BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nothing truly lasts forever.

Hello.I believe this ultimately rests upon your worldview. The physical universe cannot naturally exist forever, no, but what about something beyond the natural? For example, I do believe humans will exist forever by the will of an omnipotent God (who also has no end [and had no beginning]) - that is, we will be resurrected and spend eternity based on our acception of rejection of Christ and his atoning work for us (his death and resurrection made forgiveness of sins possible). And, I believe, in a sense, this universe will last forever, but by supernatural intervention. As a Christian, I believe God will restore his creation, making a new heavens and a new earth; I believe there will be continuity and discontinuity when this happens (concerning this universe). So, the question comes down to our foundational beliefs: 'what is our worldview?' will answer the question, 'Will anything last forever?'.
Nothing truly lasts forever.

We live in a universe of entropy. A place that by definition will break down into disorder no matter what. It is because of this I find it hard to believe that anything could live past our universes day of death (or near it). Now my question to con is; is there anything by definition that can live forever truly? (Inanimate objects count) Also this is my first debate so thank you for accepting this. (I don't intend to win so long as I learn something new).
DDO is similar to a social network

The opponent's response is short and not entirely cogent. I'll attempt to respond, then sum up the round with some voters. "Cats also have some similarities [to other cats], such as most of them drink milk and their bodies are similar to other cats. "My point had nothing to do with cats -- I was just using animals colors as an example as to why you can't average qualitative characterstics. This was harkening to the point about "DDO being atypical" in terms of social networks. Notably, you can approach a level of specificity such that the term "similar" can be applied. For example, a Persian Cat is similar to a Bengal cat. This is an appropriate usage of the term "similar", since you are comparing two different objects. It does not a correct usage to say "cats are similar to cats", since both objects are the same. That is the case in the resolution in question. Since DDO is a social network, it does not make sense to say "DDO is similar to a social network". "Some people use facebooks [sic] for propoganda, others for jokes, for educational purposes etc. There is a common interest as such in these sites. "The opponent candidly admits that there is a common interest in Facebook, which was my entire point. Facebook is a social network by definition. DDO is a social network by definition. ConclusionI have demonstrated that DDO is a social network, meaning that it cannot be similar to a social network, since two identical objects can never be similar, by the definition of similar. In order for the opponent's position to be true, DDO would need to be "a little different" than a social network. I have shown that DDO perfectly fits the definition of a social network, meaning it is not "a little different" than a social network. Had the opponent claimed "DDO is similar to Facebook", then he would be exactly correct. But because he used the general term "social network", he fails to maintain his position.
DDO is similar to a social network

The opponent has made a few claims. These are:1. No "typical" social network is made only for debating.2. No "typical" social network has elections for president. 3. Not every social network is made for a common interest, a la Facebook/Twitter.I'll address each of these individually, then detail why my argument still stands. No "typical" social network is made only for debating. I assume by "typical", the opponent is referring to the average. In the case of social networks, it doesn't even make sense to think in terms of "average". Consider the following list:Cats:Felix - BrownBob - OrangeMargaret - CalicoTom - GrayRufus - BlackNow, what is the "average" color? Of course, you cannot determine an average or "typical" color because "color" is not a numerical value and cannot be mathematically operated on. Similarly, the "type" of social network follows the same logic. Some are purely for interpersonal communication, some are for "debate", some are for "cars" and some are for "humor". It does not make sense to describe the "average type of social network" because the very nature of "type" does not allow for mathematical averaging. Given this, it is clear that the opponent's point is meaningless. Of course DDO is not a "typical social network" -- no social network is "typical". Even if we found conversion that allowed us to convert "type" into a numerical value, we would still expect DDO to be "atypical", since in any distribution with a sufficient number of discrete values, the majority of values are not average.No typical social network has elections for President. Again, this is a meaningless point by the logic mentioned above. If anything, this simply highlights the social nature of what we do here, thus reinforcing my claim that DDO is exactly a social network. Not every social network is made for a common interest. This is false. The error here is assuming that the "common interest" must be extremely specific, as is the case in DDO, where the interest is "debate".On more popular social networks like Facebook and Twitter, the common interest is simply "the desire to share your opinions, memories and thoughts", which is precisely the function of these social networks. Clearly if a social network was released that did not appeal to a common interest, it would not be used by any more than one person, meaning there would be no "social activities" taking place, meaning it could not be defined as a social network. ConclusionI've demonstrated that the opponent's counter-points are either meaningless or irrelevant. In the first round, I clearly proved that by definition DDO is a social network. I finished by proving that by definition DDO cannot be "similar" to a social network, since DDO is exactly a social network. Thanks for reading.
DDO is similar to a social network

