BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Can water flow uphill? (not using propulsion or inertia)

Hello Bill Henly, I look forward to this debate with you, and may the best argument win! According to google dictionary, flow is defined as, "{to} move along or out steadily and continuously in a current or stream. I believe that water CAN flow uphill based on the principle of capillary action [1]. This phenomenon can be seen in an oil lamp with a wick. When a dry wick is placed in the oil, the oil will flow up the wick. Admittedly, oil is not water, but if you try this effect using water instead it will work too. This can also be observed with an absorbent paper towel or rag. if one holds the rag at an incline, with the bottom of the item in a stream of water (maybe from a faucet), The water will slowly make its way up the incline, thereby proving that water can flow uphill. I look forward yo reading your response! Have a great day, Subdeo Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... If you want, we can scrap the rules about round usages and we can just go back and forth for the remaining rounds. You can do whatever you want for your side of rounds two and three (if you want)
Trans Christians

REBUTEunuch =/= trans.BIB HATES FEMININE MENO'Neil [1]: "Robert Gagnon ... studied ... Bible ... on homosexuality for 15 years, ... cit[ed] ... 1 Corinthians 6:9 ... includes ... 'malakoi' or 'soft men' in ... 'who will not inherit the kingdom of God.' .... Deuteronomy 23:18 labels ... 'an abomination'[.]" Deuteronomy 22:5: “A woman ... not wear a man's garment, nor ... man ... a woman's cloak ... these things ... abomination[.]"MALE & FEMALE = PERFECTBible says that creation is image of God, ergo perfect.Mark 10:6: "God made them male and female."Transexuals change male/female-ness, thus make creation less perfect.SUMBib say trans bad.CITE[1] http://www.christianpost.com...;
Hercules vs Achilles vs Hector vs Perseus vs Leonidas

hey guys, i'm new on this site. Anyways i just watched The Legend of Hercules (2014) recently n i was thinking which one of the warriors mentioned below was better (if they fought 1v1.) 1. Achilles 2. Perseus 3. Hector 4. Leonidas 5. Hercules i have researched about each of them. and even watched the films based on them. Troy (2004) - Hector n Achilles The Legend of Hercules (2014) 300 (2006) - Leonidas Wrath of the Titans (2010) /Clash of the Titans (2012) - Perseus just help me out a bit lads?
Hercules vs Achilles vs Hector vs Perseus vs Leonidas

Evidently Hector lost to Achilles. leonidas doesn't stand a chance against others, maybe except for Hector......Hercules, Perseus and Achilles were demi-gods and it would hve been a sight to watch them fight. i jst want to know who is the strongest of'em all? it has been said tht Hercules was uncontrollably violent and had super-human strength but didn't hve any fighting skills(training). Achilles was tactful but immortal and very much skilled in sword fighting. Perseus .. he was smart but mortal and had help from the gods(im not sure abt tht) and from Pegasus too.
The bible contains historic inaccuracies

In Genesis chapter 11, http://www.biblegateway.com..., the bible goes into the tower of Babel. At this time, the bible says, "Now the whole earth had one language and the same words." In this chapter, it makes clear reference that this is not metaphorical same language, but that there was only one language on earth. Going through the time line of births in the same chapter, and the rest of the book, the bible says that this took place in approximately 2,400 BC. However, we have found mass amounts of evidence that there were multiple languages before this time, when there should have only been one according to the bible. http://www.historyworld.net... This is one clear historic inaccuracy. Creation of the earth in a single day, and everything else in just a few days. Many christians claim that this is not "days" like we view "days" but just periods of time. But in exodus chapter 20, the bible is clear in saying that they are literal days. http://www.biblegateway.com... Does my opponent need me to provide logically evidence that the Earth was not created in a single literal day? This is another historic inaccuracy. In 2 chronicles, the bible refers to mass death of 500,000 people, http://www.biblegateway.com... and 1,000,000 people, http://www.biblegateway.com... and these are just in the initial battles, the death that occurs on "god's" side is not mentioned, and the deaths that occur when they pillage all the cities in the area is not mentioned. So over a few short years, millions of people die, 1.5 million confirmed by the bible, and many more not mentioned. However, the population in that area was only 10 million tops, http://worldhistorysite.com... if 50% of that is men, and only half of those men are of adult age, then god just killed 60% of all men capable of reproducing in that area. Such massive death would cause long last drops in the population for centuries to come. I'll stop with these obvious three.
I am a spoon

