BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chat with me

I accept.Why you should chat with my opponentAs you see, my opponent is a magical talking cherry, as shown by his profile picture. According to the ancient Japaneese legend, talking to magical talking cherries will bring you great fame and fortune. The Story of the Talking Cherry Long ago in anciet Japan there was a magical cherry tree. The cherry tree was the Empress' most favorite tree in the world. The tree produced talking cherries that gave you great fame and fourtune if you talk to them. However, the Empress' sister was jealous and wanted fame and fortue so she tried to talk to the tree. However when she got to the tree the cherries would not talk to her so she was angry. To hurt the Empress, she cut down the tree and burned it. However one of the talking cherries escaped to a tall mountain where nobody except for the cherry has been. Many people have looked for the cherry to talk to it, because talking to it would bring great fortune. However, none have succeeded.So one day the cherry broke into Walmart and got a laptop and created a DDO account. That day is today.So as you see, it is a good idea to talk to my opponent because doing so will bring you great fortune.1. http://www.debate.org...;2. http://www.youareanidiot.org...3. http://www.tinyurl.org...
I will lose this debate

You are giving me a paradox to solve, I can see from the way that your sentences are structured that you are an experienced debater, and although English may not be your native language, you certainly know how to type with it. I am also new to the site, so you have just as good a chance at winning as I do.If anything, you have a better chance because of the paradox you have presented me with. Also, you can change your profile pic by clicking on you current pic, selecting view profile, clicking edit profile, and going to the picture tab where if you click on the pic again, but this time the one that is on the page, you can change it to whatever is in the menu.
I will lose this debate

I am not good at debating. In fact, I am terrible. I have never used this site before. English isn't even my native language. Furthermore, a very experienced contender has accepted my debate request. I have no chance against his advanced debate techniques, such as questioning my original statements, as presented in his first argument. And he has a better profile picture than me. I bet he will get all the user votes thanks to his sexy, slick, and very appropriate ninja avatar.
A 4-Day school week is a good idea

Students need education. Education can get them far in their life with goals and achievements. Using a 4 day plan will cut off 8 hours of studying at school. As parents go to work, where are the kids going to go? Education is very important in our lives. We depend on it especially on engineering know exponents People use math as a cashier or a customer buying items. Language could also be helpful in further goals When you get a job, you need to have special abilities. Great Language goes with it. It is the students' future to learn these special steps for their future! 4 Days is approxmently about 32 hours worth of study With 5, about 40 quality hours worth of study Parents can do their business as Students are busy on a Friday.
A 4-Day school week is a good idea

In a world we're intelligence is the most important thing someone can have, why would it be logical to further decrease the amount of school days someone has to do. With (just as an example) America being 13th on the global pass rates from school would it really be logical to give the students less time to learn, also with America being one of the highest "inventors" or stuff (e.g apple or Microsoft making computers or video game developers making millions) should we really be slowing down giving them the 'tools' in order to do that?
Abortion is always morally justifiable

You've only stated that something is morally justifiable, but have not provided any evidence supporting your justification. You also goofed up on your wording in number three. For the sake of argument beyond semantics, I'll focus on his claim that "the rights of the mother are more important than the rights of the foetus." What makes the rights of the mother more important? The term "fetus" merely describes a stage of human life, similar to "child." Are the rights of adults more important?
Abortion is always morally justifiable

1: An argument that can be used in any given situation can be used in every given situation. 2: "The rights of the mother are more important than the rights of the foetus" is an argument that can be used in any given situation. 3: Therefore, "The rights of the mother are more important than the rights of the foetus" is an argument that can be used in any given situation. The above argument is used to justify abortion. As such, because it can always be applied, abortion is always justifiable.
Abortion is always morally justifiable