The opponent argues that DDO (debate.org, the site you are currently on) is "similar to a social network."This is plainly false. Allow me to elaborate. Social Network - "An online community of people with a common interest who use a website or other technologies to communicate with each other and share information, resources, etc." [1]It is clear that DDO is a social network. We are all brought together as an online community with the common interest of "debate", as the opponent as admitted. Furthermore, we spend a great deal of time communicating with one another and sharing information. Similar - "almost the same as someone or something else" [2]Almost - "only a little less than" [3]The definition of similar clearly dictates that for two objects to be similar, they have to be almost the same, but objectively different by "only a little". Considering that DDO is a social network, it cannot be said that DDO is "similar" to a social network, because that would imply that DDO itself is not a social network. I'll formulate this as a syllogism. Premise 1: DDO is a social network. [Definition of social network.]Premise 2: Two similar objects must differ by "a little". [Definition of similar.]Inference 1: DDO and a "social network" do not differ by a little. [By P1.]Conclusion: DDO and a "social network" are not similar. ConclusionI have clearly demonstrated that DDO is not similar to a social network, since it is exactly a social network. Points to Con, thanks for reading. Sources:1 - http://www.dictionary.com...2 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...3 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Classic Hip Hop is Better Than Modern Hip Hop

First of all, classic hip hop varies from the sugar hill gang to Eric b and rakim to nwa. I wish you could have been more specific about which rappers xactly you're referring to The most classic hip hop that started it all are groups like the Sugarhill Gang, grand master flash and the furious 5. Those groups laid the foundation for all rap including NEGATIVE rap in which is NOT uplifting for kids. The first rap song to go mainstream is 'rappers delight'. This song glorified pimping and using women for sex so your classic rap STARTED the trend of degrading women in rap music. Here are some lyrics from 'rappers delight. "I'm imp to dimp, the ladies pimp, women fight for my delight" "Hotel motel what you gonna do today gonna get a fly girl and get some stank and drive off" Pimping is basically using women as sex slaves so your classic rap was the FIRST to glorify pimping women They didn't mention taking a woman out, taking her home or anything. Just take her to a hotel, get some stink and drive off. Your classic rap started the glorification of cheapening women and treating them like sex servants another song from Grand master flash and the furious 5 called 'show down' is basically about being the baddest and winning gang fights. Here are some lyrics "Gonna fight all night with the sugar hill gang and you know who's gonna survive the furious 12345. Pick your weapons cause we can't lose" Not only did classic rap Lay the foundation for disrespecting women and violence in rap, they were ultimately far less talented. They can't singsing at all and have no.musocsl talent. Modern rappers are less likely to use samples and many of them can sing. Rappers like j.cole, Kanye West, phatrel, etc all have a variety of styles. Nicki Minaj can sing, dance ect.
Debators should not vote in his or her own debate...

I stand in the CON position for this debate. This is what I will say for now -If both debaters vote for themselves in the voting period of a debate, they will then be tied and it will not affect the outcome of the debate at all. -Also, there are certain instances when a debater votes against themselves http://www.debate.org... CoronerPerry says- After I accepted the challenge is when I realized how right my opponent truly was heck, I even voted for him. Rebuttal- "Many times, people can not view every debate." True, personally I have not read every debate on this website. "a debaters vote will be what mostly affects the results of the debate." Refuted by my reasoning. No affect. "debaters will vote for themselves and most likely win." Refuted by my reasoning. Nope, tied. "This is not morally correct." Define morally, because I assure you that my morals are very much different than yours. "The debater who votes for himself just wants to win." Yes. This is all I will say for the time being. Your turn...
It is My Opinion That Obama is Stupid