Con: "My opponent says that you can use a hamster for eating, like a spoon. Well, then you need to kill the hamster before." So we kill the hamster. -- Con: "My opponent says he is some other kind of spoon." I am. -- Con: "My opponent says he is some other kind of spoon. When looking spoon in the internet, there are only metal spoons, and wooden spoons." Nope. I looked it up. Spoon is a sex position. In my search, this came up: 1)Spoon is a band. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...(band) 2)A utensil https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 3)A sex position http://www.cosmopolitan.com... -- Con: "My opponent suddenly changes the resolution in the middle of the debate." Nope. Look at round 1. I made no resolution. Con made no resolution inCon's opening statement, nor did I agree to any "said" resolution, thus Con is wrong. -- Con: "And he should have wrote that on the resolution." There was no resolution. Go check it out. -- Con: "And, spooning is a verb, and you can't be a verb, so you can't actually be a verb." Half true. "Spoon" is a position, thus a noun. I can be a noun. Used in a sentence. Verb- I was spooning her until she squeeled. Noun- Spooning is fun. -- Con: "My opponent talks about this "spoon act". It's true. I did. I shouldn't have, but I did anyway. -- Con: "My opponent then says, I am Allen Be Spoon. That is unfair, as he is only called "spoon". Not true. The title and my first round say, "I am a spoon", not "I am spoon". My name is Allen Spoon. Prove me wrong Con. --Not true. Here is an Allen Spoon on linkedin and facebook. https://www.linkedin.com... https://m.facebook.com... -- Con: "and if you say "spoon" to every person, most of them will thing of utensils." Not true. If it is mating season, Spring, a certain time of the month, or a sexual hormonal imbalance, the person will think of the sex position. I'm thinking about it right now, so Con is wrong. -- FINAL ARGUMENTS- Con has the burden of proof in this debate. Con made assumptions, thus it is my word vs Con's. Seeing Con is assuming what I am, this is proof that Con does not know what I am, thus it is most logical to simply assume I am telling the truth that I am a spoon. There is no good reason for me to make such a thing up, nor does it benefit me to do so. Con has shown no motive, physical quality, or shown reasonable doubt that I am a spoon, thus Con is guessing, assuming and accusing me of not being a spoon. If you are not sure who or what someone or something is, youare assuming traits, qualities, and truths based on no evidence.
I am a spoon

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllAveMy opponent says that you can use a hamster for eating, like a spoon. Well, then you need to kill the hamster before, and it is not living then, and if you don't, it will escape.My opponent says he is some other kind of spoon. When looking spoon in the internet, there are only metal spoons, and wooden spoons. They are both not living. And, a spoon can't move, my opponent didn't rebut that.My opponent suddenly changes the resolution in the middle of the debate, to spoon position. First of all, that is very bad conduct, as changing the resolution. So it isn't changed. And he should have wrote that on the resolution. And, spooning is a verb, and you can't be a verb, so you can't actually be a verb.My opponent talks about this "spoon act". My opponent doesn't show how he is a spoon, only saying a verb, and as I said, you can't be a verb.My opponent then says, I am Allen Be Spoon. That is unfair, as he is only called "spoon", and that was the resolution, and it is unfair to change it in the middle of the debate. And, allen be spoon doesn't come in the internet, and if you say "spoon" to every person, most of them will thing of utensils. There is no proof you are Allen Be Spoon, and you have the burden of proof, and you didn't have proved anything, so :/ vote Con.Valehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I am a spoon

