BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Complete World Peace is Bad

I believe complete world peace that so many humans want would be detrimental to our world. Death is a sad population control that exists and keeps out world balanced. From World peace, we would suffer much less casualties and that would lead to overpopulation. Overpopulation would only lead to the deficiency of our resources. One of the more important resources such as food. With this casualty, crime rate would go up and the world would start to break apart from all the killing and theft. The environment would also be drastically changed. With overpopulation, we would need to inhabit the preservation of nature, which would lead to the deaths and even extinction of our friendly species. This would only cost more money to our debt and there would be a chance for it to worsen. I believe complete world peace would only disorient the flow of the world. 1. http://www.howmany.org... 2. http://www.everythingconnects.org...
Creationism should be taught in school (as in science classes)

I don't think creationism should be taught in schools. There aren't enough evidence for the idea that we are 6000 years old, but there are for evolution: immunology, DNA analysis, findings of skulls, and especially modern radiometric dating based on empirical study of radioactive decay. Although these processes are not inaccurate there uncertainties are blown out of proportion by creationists. Young earth creationists think that the Bible is 100% true and that only the word of God (i.e. the Bible again) is truly accurate. This is essentially confirmation bias to assume something to be true then deliberately try to find evidence to back up the claim. On the other hand, when Darwin came to the evolutionary conclusion, he did not discover evolution because he knew what he was looking for, but through empirical studies over 2 or 3 decades. Another thing about scientific theories like evolution are that they are true beyond REASONABLE doubt, but we're not absolute certain. The so called 'intelligent design' or 'creation science' are based on the concept that their ideas are infallible and certain. The nature of creationism is that it cannot be proven or disproven, not because it is so good, but the claims are wishy-washy and untestable. Thus creationism is a pseudoscience and does not deserve a place in science classes. A slight divergence- I have to say it is a great relief that in Britain that pseudoscience like creationism is not taught in school. However, looking at some of Ken Ham's 'science classes'- they are more like brain washing centres. It is strange how the ICR (Institution for Creation Research) would attack evolution by being dogmatic when there isn't a doctrine that evolution is based on. On the other hand, these creationists use rhetoric on small children and say things like, 'what is true? The Bible of course. Remember that only God's words are infallible'. Scientists however would say, 'evolution is accurate because of these various evidence...you can challenge the claim but you need sufficient, credible and repeatable evidence to back it up.' Sorry if it may appear to be not the case, but even my religion and philosophy teacher said to a creationist student once that, 'maybe God is playing a huhah on us. But rational study of empirical evidence shows that we originated from evolution'.
It is plausible that Santa Claus exists.

.. But to the issue at hand. .. While the idea of Santa may exist through generosity, the idea of a tangible Santa is simply absurd. You said that we're accepting the general Santa Claus attributes with the exception that presents are only delivered to those who believe in Santa Claus. Two that I can easily think of are: 1)Lives at the North Pole 2)Delivers all the presents, worldwide, in one night And here's why Santa cannot possibly exist. Lives at the North Pole- Several expeditions have been made to the North Pole and no one has seen any evidence that a rather fat man in a red suit lives there with his wife and an unknown number of elves. [1] Delivers all the presents, worldwide, in one night- When just looking at the Earth as a 2D circle, the earth is roughly 7,900 miles in diameter [2]. This means the Earth is almost 25,000 miles in circumference. To figure speed, simply take 25,000/24 (hours in a day, or, in this case, night) and we get almost 1,050 mph! Eight (or nine) reindeer have to carry Santa, a sleigh, all the presents, and themselves at 1,050 mph just to fly around the equator. I'm only considering ONE axis. If even one child in every country believed in Santa Claus, he'd have to move at speeds that would surely rip him to shreds! Again, those are just two accepted facts about Santa Claus. Any others my opponent wishes to bring up are fine. I'd like to conclude by thanking my opponent for this creative debate, the readers for taking the time to sort through all this information, and the judges for sorting through all this info AND making an opinion on it. I look forward to seeing the counter-arguments. .. SOURCES [1] Web-cam of the North Pole . http://www.arctic.noaa.gov... [2] Diameter of Earth . http://geography.about.com...
It is plausible that Santa Claus exists.

My position is pretty simple. I think that it is scientifically plausible that Santa Claus exists. This of course includes all Santa Claus attributes such as delivering presents to everyone in one night and ya da ya da ya. My disclaimer on this however is that Santa Claus in my interpretation only delivers to those who believe in him. Definition: plausible - In this case meaning possible. Thus I present the challenge, someone show me that some part of Santa Claus is simply made up.......
It is plausible that Santa Claus exists.

