BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evidence for god

1) t-man says that 1 second cannot keep passing because that would take an infinite amount of time and infinities don't exist. This is circular reasoning and so illogical. He also admits, "There may be infinite possible integers. " Which is admiting that ininity can exist. 2) t-man has provided no logic as to why infinity doesn't exist, he only said that it doesn't. That is not a logical argument, but an unbacked opinion. 3) t-man hasn't shown that the universe was created. There is also a difference between a "creator" and a "cause," of which t-man has had no argument. t-man has made no logical arguments, nor shown any evidence. All he has done was an illogical thought experiment, which in the start of the debate was stated to not do.
Evidence for god

1) There may be infinite possible integers but that doesn't mean that they all currently exist at this moment. You cannot find an example of every single possible integer in the universe. You could not take one step to the left or one second forward ad infinitum because that would take infinite time and time will never reach infinity. 2) My logic is that infinities are impossible. I have rebutted your so called "infinities". 3) If something was created than it has a creator by definition. I proved that the Universe was created in my 1st round argument.
Poker is good for you

I will begin with my arguments then move on to attacking my opponent. First I would like to accept my opponent's transition to debating primarily the more serious poker players. Contention 1: Gambling is rarely a good idea. Subpoint A: Financial loss. When a person plays any type of poker at a serious level there is often relatively substantial amounts of money being gambled. This is obviously detrimental to the player. They are placed in a situation where they risk a substantial financial loss nearly completely at chance. Gambling of any type creates this dangerous situation. Subpoint B. Gambling can be addictive. In the previous Pro argument my opponent stated that this debate will focus around players who are more serious about poker and intend to gamble more money or even base their income off such a game of chance. With such an increase of money in play there is a definite chance of a gambling addiction forming. This is a situation that can be dangerous both psychologically and financially. If there is a chance of the player becoming addicted to an already bad practice the amount of good being done for the player is substantially reduced. Now on to my opponent's arguments. 1. Poker helps with memory. My opponent is attempting to argue that there is a substantial benefit to the memory by playing poker. However he offered no evidence to support that the amount of memory gain is substantial. On top of this there are ways to remember appointments, birthdays and duties other than building your memory through poker. For example one could purchase a calendar. This is a considerably more financially sound choice than risking large sums of money to gambling. 2. Poker teaches you to think in the long run. I would like to ask for further clarification of the wording of this argument. 3. Poker teaches emotional control. While this may be true we must once again look back to the dangers of poker or any gambling game. While poker may help emotional control, the cost/benefit ratio is rather poor. While you may benefit in this way you may also be damaged in the long run by financial trouble and gambling addiction. 4. Poker helps math. The amount of math that is actually needed in poker is relatively small. On top of this any math used is used only in context to poker and would not hold any substantial benefit. My opponent said that you must know the odds but never actually clarified what part of poker actually requires mathematical calculations to be done while playing. This argument is obviously invalid. 5. Poker helps dispel stereotypes. This argument is entirely invalid. Poker does not dispel stereotypes in a special way. Similar things can occur in many social or business setting without risking substantial amounts of money. In conclusion, when looking at whether or not something is good for a person we, as a rational society, must look at the benefits and then compare then to the costs. In this debate the pro side has presented various weak benefits while the con side has presented powerful downfalls to playing poker. With this I ask for a Con vote in this debate.
Poker is good for you

There would seem to be two broad types of poker players: Those who play for fun and the social aspect, and those who play more seriously to win money. Since the latter type certainly have a better understanding of the game, I will be arguing from their perspective. Those who "play for fun" often gamble small sums of money (or small for their net work) and derive little benefit from the game except perhaps a little happiness when they win and sadness when they lose. However, this argument is not about them. This argument is about the real poker players, who strive to advance their knowledge about the game and possibly use their skills as a source of income. 1. Poker helps with memory. This is especially true with Stud, where is incredibly important to know the cards that are out, the cards that have been folded ("dead cards"), and your odds. Even in other poker games, if you want to be successful you must know your history with an opponent (whether they bluff, what hands they have shown down, etc.) Memory is important outside of poker because it helps you remember things about people which can certainly come in handy. A good memory helps in remembering appointments, birthdays, duties, and a number of other situations. 2. Poker teaches you to think in the long run. You will get sucked out on in this game. You will lose as a 90% favorite, or more, when you've played a while. Moreover, these "suck outs" will often cost you your entire stack especially in a game like Pot Limit Omaha (PLO). A good poker player cannot be result-oriented, and an ability to think long term can help in many fields such as business, stocks, and others. 3. Poker teaches emotional control. As noted above, you will feel cheated sometimes. The key to being a successful player is to be able to put the emotions aside, and continual to think rationally. If you know you have an edge over your opponents despite taking some bad beats, a good player will be able to continue here while an emotionally unstable player will go "on tilt." Emotional control is certainly useful in real life as it can help with decision making and de-personalizing conflicts. 4. Poker helps with math. If you want to be a good player, you must know the odds. A corollary to this is being able to calculate the odds, or "outs." Many people have trouble with math, and when you are able to reason out the odds it will give you an enormous edge over an oblivious opponent. Math is certainly a useful skill in real life. 5. Poker helps dispel stereotypes. It's crucial that you see players as individuals rather than members of a racial group while you're at the table with people. People play very uniquely, and making assumptions can be very costly. There is no one way asians play, or one way blacks play, or Jews play. I can assure you that people across racial boundaries play very different, and when you recognize this collective assumptions about racial or ethnic groups are weakened. I look forward to Con's response.
Extraterrestrial contact is very unlikely