"At the point where I have shown it is always morally justifiable, I am winning this round. My warrant was that I hypothetically could justify abortion no matter the circumstances, because anything can be a justification. As such, abortion is always morally justifiable." You have not, however, supported your hypothesis (I would like to emphasize his use of the word "hypothesis") that anything can be justified. You have therefore said nothing and I am still winning the round.
Abortion is always morally justifiable

"You've only said that it is always morally justifiable, you haven't proven anything. If the round ended now, because my opponent hasn't warranted a single claim, the round must be given to the negative." ---------------------- At the point where I have shown it is always morally justifiable, I am winning this round. My warrant was that I hypothetically could justify abortion no matter the circumstances, because anything can be a justification. As such, abortion is always morally justifiable.
Abortion is always morally justifiable

Hello and thanks for reading the first debate I've hosted on the internet! To begin, I'll outline some framework. If my opponent doesn't present a convincing argument, I must automatically win the round, as I am negating the resolution and they must support it with solid evidence. I'll turn the time over to my opponent to present his or her first argument. I urge you to vote based solely upon the arguments presented here. Thank you!
Abortion is always morally justifiable

"valid moral justification does need a firm basis in truth. " The resolution does not ask me if it is validly justifiable. If I were debating and the resolution were "abortion is always morally justified" then yes, it would need to be a valid justification. However, at the point where I have shown you that an excuse or justification, can always exist for abortion, I have won this round, regardless of how good that excuse or justification is.
Abortion is always morally justifiable

A moral justification need not have logic, but valid moral justification does need a firm basis in truth. Because debate must lie within the realm of validity, your argument is invalid. My opponent stated that abortion is morally justifiable, but provided no examples to show that it was morally justifiable. Because this is the last round, he cannot bring any new points of contention to the round and, because he has no previous points, I must win the round because of his burden of proof. Than
If God is real, then he's stupid.

He created a civilization and allowed them to do what they want with agency, but you can choose your actions, but not the consequences. Since they were evil the consequence was death you can't just change someone. God is infallible people are not. If Eve never ate the fruit the world would not have existed. Without curiosity people don't strive for better things the United States would never exist. We would never have gone to the moon. And medicine would not exist. Curiosity is a good thing as long as it is in check.
If God is real, then he's stupid.

Just by saying you are going to refute something, doesn't actually prove it wrong. If he destroyed because it was just a "first draft", then he isn't infallible. Why not just change his creation instead of destroying it? If he can see things before they happen, he would of seen this coming. Why wouldn't he of changed his creation before so he wouldn't have to destroy them. It's not a mysterious way of working, it's a wasteful way of working. As I stated before, "He also should of designed the human brain better to not be so tempted by curiosity, then Eve wouldn't of eaten from the tree."
If God is real, then he's stupid.

I will now refute my opponents arguments. He created an entire civilization and then when the civilization failed he destroyed. Like an inventor the first time they start an invention the first draft usually is not the one that works so they destroy it and try again. It wasn't only Noah's family on the ark some of Noah's daughters were married so they repopulated the earth. The point is that he must have been smart enough to figure out how to repopulate without incest. If Eve never ate the forbidden fruit non of use wold be here right now. Like I said again without curiosity many of the worlds advancements would never have happen.
If God is real, then he's stupid.

*now As I stated before, "If he is really so smart he wouldn't of designed an entire civilization and then drowned it because he didn't like it. Obviously he is not infallible." As a christians I am sure you believe that even consensual incest is wrong, if so how would you explain the repopulation after the flood? He designed an ark for 2 of every animal, you can't reproduce that way without incest. He should have designed it so as to hold at least a dozen of each animal. As I stated before, "He also should of designed the human brain better to not be so tempted by curiosity, then Eve wouldn't of eaten from the tree."
If God is real, then he's stupid.