.. With that said, let's delve into the arguments my opponent made. .. On the relevancy of the web-cam, it proves Santa's house doesn't exist! As for Santa living underground, polar ice is only 6-9 feet deep. [1] In a one story house, ceilings are 8 ft tall. .. not to mention the roof, a basement, an attic, or whatever else Santa may have on his house. My opponent is suggesting that santa lives in the sub-freezing ocean waters. .. As of right now, the temperature at the North Pole is 9 degrees F [2] The water is colder than that. Hypothermia, anyone? *Note this is not a new argument because I'm explaining why Santa has to live on land, and since we have (had) a webcam on the North Pole, and didn't see his house, I don't see how Santa can possibly exist. My above argument explains the ocean analogy. With Santa and the space-time continuum, I encourage the readers and voters to read the Reuters article. .. "'He understands that space stretches, he understands that you can stretch time, compress space and therefore he can, in a sense, actually have six Santa months to deliver the presents,' Silverberg told Reuters. " No mention of the technology necessary, just that Santa understands that time stretches. .. My opponent seems to just blow off my next argument, saying I've made a logical fallacy and then not explaining. Here's the rational that went behind that. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of the smartest people this world has to offer have been working on bending the space-time continuum and nanotechnology for YEARS! And my opponent wants to say that ONE lonely man living in the ocean is the ONLY person on the planet who knows how to do it? Doesn't that seem unreasonable? And finally on the God Complex, nobody is perfect. As living creatures we all have our faults. As humans, many are emotional or mental. .. If you were the ONLY person on the ENTIRE PLANET who knew how to slow time and make anything you wanted to with amazing precision, how long could you hold on to that secret? Wouldn't you sell that secret for billions upon billions of dollars? Wouldn't you want to be recognized for that? Yeah, there are some virtuous people on this earth, but for CENTURIES? Nobody could put up with that secret for anywhere near as long as Santa would've had to. .. With that I'll conclude this speech and the debate. As a final note, I ask the judges to look purely at the facts, the merits of the debate, and not on personal opinion. .. If it's not too much trouble to leave constructive comments on your decision, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks to all, and good luck to my opponent. .. SOURCES [1] . http://query.nytimes.com.... [2] . http://www.weather.com...
It is plausible that Santa Claus exists.

The first argument my opponents brings up is that the camera still takes pictures every two hours. I'm actually rather unaware of how this matters. First off I submit the idea that Santa has every capability of living underground, in fact I've seen videos which include this idea. .. . Secondly however I think the fact that Santa could exploit the space-time continuum allows him leeway to build things in that two hours period and then deconstruct without ever being detected. My opponent's second argument is that my ocean analogy has no place in this debate. I don't quite see my opponents point in this case, especially considering that we know many other fish live at the bottom of the ocean but have not yet found them. Furthermore I still consider it to be a scientific possibility considering the ability for Santa to be living underground at the North Pole. Finally consider my other argument from above, it negates this point. The next point from my opponent reads as such, "Obviously by this statement, WE as humans understand these things, yet we can't slow time. .. how is this justified? " I think the fundamental problem here is that my opponent fails to realize that an understanding of how something works does not immediately grant the understandee all technologies that might extend from such. For instance we have understood Einstein's E = MC^2 for some time now. Through this principle we also know that Matter - Antimatter annihilation would grant us mass amounts of energy, yet we do not yet have the ability to use Matter - Antimatter annihilation. Though some experts such as Stephen Hawking speculate that we will in the near future. The point is this, despite the fact that humans know about the space time continuum we don't know yet how to exploit it. Thus it still remains scientifically plausible that Santa Claus has figured out how. The next argument from my opponent is along the exact same line as the last one. He says it in infeasible for Santa to use Nano technology because other humans have not yet figured out how to. I think the logical fallacy in this case is really apparent, just take a look at my last point for reference. Finally my opponent extends an analytical argument about how Santa probably would have a god complex by this point if he had been so advanced for so very long. While I think it is possible that Santa could indeed have a god complex this allows for the possibility that he doesn't. Thus despite my opponents argument it still remains plausible that Santa exists, unlikely or not, it is still possible. Thus I have finished my speech. As a final note I would ask that my opponent submit no new points in his final speech as I will have no chance to reply. Thanks for the debate!
It is plausible that Santa Claus exists.