There might be aliens halfway across the Milky Way galaxy. But they're not stealing your cows. ************************** Star Wars and Star Trek were inspired by the Space Race, ending with the United States moon landing. The genre of Science Fiction has fueled the imagination of youngsters everywhere. Some remain with the impression of Captain Kirk traveling from star to star to experience alien life in all it's beauty. My position is that it is unlikely in the extreme for us to travel the stars. If it's impossible for us, it's impossible for them.
Extraterrestrial contact is very unlikely

Let's do the math.Radio Contact is ImpossibleThe Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light years in diameter.[1] This is about 50,000 light years radius. The solar system is estimated to be about 26,000 light years from the center.[2] This puts us at 76,000 light years from the far end of the galaxy.Our radio bubble spreads ~50 light years from earth. Each year, the radio waves move one light year towards nothing. Why nothing? It's actually in the radio waves."Because of this inverse square law, all of our radio signals become indistinguishable from background noise at around a few light-years from earth. For a civilization only a couple hundred light-years away, trying to listen to our broadcasts would be like trying to detect the small ripple from a pebble dropped in the pacific ocean off the coast of California – from Japan."[3]Physical Contact ImpossibleThe Voyager I is the world's fastest spacecraft, moving at the breakneck speed of 35,000 mph. This is actually quite slow. It would take it 167,591,314 years to travel one light year. Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years from the Sun, or 732,374,042 years away by spacecraft.Forget 76,000 light years away, that's 12,736,939,864,000 years.No Source CitedMy opponent made a comment crucial to his position. My question: if science says that aliens exist, please cite the source. Preferably a scholarly journal. This statement seems rather controversial, and definitely untested.If there is no tested evidence of aliens, they are merely a hypotheses. A hypothesis is not a definitive statement, it is more of a conjecture.Sources:[1] http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...[2] http://www.nasa.gov...[3] http://zidbits.com...
Anarchism and capitalism are incompatible.

Thank you for the great topic, Chimera! I agree to the definitions here provided.The resolution i will be defending is the negation of the above. That is: Anarchism and Capitalism are not incompatible. Stated differently, that is: Anarchism and Capitalism are compatible.Shared BoP: Agreed. We must both make a positive case for our positions. Good luck! I am looking forward to a great debate.
Anarchism and capitalism are incompatible.

I will be arguing that anarchism and capitalism are incompatible ideologies. The BoP will be shared. First round is acceptance.Also, this debate is impossible to accept. Please note your interest in the comments section.Definitions:Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.[1]Anarchism: Belief in opposition to rulers (Derived from the greek roots an-, meaning without/opposition to, and -arkhos, meaning ruler or chief).[2]Sources:1- http://www.merriam-webster.com...2- http://en.wiktionary.org...
Barack Obama

I only have One rebuttal to make as the majority of Con's argument are just ill-founded claims.Rebuttal Pro argues that the The Bowe Bergdahl Swap was a disgrace to American foreign policy. I would argue otherwise, although it wasn't necessarily the best move, that 'guy', as Con puts it, was a Sergeant in the United States Army [1]. He left his loved ones to go serve his country abroad, it is only morally right that we do not leave him behind. What kind of nation would allow, its men and women in uniform serving, abroad, in war, to be left behind? Obama invested alot of efforts to get this brave young man back to the United States, and credits should be given to him for that.To conclude, following Con's forfeiture I believe the voters should vote Pro. I have rebutted his arguments and he has failed to rebute mine.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Barack Obama