"Spoons are not alive." Not neccessarily. You can use a hamster as an eating utensil if you adhere to such ideological construct. "Movement: A spoon cannot move, and it is metal, has no legs." This is a false assertion. I never said I was a metal spoon. I am some other kind of spoon. The spoon position or spooning is a sexual position and a cuddling technique. The name derives from the way that 2 spoons may be positioned side by side, with bowls aligned. The sexual spoon position is a form of a rear-entry position, the other being the doggy style position. The spoon sex position has been called one of the "basic four" sex positions. In the spoon cuddling position, one partner lies on one side with knees bent while the other partner lies with his or her front pressed against their back. The spoons cuddling position is not limited to two people. In the sex position, the receiving partner would be in the inner spoon position and the penetrator is in the outer spoon in preparation for rear-entry penetration. For penetration, the partners may separate their upper bodies, with just the pelvises connecting, and their legs can also rest on top of each other. The receiving partner may lift the upper knee to allow for easier penetration. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... And finally, I am a spoon. My name is Allen Be Spoon. Prove me wrong Con.
I am a spoon

I will be making my opening arguments in this round. Spoons are not aliveA living thing needs to match this [1], and let's see if a spoon fitsMovement: A spoon cannot move, and it is metal, has no legsRespiration: A spoon has no lungs, as it has no lungs, or whateverSensitivity: A spoon cannot senseGrowth: A spoon can't growReproduction: A spoon can't reproduceExcretion: A spoon cannot sweatNutrition: A spoon doesn't have nutrientsA spoon matches none of these categories, so a spoon is not living. Even my opponent says that he is not a spoonThis debate: . http://www.debate.org...Pro says he is a chimp in this debate, not a spoon. This debate: . http://www.debate.org...Pro says he is a humanMy opponent says that he is not a spoon, and he is lying. Even my opponent says he is not a spoon, and he is actually in my side. My opponent is livingMy opponent can move as he is typing this keyboard. Even in this debate he says he types: . http://www.debate.org... And, as only living things can type, my opponent is a living thing, and is typing, he cannot be a spoon, or a non living thing. RebuttalsAll my opponent provides are bare assertions. I have shown evidence that my opponent is not a spoon. My opponent gives a claim, no warrant or impact. Therefore, his arguments are all failed, and Vote for Con. Conclusioni have shown 3 arguments that my opponent is not a spoon.
I am a spoon

If you kill the hamster, then it is dead. It is not alive. Then you can't be living, from this example.My opponent does not say what spoon he isMy opponent says that spoon is a band. My opponent cannot be a "band", as it is not living.You actually probably clicked spoon position or something. If you just click spoon, most of them are the kind of utensil. You can't be a position also.You made a resolution called: "I am a spoon"There is a resolution.Where did you even find it is a noun? Spooning is a verb, as you are doing something. Spoon is a position, but that means you are a position. You aren't living then.Spooning is fun, as my opponent says, Spooning is a noun. "ing" means it is a verb, and you can't be a spooning, hence you are wrong.You shouldn't have, so you dropped your argument. Thanks.You said, I am a spoon. You should have told that. And, you said you were Allen be Spoon. You changed your name again. You change your name because you are not him. You said Allen Be Spoon. And just because it is in facebook, does it mean it is you?Most people will think it is a spoon, the people around me. I actually asked. I asked 2 people which were hungry, and a normal person. They though of spoons. I said it in French. Even they think it is spoons. So, most people do think of spoons as utensils.My opponent says that I have the BoP in the debate. My opponent has the burden of proof, as he has to prove that he is a spoon. He couldn't prove that in the debate, so I therefore win. I just make assumptions to say he is not a spoon. That is not my burden, but I am doing it. My opponent has to show he is a spoon, but he didn't. He is talking like, "Well, my opponent didn't show I am not a spoon, so I am a spoon" That is my opponent's logic. He can be an apple, a fork, or whatever. So he needs to prove. He didn't. Vote Con. Have a nice day.
Animal Hunting Should Be Illegal.

As the Con replies, he may ask a maximum of 7 questions that will be answered in Pro's Round 5 argument. No rebuttals, simply questions and answers. Thanks! I am looking forward to debating you without the distractions! Rules:- The definition of hunting that will be accepted and used throughout the debate will be as follows, "the activity of hunting wild animals or game" with game defined as "any animal hunted for food or not normally domesticated"- Use resources when needed and try not to create hypothetical situations unless necessary to make your point known
Animal Hunting Should Be Illegal.