Certainly, my opponent has proved a worthy one. As for the quote on the North Pole web-cam, it is true that the camera is off-line, but if we continue to copy and paste, we learn that: "Web Cam 3 is a fish eye view showing sky and cloud cover. Each reading by the radiometer triggers Web Cam 3 to take a photograph. Images are taken every 2 hours, allowing visual verification and comparison between sky conditions and radiometer measurements." When you consider the space of two hours, as far as de-constructing and reconstructing an entire building, it seems nigh impossible that Santa Claus would be able to avoid human detection. Where would the time be to actually make toys and pack a sleigh? As for the ocean, humans have never been to the bottom of the ocean, besides, it gets extremely dark and an enormous amount of pressure is placed on objects as depth increases. This argument is irrelevant in terms of Santa because we know where Santa supposedly lives, however we used to have a web cam on his location, and still haven't seen him. The Reuters article, while certainly entertaining, has some flaws, and I encourage those of you who will vote to read this article. The two big points made from it are stretching the space-time continuum and nanotechnology. "'He understands that space stretches, he understands that you can stretch time, compress space and therefore he can, in a sense, actually have six Santa months to deliver the presents,' Silverberg told Reuters." Obviously by this statement, WE as humans understand these things, yet we can't slow time... how is this justified? "'We believe that he uses nanotechnology to grow the presents under the tree and really, what he's done, is he's figured out how to turn what we call irreversible thermo-dynamic properties into reversible ones and so he really starts with soot, candy, other types of natural materials, he puts them under the tree and he actually grows them in a reverse process to create the presents, wrapping and all.'" It stands to reason that across the world, hundreds of thousands of humans are working on nanotechnology. Nothing has ever been made using nanotechnology. How is one person supposed to have done this all by himself, let alone mass produce it? [1] The above arguments refute everything my opponent has stated. To extend my argument, I'd like to use some analytical thinking. Santa has existed for as long as anyone can remember. For all of my opponents arguments to be true, Santa would have to be using nanotechnology and bending the space-time continuum for decades! Undoubtedly, anyone who could perform such a feat would have contracted at least a minor case of God Complex. My opponent assumes that Santa has been using complex technology for DECADES! He'd be bound to come out and claim all the fame and glory associated with such an astounding discovery. Just some food for thought... For clarification, I am a guy SOURCES [1] http://www.zyvex.c...
It is plausible that Santa Claus exists.

The first of my opponents points is that Santa Claus lives at the north pole and since we have been there multiple times and have not seen him it must not be true. My points on this are listed below. .. .. 1. First and foremost the lack of evidence for something existing does not disprove existence, such is truly a fallacy. 2. Secondly however I would like to quote my opponents own source when it says, "The web cams are no longer transmitting images. With the approach of winter cold, storms and darkness, the lenses of the web cams become covered with snow and ice and there is not enough light for the solar panels which power the web cams. We plan to deploy new web cams at the North Pole in April-May 2009. " Thus it would probably be safe to assume that even if Santa was popping out of the ground every day we would never actually know. 3. My third argument comes from the ocean. Despite the fact that we have explored the ocean rather thoroughly in the past couple decades we still have come no where near finding every single creature. Thus it is not only scientifically possible that Santa could be hiding at the north pole but also empirically granted through my oceanic example. So now that I've taken an interesting look at my opponents first point let's move on to his second. .. . (or her? ). Once again my points are listed below. 1. The first is inherent through flaws in my opponents assumptions. Specifically my opponent states that, "Delivers all the presents, worldwide, in one night". I think that this would only be from the subjective viewpoint of my opponent and not necessarily from an objective viewpoint. 2. My 2nd point only furthers my first when I offer some evidence from a news source: . http://www.reuters.com... Specifically this evidence offers us the analysis that Santa indeed could scientifically exploit the space time continuum and thus could have six months, or more, subjectively to deliver presents. 3. Furthermore and finally the source offers insight on how Santa may scientifically reverse grow presents through nanotechnology. Just another way that would save Santa a great deal of time.
Opponents in a debate should have an option to extend the debating period.

Thanks for responding quickly, alto2osu, even though I was unable to do the same. I apologize beforehand fore the grammatical issues with this post, I'm in a hurry. Gonna take my girlfriend to the movies. My response to my opponent's 3 points: 1. Time appears adequate when you begin a debate but things can change into the debate, especially if it is a 5 round doozy. My opponent's statement here is all saying "Don't start a debate you can't finish." And this seems fine until you think about it. There are so many things that can happen AFTER you accept the debate that are beyond your control or your ability to predict. Your computer can malfunction; you can go through family problems, swine flu could keep you bed-ridden, but I'm serious, you could get ill. 2. I believe that people on this website are generally intelligent and reasonable enough to consider extending the time limit as the exception, not the norm. Most people get their arguments in significantly before the time limit anyway, so extending it would be a rarity reserved for genuine problems. If one debater thinks the time limit isn't the way to go, then fine. Implementing my idea would be a good thing in some situations, and an ineffectual things in others. All in all, the people on the website will keep it honest, and if they don't, it should be revoked. 3. time limits will remain. See post 2. Extensions of the time limit will be the exception, not the norm.
Opponents in a debate should have an option to extend the debating period.