Thank you, Con.As ruled, by Con in Round 1, I will use Round 2 to reveal my arguments in favor of Barack Obama's presidency.Arguments in favor of Barack Obama's presidency A1. Foreign PolicyThrough Barack Obama's presidency, the United States achieved strategic foreign geo-political gains. First and foremost, under his leadership, American troops successfully conducted a raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, undoubtely, America's number one enemy, personnally responsible for the worst attack on American soil. Also, Obama has pulled Americans out of harm's way in Afghanistan [1], and has pressed more sanctions on North Korea, for threatening regional peace [2] lastly, he has isolated the Russian Federation for its annexation of Crimea, and further sanctions were applied on the country, which lead to an important economic crisis in Russia. A2. Domestic policiesObama's domestic plan was dominated by his Affordable Care Act, intended to provide Americans with affordable Healthcare, which many Americans were lacking. The Affordable Care Act enabled millions of Americans not to go bankrupt because of medical reasons. [3] Secondly, he has worked to insure the use of green and renewable energy; since he entered office, the share of U.S wind and solar energy has grown considerably. [4] He also repealed "Don't Ask Don't Tell" which now allows Gays and Lesbians to serve in the U.S troops. A3. The EconomyWhen Barack Obama entered The Oval Office in 2009, he inherited a massive deficit and a crippled economy, left by his reckless predecessor George W. Bush. But under Obama, unemployement has come down massively. When he entered in January 2009, the unemployement rate was around an horrifying 10% and is descending under Obama (now around 5.6%), which is quite significant compared to the European Union, whose unemployement remains in the double digits. America has succeeded at recovering from the 2008 financial crash, and most economists agree that it is thanks to Obama's stimulus plan. [5] Lastly, while it is often undermined, Obama has done alot to limit the unequality in America. The rich are paying more taxes, precisely, 28.1% more than in 2008. ConclusionWhile he is often discredited, Barack Obama and his presidency were actually more beneficial for America than often said. Compared to John McCain and Mitt Romney, Barack Obama was the better choice in 2008 and in 2012. He has led the country to a somewhat successful recovery from the 2008 Economic Collapse under Bush, reduced unemployement, killed Osama Bin Laden, gave Health Assurance to those who could not afford it, and applied successful sanctions and economic pressure against American Allies. Sources :[1] http://www.theguardian.com...[2] http://www.theguardian.com...[3] http://www.newrepublic.com...[4] http://grist.org...[5] http://www.nytimes.com...
Barack Obama

President Obama does not think before he speaks to the public. He gives us lies. While he does have some pretty good ideas, he fails to think out how he plans to achieve the goals and ideas that he has. There is a list of his failures. His main one to me though was win he paid a bribe to a foreign country to get a guy back. Our policy is "Millions for war, not one for tribute." Worst thing he ever did to change our policy and lower our integrity. He continues to make mistake after mistake with other countries and sooner or later it will get the United States into further debt and trouble with other countries. http://townhall.com...
Barack Obama

I would really like to debate this topic. I know a lot of people now are against him and what he is doing. However, I know that there are still a lot that would vote for him again if he were to run. Here are the rules: You MUST reference at least one thing at the end of Each argument post. A forfeit is an automatic win to the opponent New arguments can be made at any time You are allowed to "write off" what you have previously said if you realize that it was a wrong statement. A point of order is raised when a competitor believes that one of the rules of debate was broken. (This leads to an automatic win for the opponent.) Round Terms: Round One: Acceptance Round Two: Argument Round Three: Rebuttal Round Four: Rebuttal/Conclusion Rules for Judging: The judge must base his decision entirely on the material presented, without regard for other material which he may happen to possess.
girls take more time to look decent than boys.

I will be arguing that girls do not take more time to look decent than boys. I assume that "decent" in this context refers to a level of attractiveness. I will therefore be arguing that girls can look just as attractive or more attractive than boys within the same amount of time.1. Attractiveness is a measure of ability to attract people who want to have sex with you. Most females could roll out of bed and walk out of the house in her pajamas and find at least one person who would like to have sex with her within a matter of hours. Males could spend hours trying to look good and likely still fail at finding someone willing to have sex with them. Therefore females are naturally more attractive than males. This means that females actually take much less time to reach the same level of attractiveness as males would take.2. Pro states that females tend to take much longer to get ready to go out and go through a much more rigorous process of improving their appearances than males. This is because most females are simply not satisfied with reaching only a decent level of attractiveness but attempt to reach a level of attractiveness that is much higher than decent. However males often don't really care what they look like in a large number of situations and will often go out with an appearance that is barely presentable in public.The resolution is negated because females naturally look more decent than males and their extra time taken to get ready is merely indicative of a desire to look much better than decent.
girls take more time to look decent than boys.