*Ok, so your second link was broken. You might wanna check that out. Also, I'm not a hunter by nature, and if this topic was "SHOULD HUNTING BE ILLEGAL AS A SPORT" I would be with you. You have stated that the inuit use alternative methods to obtain food. However, as I have stated before, it is part of their own tradition and have been doing this for thousands of years. IF, we were to distribute food to their regions it would result in the degradation in their culture. This is exactly the reason why they want to avoid this. They do not want their culture to degrade. If that commenced it would cause a whole new spectrum of problems. According to the inuit, it said that "food sharing was necessary for the physical and social welfare of the entire group." Younger couples would give food from their hunt to the elders, most often their parents, as a sign of respect. Food sharing was not only a tradition, but also a way for families to make bonds with one another. Once you shared food with someone, you were in a "lifelong partnership" with them." Because of the new stores available to the inuit (eg modernised food), the young people are consuming more and more junk food which is resulting in health problems such as obesity and teeth decay that western connivence has brought. So that answers your question of "sharing food to specific regions." Furthermore, my opponent says humans are hypocritical for hunting animals while they are ruining the environment. "Does that make it right to control only the animals' populations?" Well.... sadly yes. But we have no choice. I hardly think it's possible to stop the ENTIRE deforestation, pollution, etc. I understand what you are implying. While we are destroying, pillaging, and causing ALL sorts of problems to the environment, why should we do that to animals? But you can't simply stop this immediately. Maybe in the future, cheaper energy sources will be discovered. But, we simply can't cease the entire modernised world that is necessary for our society to function. And don't get me wrong, I'm with you on this one, I am just saying that it is our only choice for now.... and hopefully only now. Sources: Bennett, John, and Susan Rowley, eds. Uqalurait: An Oral History of Nunavut. Canada: McGill-Queen's Univ. Press, 2004. http://edition.cnn.com...
Animal Hunting Should Be Illegal.

Argument 1: Population control is necessary. It's a wildlife management tool. Although nature has naturally balanced the eco-system for the strong to prey on the weak, industrialisation, environmental destruction, and many other causes has affected the wildlife/food chain. Hunting helps balance wildlife populations with what the land can support, and limits crop damage. Ever heard of overpopulation? The whitetail deer is one of them. First off, it's in the least concern conservation status. Second off, they were hunted to endangered, and thanks to the EFFORT OF HUNTERS AND RULES AND REGULATIONS, they have thrived to the point where their population went over 30 million. (Citation at the end.) What these deer are essentially doing are damaging crops, eating tree-seedlings, and reducing the possibility of certain regions of forests regrowing in the region. What this will impact are not only the forest itself, but the other living organisms in the area. I agree on your position entirely that hunting has driver certain animals to extinction. However, it has been shown that with strict regulations and conservation efforts animals can make a comeback again to the point that they overpopulate and even become a nuisance, as shown with the white tail deer. As for the inhumane ways of killing the deer in your PETA source, the deer are actually affecting humans in car crashes. Over 1.5 million deer and vehicle crashes in 2003, and injuring about 13,000 people. And are you aware of the meat industry? Slaughterhouses are killing pigs, cows, and chickens that are BRED SPECIFICALLY TO BE KILLED. Compared to that, these hunters are actually aware of what they are doing, and are simply defending their own human properties and rights. And really now, why is something we've been doing for thousands of years suddenly, "It's so inhumane"? Argument 2: Some actually need it. As I have mentioned in my earlier debate, tribes such as the inuit need it to hunt. They hunt for survival, and are granted special privileges to hunt whales, seals, etc. They are not doing it for sport, they need it. Not only that, it is a tradition they have been continuing for thousands of years, hence why they are isolated from modern society. If we were, to force them to quit their hunting activities, it would be simultaneously exterminating their traditions and their culture, AND leaving them to die because they have no food? Is this, ethical and humane? Exterminating a tribe's traditions and people that very few remained because of modernisation and the colonisation of america. And please give me one example (EXCLUDING the tribe that drived the leopard to extinction) of a tribe/traditional group that has made an animal extinct. Source: http://www.nbcnews.com... http://naturetourism.allegheny.edu... http://www.arcticvoice.org...
Animal Hunting Should Be Illegal.