I will know refute my opponents argument. He was first able to create an entire civilization. He created an entire civilization out of dust and this must have taken some intelligence. I am assuming that when you speak of drowning you are referring to the great flood and Noah's ark. This shows that god first was able to create an entire civilization than have the idea of making a flood that could cover the whole earth. He was also able to give building plans to Noah for an ark, which was so well planned out that it could hold 2 of every animal for an extended period of time on water, that must have taken some intelligence. Than having killed everyone except for a few of Noah's family he was able to return civilization to the 7 billion people that live on the earth today. He designed the human brain so that it could be curious. Without human curiosity there would be no space program, technology as we know it, or even any education. Also no human has been able to create a working human brain out of scratch this shows that god was intelligent enough to create some of the greatest things ever.
Palaeontology Is the most Controversial Scientific Field

I don't know what part of palaeontology you're talking about, saying that "if the true spectrum of this field were to be realized it would hold religion by it's throat." There is no part of palaeontology that's just tossed aside. Unless you have startling new information, which you've drastically failed to present, palaeontology does not have anything of any significant controversy. Also, palaeontology is not the foundation of evolution. It did not start evolutionary theory nor is it the strongest evidence in support of it. There is no valid criteria where palaeontology is "the foundation" for evolution. >>The luster has been lost, but there was a time when Palaeontology was one of the most fought over fields in all of science.<< You admitting defeat. We're debating what IS the most controversial, not what used to be. Even though it probably wasn't then. Palaeontology is not controversial. It's definitely not the most controversial, either.
Palaeontology Is the most Controversial Scientific Field

I did not concede that palaeontology is not the most controversial field, but that any controversy being fought within it is by way of evolution. I still stand that Palaeontology is more controversial because of the potential threat it holds to the largest society runner in the world: religion. Yes, no one argues about Palaeontology because they cannot touch it. It is, as you said, an observational field. All the pieces are there but no one wants to put them together, because if they did it would lead to the greatest world wide revolution in the history of the planet. Rather, it has been tossed aside by most people's thoughts into a scientific field that tickles one's imagination. But if the true spectrum of this field were to be realized it would hold religion by it's throat. You mistake what contributes to the evolutionary theory. They all have and equal pylon that holds it up. Modern findings of evolution are those of the gene's, phenotypes, observed instances, etc. However, without the fossil record evolution would be nothing. Without evidence from the past that there were ancestors which made the modern species what they are today there would be no "theory of Evolution". Palaeontology was the foundation that the rest of this theory was built up from. Today, the observations of macro and micro evolution is observed and more prominent in the Evolutionary debates, but without the evidence from the past all the findings are practically void. The luster has been lost, but there was a time when Palaeontology was one of the most fought over fields in all of science. Te Big Bang theory is a very fought over field, yes, but casts no shadow next to the Theory of Evolution. It is impossible to know how the Universe started, and is at the moment, a battle of beliefs. But as you yourself concede, Palaeontology's evidence is all right there. More and more evidence is being found in relation to the past, almost to the point of the very beginning of life. That is the truly earth shaking question. More and more proof is showing that we were made through a happy accident, not a divine creation. As more proof is found it will shake the religious world. Right now, the religious community cannot touch this field because of its factual nature, so they ignore it, only acknowledging it when they can't turn their shoulder anymore. I'm very surprised all the pickets signs say "God Hates Gays" and "Save the Babies Life" rather than "Jack Horner's the Devil" and "Patagonia needs to GOnia". As this area grows the religious one will shrink. As I said in the beginning, it is that power that makes it controversial, not the subject itself. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
Palaeontology Is the most Controversial Scientific Field