1. If your opinion that Obama is stupid is not shared with Mr. Grumpy then ti is also not shared with the past you because of the use of the word 'is' referring to the present only and thus both of Pro's round one sources are negated. 2. Pronouns are specifically signed to replace past-used nouns for ease of writing and reading. They are not there to be subjects on their own. . http://www.grammarbook.com... The 'it' in the resolution is not 'filling in' for a past used noun and thus is grammatically impossible, as in it shouldn't even exist let alone be flawed. 3. One cannot have an opinion that someone is stupid if the person has zero ways of determining the stupidity of that individual. Pro has failed to provide a single way to determine Obama's stupidity and ,whether valid or invalid, such a method of determining the stupidity of Obama can now be successfully rendered nonexistent by Con due to Pro's failure to meet his BoP. 4. You have used is twice in your resolution. By the time you type the second 'is', the first became a 'was' in relation to it. It is a self-refuting resolution by that factor alone. In addition, it is now impossible for anyone to determine whether or not you have the opinion that Obama is stupid as even you will not know before it's too late. I proved this in round 2 and instead of rebutting what I said Pro has simply negated its validity on no grounds whatsoever. Pro has consistently failed to uphold his resolution.
It is My Opinion That Obama is Stupid

Thank you, Con, for such an impressive and spirited reply, even though you called me stupid.While my opponent's attempts to "ninja-leap" were admirable, they fail on all points.1. My: Belonging to or associated with the speakerThe definition is correct, and my use of the word is correct. Sharing ownership of something with someone else does not negate its "belonging" to me. If I say, "I love my kids", I am not implying that the kids do not belong to their mother. No rational person with a grasp on the English language would infer that. My boss is my boss, whether or not he is also anyone else's boss. My neighborhood is my neighborhood, no matter who else lives there. To expect someone to use the pronoun "our" every time association with something is shared is unrealistic.Also, my opponent has not supplied proof that an intangible idea can indeed be shared, instead of being individually distributed in each mind that forms it.2. It: Used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identifiedIt's apparent that Con's argument ignores both the "easily identified" part of the definition, and English grammar. It is clear that the word "it" is a pronoun, and can be used as the subject of a sentence.[1] It's obvious that, in my resolution, "it" is used correctly, and is identified by the object. It's strange that my opponent wouldn't realize this, but it's OK. It could be that Con is not so good with grammar. It's hard to tell.3. StupidAs I have already shown that my opponent's previous arguments are invalid, it follows that his conclusions based on said arguments are also invalid. However, even if my opponent's assertions were somehow correct, and I am too stupid to judge stupidity, that is not the issue being debated here. We are not debating the validity of my opinion, only the validity of my claim that I have the opinion.4. IsOnce again, we are not debating the validity of my opinion. Whether my opinion is correct or incorrect does not change the fact that I hold the opinion, so there is no reason for me bother tearing this argument apart. I have supplied the BoP to excess by not only stating my opinion, but publicly voting for it.I have consistently upheld my resolution. Thank you, Con, for a mentally stimulating debate.------[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...(pronoun)
It is My Opinion That Obama is Stupid

My resolution is that it is my opinion that Barack Obama is stupid.Opinion: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof [1]We see that if I believe with confidence that Obama is stupid, then it is indeed my opinion that Obama is stupid, and my resolution is true. In order for my resolution to be false, Con must be able to show that it is not indeed my opinion that Obama is stupid.To fulfill my burden my burden of proof, I will quote myself: "I think he is stupid because he does and says stupid things. To quote the great Mr. Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does." If anyone ever wants to know my opinion on the stupidity of Barack Obama, they can reference this opinion post and be enlightened. Good day to all." [2]Apparently, it is my opinion that Obama is stupid, and my resolution is true. Good luck, Con.----[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://www.debate.org...
No one has ever known a lick of truth in their entire life.

I'll start by saying that I have been a member of this site for a while, but have never taken up a debate as of yet, but this topic was way too tempting to resist. So first, you put a gigantic burden upon yourself when you state that "no one has ever known a lick of truth in their entire life". Seriously, you have to prove that every thing that all billions the of people that have ever been alive and known something have been wrong about it. Your burden of proof is to prove that every single truth known by every single person is false. But as that is not possible for either of us to check once it is stated, i will lower your burden to showing that everything that you, and I have ever known is false. Because you have no definition for truth, such as being only textbook truths or something of the sort, i take truth to be anything that I, or you believe to be true. Let me just say that you are of course correct in the cases of your examples that you give, and that we, as a species, have made many mistakes in the past in what we believe is true, but there are many more instances where what we believe as truth is actually true. So, my following arguments will be truths that i believe. For you to win this debate, you must disprove everyone of the following First, I believe that i exist, my proof for this is that I am typing this now, and that I am consciously thinking about the act as I do it, and that this isn't possible without my existence. Second, i believe that I am 18 years of age, with years being defined as each rotation of the earth around the sun third, i believe that my name on this website is anwermate, and yours is FalseReality fourth, i believe that i have parents, parents defined as the ones that cared for me through my childhood fifth, i believe that at this exact moment, i am putting pressure on keys with letters corresponding to the ones that are appearing on the screen. I of course could continue for hours and still not finish, but here are enough examples for now, also i realize you may be talking about scientific truths in your speech, but at the point that you do not clarify, it falls upon me to do so. Finally I will isolate the title of this debate to be hypocritical with itself, therefore making it impossible for you to win. You state that no one has ever known a lick of truth in their entire life, and you must either believe this statement to be true, or perhaps you just arbitrarily wanted to debate on this topic without believing it, and believe that it is false. In the instance that you believe that it is true, you automatically lose, as you say that no one has ever known a lick of truth in their entire life, and you believe that to be true. Second, if you believe it to be false, than you also lose as then you agree with my point. I look forward to your answer. And voters, please read the arguments made and then vote instead of merely voting like this is a survey. If either debater drops, or concedes a point, consider that a reason for decision. Thank you.
No one has ever known a lick of truth in their entire life.