Argument 1: Humans Drive Animals to Extinction"The animal became the target of a brutal extermination campaign after many island natives believed the leopards were kept by witches to menace their fellow villagers. [1]" This is an example of one of the ten animals that humans have hunted to the point of extinction. The animal in the quote, the Zanzibar Leopard, was hunted to extinction just because the inhabitants believed that these animals were kept by witches to menace the villagers. Other animals that face extinction, or are extremely close to extinction due to humans, include crocodiles (simply because of their skin) and Great White Sharks (simply because their fins create a delicacy- shark fin soup)[2]. Hunting animals to extinction causes huge fluctuations in balance and biodiversity [3]. [3] shows a specific example -- the gray wolf. With a mass killing, the gray wolf's typical prey such as raccoons, coyotes, etc overpopulated the area and I'm sure pestered the people who killed off the wolves. This shows the severe consequences of hunting, therefore showing that it should be illegal.Argument 2: Hunting For Sport is Immoral and Uneccessary [4]"A study of 80 radio-collared white-tailed deer found that of the 22 deer who had been shot with “traditional archery equipment,” 11 were wounded but not recovered by hunters." I will admit that this source is PETA, a known animal rights advocate, but that does not devalue their information. The quote shows that there were deers that were injured and not killed that were not recovered by the hunters. How is it moral to leave a hurt animal on the ground with a wound that they cannot heal themself? "For animals such as wolves, who mate for life and live in close-knit family units, hunting can devastate entire communities. The stress that hunted animals suffer—caused by fear and the inescapable loud noises and other commotion that hunters create—also severely compromises their normal eating habits, making it hard for them to store the fat and energy that they need in order to survive the winter." So not only does it physically hurt the animal, it can scare the animal and ruin its family units/packs much like said with the wolves. In Conclusion,The effects on animals by hunting, whether for sport or survival, constitutes that hunting should not be legal. It has both moral and physical downfalls as hunting can lead to animal extinction, thus leading to a fluctuation in balance and biodiversity.Sources:[1] http://www.businessinsider.com...;[2] http://www.huntercourse.com...;[3] http://endangeredspecies.about.com...;[4] http://www.peta.org...;Thanks, your go!
God Exists

Now that we have come to a clear defenition I will rebutt all of your points. "P1: If god exists, then evil would not. P2: There is evil in the world C: Therefore, god doesn't exist. " This is not at all true God says he will deal with it until the end of days. God can do anything including the logically impossiable. Therefore YHWH is immune to Aristotle's discoveries. P1. God can do anything including logical impossibalties P2. Lifting a stone you cannot lift is an action C. The stone paradox fails. "If there is a perfect good god then there would be no imperfections/defects in his 'creation'. Yet, there are mental and physical defects in many people and animals. There are people who suffer permanent retardation, and all species of the earth are seseptable to diseases and viruses; even death is a imperfection. These imperfections exist and therefore, a perfect good all-powerful creator/god doesn't exist. " All of these 'Imperfections" are a result of orginal sin. It is a punishment from God. Therefore he himself brought these inflictions upon humanity. If these things dident exist it would be proof God DIDENT exist.
God Exists

Your argument is based on a logical fallicay. As Encarta world English dictionary defines God as "supernatural being: one of a group of supernatural male beings in some religions, each of which is worshiped as the personification or controller of some aspect of the universe" http://www.bing.com... But I accept omnipotence and omniscience but blatantly reject omnibenelovence. God hates. He tells us he hates. God is all good, but not what we define as good since good is God God cannot be evil.
God Exists

My opponent is wrong, because by definition God must be perfect in every way. Merriam Webster's dictionary defines the word/name God as:'the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe'So therefore, if God is to exist then he must be perfect. I have stated logical evedence that shows that he is not perfect, and you have refuted them successfully. I await my opponents response. :)