I am supporting the proposition that, if the two debaters agree, there should be an option to extend the current time to argue. That means that if there is an event that makes both debaters unable to argue such as a holiday, sporting event, etc., the debate doesn't have to end in a forfeit for simple bad luck for being the one who's argument was due when the event occurred. Benefits: 1. Fewer forfeits, which would enrich the debating experience. 2. An opportunity for a friendlier debate.org community 3. It seems logical :) Good luck to whomever takes up this short debate.
Opponents in a debate should have an option to extend the debating period.

I appreciate my opponent's responses, and thank him for this debate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro's Advocacy: Pro's initial advocacy goes cold dropped in the round. Please extend all responses made and keep this in mind as you case your vote. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro's Responses to Con Advocacy: On My Argument 1: Certainly you could, but until my opponent warrants that this is happening often enough to change the status quo and that this is causing more squabbling and infighting than the problems outlined in my advocacy, there's no reason for you to vote pro on face. This directly bites the harms I outlined regarding stagnating debates. If people get ill, etc., the debate will stagnate. This will reduce overall debate quality, as well as turnover, esp. since the opponent who is waiting on said sick person will not be able to debate anyone else in the interim, as you can't commit to more than one debate at a time. Let's face it, my first priority in a family emergency will not be to get online and ask my opponent on debate.org to extend our debate time limit. I'll probably have more important things to do at that point. So, my opponent is only giving you extreme scenarios in which debaters would rather let the debate forfeit than extend the time, anyway. Extend the fact that forfeits are not abundant. Hence, none of the pro harms discussed are even huge problems for the website in the first place, making status quo adequate. On My Argument 2: So, the defense to this plan is that we can revoke it if it doesn't work? How is that affirming his resolution? Evidence to the contrary that all debate users will properly respect the mutual time extensions. It's a public website with essentially unrestricted access, and people game this site all the time, whether it's a terrible topic, vote bombing, etc. This can be exploited just like anything else. Extend my argument about the two debaters disagreeing, which causes infighting, and the harms of possible censorship of minority debaters who don't share majority views on time extensions. These harms are not properly disproven. On My Argument 3: The pro cannot possibly speak to how or how often time extensions will be used. If anything, the amount of usage is a wash. However, with any amount of usage, you still get the harms in my 3rd argument. Any stagnation is bad, and if one side provides more stagnation than the other, you should vote against that side. Extend the benefits of learning the skills associated with a time limit and a forfeit rule, as well as the fact that the forfeit-only rule is a natural check on bad debate. Because the con advocacy inherently leads to more good debates on this website, I encourage a con vote! Thanks for the debate. :D
Poem Debate

To start, please forgive my passive action. I simply forgot, vacation was a distraction. I'll finish up this debate, oh man, it was tough. All these rhymes have made the debate stuffed. Embrace? Do you mean hug? I don't want to squash a bug. There's no desire that gives such a tug At least I could cover your body with a rug. Wow, so that was a hit to your ego? You have just reached a new low. Ill admit, I'm not perfect either. But at least I'm not a greedy miser. Whoa, we got a cannibal here! He's drinking blood like it's beer! Then he talks about bling outside the ring That makes as much sense as a string tied to nothing! A flower versus you, that isn't a fair fight. I don't want you to get bruised. I hope you later see the light. For right now, you're confused. The loudest sound I'm making is typing, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLY LOUD? The supposed noise I'm making, about which you're griping. If I were you, I wouldn't be proud. I made a mistake? Where? Too late, this is that last debate. You should've pointed it out over there. Now that point is in an invalid state. Here is your list of mistakes in the part. It's not 'with', pluralize 'words' The 'spraying' needs an apostrophe, you fart. I wish you could redo, but it's gone like a bird. Insult after insult, lie after lie. With so many sins, you don't want to die. When you say you're polite, I want to cry. That's a loose end, you forgot to tie. Wait, Irish setter is a dog? My bad, I feel like I fell of a log. But your sources are memes, so they aren't credible. It sounds as true as a computer that's edible. Some sources I need, without one I'll sin. So I'll be a little sly with the interpretation. In voting, more reliable sources win. It doesn't say it has to be relevant, that's my evil creation. I now end this debate; this is the last rhyme. My opponent I don't hate. But I want to win this time. http://www.iihs.org... http://www.slate.com... http://www.cnn.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.drugpolicy.org... http://www.statista.com...