Everything we know is wrong. Everything people in the past have known is wrong. Everything we think we will know will be wrong. Here's why: In the time of Mesopotamia. the river's flooded because a god was angry and felt they needed to be punished. Later, it was God who flooded the earth and decided when it would rain. Now, it is because molocules connect to dust particles and get heavy, and when this happen's alot, there is floods. In the beginning, god's fought visously and earth is the aftermath of that battle. Later, Earth was founded in 7 days by 1 God. Now, everything started because a glob of everything exploded. When someone was feeling down, it was because demons had a hold of their body and needed to be expelled by drilling a hole in the head for them to be drained from. Later, only God had the ability of cure sickness, so the best medicine was prayer. Now, pills and needles are the cures. First, man was only walking dirt, that the god's made for pleasure. Later, man was made in God's image and is devine over the rest of the animal kingdom. Now, man is the result of millions of years of mutations from an ape. It was fact that beyond a certain point, the Earth stopped and became heaven. Later, the Earth is flat, because if it wasn't we'd all fall off into space. Now, the Earth is round, and we hold onto it by gravity. The moon and the stars are a painting in the sky when a chariot crosses the horizon. Later, the moon was moved by God, and the stars are his angles. Now, the Moon moves by gravity, stars are luminous gas giants billions of light years in the an infinite universe. What people knew to be fact at one point proved to be false in another instance. Then something else happened and that other knowlege is wrong. No one has ever known anything to be a fact in their life. All belief's and idea's of knowledge are wrong and will forever be wrong. Anything we think could possibly be right will be proven wrong, thus, you are wrong.
Should small towns and schools be conjoined into cities to make bigger schools.

The reason I think they shouldn't is small towns aren't just about school and money. Small town communities are just really big families. Most people think they are a leach on society but I tend to disagree. Everyone in a small town know and band together in tough times. They sometimes hate sometimes love each other. In the town I'm in a kids dad died and since his mom was already dead the town stuck up for them. Half of the town (since they didn't have any more family in Oklahoma) tried to adopt them. One family did and they still live happily in this town. If it were to happen in a more city like area or large town then they would've probably been thrown into the foster system. This is the way that small town communities are good for communities. This debate has no rules. Con will say why it is good to conjoin small towns and the public will agree with whoever they agree with.
Allah is not the God of the Bible

(Theory) Might it look something like this? He's a "Christian"... He's "peaceful"... "And in his estate shall stand up a person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the government: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries." (Daniel 11:21) He won the Nobel Peace Prize before actually doing anything... http://youtu.be... "I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars." (Revelation 3:9) "He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him." (Daniel 11:39) He mocks God and the Sermon on the Mount- http://youtu.be... "He's a Jew"- http://youtu.be... He honors a foreign god of war- http://youtu.be... He's an Atheist? http://youtu.be... He's Covering up crosses- http://youtu.be... -"President Obama is no doubt looking for something of enough grandeur to reflect his opinion of himself, and rumors are floating back from the Middle East that he is sounding out Democrats, Republicans and friends of the United Nations in the United States to help him get the job of secretary-general of the U.N. Ban Ki-Moon’s term expires this year and Mr. Obama is said to think he’s just the man to succeed him." m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/12/editorial-obama-at-the-united-nations http://spectator.org... "I'm really good at killing people." http://youtu.be...