you were living in a country where everyone had a gun, then you would be able to kill the criminal who invaded your house, then call the police. Thereby meaning you would be safer in a country with less gun control laws, than more. If countries with stricter gun control laws have lower crime rates, then how do you explain countries like Brazil[2]? Who have some of the highest crime rates in the world.Also, returning to the illegal market concept. By banning guns, you are just opening up a whole new market for criminal organizations like cartels. You can make a parallel between this and the selling of narcotics. Since narcotics like marijuana are illegal, the black market is the biggest source for this product, but passing legislation on this product does not limit the needs of the consumers. It doesn't stop the selling and buying of this product. It only drives it to be sold by criminals.So, by passing gun control laws, all you are doing is arming criminals, while disarming law-abiding citizens. Thereby making the environment more dangerous for law-abiding citizens. The UK for instance, which is well known for it's strict gn control policy, was named the 'violent crimes capital of Europe' by the European Commision[3].Therefore, by passing gun control laws, you would make an environment that is more dangerous to the average civilian.Sources:1- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2- http://en.wikipedia.org...3- http://www.express.co.uk...
zero point nine repeating equals one

A # does not approach anything. It is an amount. 0.999.... does not approach 1, it is 1. If you were to sit down and try to write out 0.9999999..., as you wrote each 9 you would get closer to 1. When you show that the # has infinite 9s the # doesn't approach 1, it is 1. 0.9 0.99 0.999 0.999 ... = 9/10 divided by the quantity of 1-(1/10). This is an infinite series. Also, there are infinite #s between two unequal #s but there are no #s between 0.9... and 1. Proves no smallest # greater than 1.
zero point nine repeating equals one

Technically speaking, "the limit" of 0.999 (9's repeated to infinity) approaches 1. In mathematics, we not use infinity directly to come out with an integer, except in special cases. Just as certain curves approach an asymptote but never reaches it, so 0.999 continues to move very close to 1 but never makes it. If this were not the case, 1/0 would equal infinity, but as it turns out the limit of 1/0 approaches infinity. Additionally, if 0.9999 (9's repeated to infinity) equals 1, what about 0.7
zero point nine repeating equals one

I think I see what your getting at, but it doesn't quite equal 1. Although 0.99 infinity seems like a stagnant number, in mathematics we can't simply talk about infinity as measurable. I say that 0.999.... approaches one because, in another form, what you are saying can be made into a series: 0.9 + .009 +.0009 and onward. This approaches 1, but at any given point it is still less than one, which is why the LIMIT APPROACHES infinity. On graph, its a clear dot instead of a filled dot. Good debate!
Was 9/11 an inside job

I would first like to point out that Pro has FULL BOP. So until (s)he puts forth valid evidence their arguments should be concidered null and void.Firstly, Al-Qaeda admitted to doing 9/11. (See video) http://www.youtube.com... is obviously a clear motive that they would do such a thing concidering the US's involvedment in the Gulf War due to Osama wanted to protect the "Holy Land" from foreigners, but the Saudis permitted the US and NATO to become involved. (Bergen, Peter (8 August 2006).The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader. New York City: Free Press. p.112.) Osama Bin Ladin had spoken out many times against the Iraqi leader and in 1988 even began to increase his military to combat Sadaam.For the Bush motive to go to war is simply rediqious. We can see that since the Reagan administration and even before then that the US government would go to war with anyone to protect their interests. They don't need to have 3000 of their own people killed to do this. This has been seen from the Korean War clear to US foreign involvements in other places from Bosnia to the Middle East.In response to the towers "being demolished" arugment the rebuttal here is simple. The Building here was made of steel support through the exteroir that lead to the core. (Building Plans shown bellow) So this was simple to see that with this structure that we can easily see that one one floor was taken out the core took a hit and was severly damaged causing the floor to collapse. The additionial weight on each floor caused the towers to collapse to the ground. As for WTC 7 being "faked" observe the second video I left you.http://www.youtube.com... can see here that it would be impossible to pull it if there was an explosion which already disproves my opponent's points on this. As for peer reviews, there was tons! Everything from reviews from the fire department, construction workers, firefighters, and even the architects who built the building. s://www.metabunk.org...; alt="" />
Was 9/11 an inside job

There is an astounding amount of evidence that 9/11 was not carried out how it was portrayed. Almost every aspect of that entire day is questionable. Everything from the way the buildings fell, the fact that building 7 fell completely symmetrically even though only one column out of 50 was slightly damaged, to the size of the hole in the pentagon that, at only 10-15 ft tall and wide would fit a 757, as well as the fact that there was no exit hole. Bush and his administration did everything they could to stop an investigation and once they agreed to the investigation, published scientific reports that didn't include peer review, were scientifically impossible, and excluded key points.
New Deal

When the government gets involved in things that are out of its role it creates it takes wealth, either from the present with taxes or the future from debt. The New Deal was a fake recovery, it wasn't until capital was left to reset that the economy began to rise. The south is an agricultural economy during the great depression they lost everything. When Roosevelt took office he created The New Deal and made a couple of programs which he thought would relieve americans. The agricultural reforms failed until 1936, but there was a catch, the farmers would forever be in debt with the government. This way the farmers would vote in favor of Roosevelt's party because they offered the most goodies. Did you ever wonder why Roosevelt served three terms? Government spending doesn't create prosperity.
New Deal

during times of war the U.S. government can suspend civil liberties such as, the freedom of speech. If the U.S. government can put an end to the most basic right of speech then it is right to raise taxes during an economic crisis. Therefore, people have to sacrifice there personal freedom in other to protect their country. Despite the fact that many poor people had to pay taxes during the great depression, the rich people had to pay their taxes just like everyone else. By the way im not going to accept the fact that you said the New Deal got their money by the South i need proof. :) I LOVE MYSELF!!!!
New Deal

So expensive that taxes went from $1.6 billion to $5.3 billion in the matter of seven years. When Roosevelt in creased the taxes he discouraged small business owners to hire employes causing their businesses to fail making the richer richer and poorer poorer. The programs that FDR created didn't increases the number of jobs in the economy because the money spent on the new deal projects came from taxpayers who had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. The new deal also got most of their money from the south, the poorest people in the country. We can see the jobs created by New Deal spending, but we cannot see jobs destroyed by New Deal taxing.
New Deal

Even if the outcome was expensive he did many programs to help the new deal system to success in later years. Congress also reorganize the banks as well as release more money such made it more safer to the public. Yes the government was spending too much money that they shouldn't have but in the end Roosevelt created the Economy Act that reallocated funds from Beer Wine Act saving the United States government $500 million. Roosevelt also started the Civilian Conservation Corps, which gave them job opportunities.
New Deal

yes its true that the country was sinking financially and that roosevelt created new reforms that helped society insure their money but the outcome was expensive. He raised taxes while the people were still doing poorly he also manipulated the countries votes to whatever party gave them the best goodies. The new deal also went against laissez faire (government shouldn't get involved in money issues). The government is set up to lead a country not to pocket cash. The new deal also have to much power to the government and could have caused dictatorship (given that it didn't but at the time people didn't know that). Even though there was more jobs available there was a large amount of discrimination against minorities which only let the whites succeed like always.