Hey there stop and accept this challenge. I am sure that girls take an extreme amount of work and effort to get ready for an even simple day! I personally find this unfair as i live with a teenage boy and from firsthand experiance they basically roll out of bed, take a shower and get dressed as apposed to me who get out of bed, flat iron hair, pick out the perfect shirt, pants and belt plus jewlery and shoes not to mentiob the right hairstyl. :P Please take it :)
The earth is expanding

1. The fact that they can only find oil on land or continental shelf areas means that prehistoric life never existed in the deep ocean regions. This is because deep ocean areas are less than 70 million years old. This is proof that the Earth has expanded over time. Geological surveys have proved that the rocks which are closest to the fault line ridge in the middle of the ocean are the youngest rocks. This is also proof that the Earth is expanding. My opponent hasn't offered any counter argument to these undeniable facts. The ridge stress lines that extend from the central ocean ridges to the coast clearly confirms the direction of this expansion. The video clearly shows that there has been no subduction on the coastal regions. The mountain regions can be explained by the folding of the crust due to expansion. Note - This action is best represented in the analogy of a tree trunk. If you cut a small slit in the bark of a small tree and leave it for about 20 years you will notice that the edges of the slit mark will buckle upwards as the tree grows. This is exactly what has happened to the edge and central areas of some continents. We can clearly see this buckling up effect in a large continent like Russia. The Ural mountain range is a good example. Now, how can a mountain range form in the centre of Russia using my opponents poor excuse of subduction? 2. Why did the small raptors become extinct? Answer - They didn't become extinct. They evolved into birds. Note - 99 % of all species have either evolved or become extinct since the beginning of life on Earth. 3. Gravity is pushing. Nature can only push, it can't pull. Pulling requires intelligence and leverage. Still, pulling is just an illusion because its the aetheric pressure that is pushing things together. Magnets and water are pushed by aetheric wind which is generated by the qualities of the matter concerned. A magnet is just a smaller fractal of a planet, sun or galaxy which all have a positive and negative aether flow direction which is perpendicular to the rotating axis. 4. Spin battery. The only way the universe can store energy for billions of years and then suddenly release that energy is through frictionless spin energy. The logic of inevitable consequences dictates this must be so. It is difficult to prove this because this is a sub-atomic phenomenon. The equation E=MC2 verifies my assumptions. 5. Nuclear fusion causes magma formation. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Note - Saturn gives off twice the heat that it receives from the sun. This is because Saturn is a larger planet which is becoming a sun itself. What is right for one planet must also apply to all other planets. Thus, the magma that is in the centre of the Earth must be produced by nuclear fusion and is not remnant heat form its early formation period. http://classroom.synonym.com...
The earth is expanding

1.(a) A pathetic excuse for not finding any sea life fossils in the ocean. If they can find oil 3.5 kms under the ocean, then, I am confident they could find at least one or two ancient sea life fossils. But, no! They can't find any! This is because the Earth is expanding from fault lines which are mostly located in the middle of the major oceans and expand outwards from there. The stress lines can be seen which extend from the fault line ridges to the coast in an almost straight lines. The age of the rocks have been tested and they can't find any deep ocean rock older than about 70 million years. The closer you get to the centre of the ocean, the younger the rocks are. This definitely proves that the Earth is expanding. The expanding Earth is also the reason that there aren't any large dinosaurs around any more. The Earth's gravity has increased with its size and has made life difficult for large animals to survive. Thus, the increase in gravity slowed down the body movements of the large dinosaurs until they could no longer compete with smaller and more agile animals. Even the mega fauna have disappeared just recently because of this ongoing increase. Every animal that existed during the dinosaur era has a smaller equivalent animal living today. Note - Humans have replaced T-Rex as the dominant biped. 1. (b) Sorry that you have been misinformed by the education system. The education system is faulty and they only won't you to know what they think you should know. Old preconceived ideas about the universe are very hard to kill off. Thus, gravity doesn't pull, it pushes. The idea that gravity pulls is a horse and buggy era concept. No! The horse pushes the buggy via the strap across its chest. The concept of pulling is illogical. To pull something you need a rope and an anchor attachment. Now, I can't see any rope which is going from the Earth to to moon. Therefore, the aether must be pushing the moon and Earth around the sun. Thus, there is an aether which light travels through. 1. (c) Glucose is ultimately just a spin battery. The spin energy from the sun is stored in various forms or packages called sugars and carbohydrates. The spin energy is released when consumed by the digestive system which powers the organism. The universe is purely mechanical at its microscopic and sub-atomic level. Thus, life and free will are just illusions of random motion. 1. (d) Tesla is the answer! Don't listen to Einstein's brain farts! 2. That's right! The Earth is unstable! That's why we have earth quakes all the time. There is a nuclear reactor in the centre of the Earth which is creating a lot of molten lava which breaks out to the surface every now and then. That's why you get tsunami's occurring around the equator when the Earth collapses due to spin torque energy release as the earth gradually becomes rounder and less potato shaped.