You have conceded that it is not in fact Palaeontology that is the most controversial field, but rather a field to which Palaeontology contributes. To be more specific, you think the Theory of Evolution is the biggest controversy in science, though it could also be the Big Bang Theory. The Theory of Evolution is a biological theory, which makes biological predictions. It is not in any way part of the field of Palaeontology. Therefore, the topic of debate, "Palaeontology Is the most Controversial Scientific Field" is wrong by your standards and mine. Since I'm the only one who's supposed to be arguing that it's wrong, it would seem that I've already won. However, I'll add a little something before I go. Palaeontology doesn't even _contribute_ the most to controversy, which seems to be what you were debating last round. The majority of Evolution's evidence comes solely from biological sources. These would be genetics, phenotypes, observed instances of evolution, etc. All that Palaeontology's sources give us is fossils. While fossils are needed to predict how extinct animals evolved, they do not nearly represent the bulk of the evidence for Evolution as a theory. Therefore, Palaeontology doesn't even contribute the most to controversy, Biology or Astronomy does. Concede defeat or make something up. This is a premise on which you cannot win.
Palaeontology Is the most Controversial Scientific Field

(as I am not as well versed in the Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist history in regards to scientific discovery, I will now argue based only on the Christian views) But here is where you are wrong. Palaeontology has spurred what could possibly be the most widely spread, heated, and longest lasting debate of our time: Evolution. Yes, Charles Darwin developed the idea, but palaeontology helped make it so, and continued to back it up with it's later findings. Creationism, when you think about it, is a submission to the power of this field, as the religious world has no way to refute this evidence. There was no such thing as creationism until Evolution started to gain ground. Before, it was just widely accepted that God made the Earth in 7 days, and that birds, fish, and animals all came from the same garden that the first two humans came from. But once evolution began to gain some credibility in the scientific community, and religion was not a science, the very broad scientific explanation of Creationism and Intelligent Design appeared. Its definition from Wikipedia is as follows: Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed. Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[ Never directly saying that the Christian god is the creator or designer in question, but it is implied. Ever since the Evolution vs. Creation debate has been fought. Evolution vs Christianity was fought wildly directly after Darwin presented his theory. Laws have been passed in regard to Teaching ID along with Evolution, and in some cases more so. Palaeontology helped make it all happen. So yes, while the field itself may have never directly been challenged, it certainly has been in other ways. If there was some way to disprove the prehistoric bones, then the religious world would jump on that in an instant. However, there is no way to argue against such hard evidence, as you yourself admitted, so they can't and don't. Rather, the idea's that spring from it are attacked. Controversy.
Palaeontology Is the most Controversial Scientific Field

Palaeontology is NOT the most controversial scientific field. Palaeontology is, as you say, capable of showing the existence of extinct types of life. In fact, that is largely the purpose of palaeontology. The existence of these different creatures could arguably disprove the creation stories of most religions. However, the reason Palaeontology is not the most controversial field of science is as follows: People don't usually disagree on its findings. The _overwhelming_ majority of _all_ people agree that dinosaurs did in fact exist. Controversy is the extent to which there is disagreement on an issue, and Palaeontology just doesn't stack up to some other fields of science when it comes to disagreement. If you want to talk about proving creation stories wrong, astronomy (mostly surrounding the origin of the universe), biology (mostly surrounding evolution), anthropology, geology, etc. Some of these, especially astro and bio, are extremely controversial for the very reasons you say palaeontology is. The only problem is, palaeontology _isn't_ controversial. Even creationists embrace the findings of Palaeontology. I'm sure you've heard of the creationist museum... it's got dinosaurs all over the place. Palaeontology is not controversial for one very good reason - it's almost a direct observational field. You cannot easily disagree with such hard findings, and almost no one does.
Palaeontology Is the most Controversial Scientific Field

Palaeontology is the study of prehistoric life forms on Earth through the examination of plant and animal fossils. My agreement is that it is the most controversial field of study on the planet. How can I say this? Because it challenges every religion on Earth to its own validity. Faith rules the world, like it or not. The most prominent is Christianity, followed by Muslims, then Hindu, and Buddhists as the top four. The Christian and Hindu creation stories can be found here: http://www.bibleontheweb.com... http://www.painsley.org.uk... The Muslim creation story in general is the same as the Christian with few exceptions. The Buddhist religion has no creation story, as the Buddha says to not concern ones self with unanswerable questions (a brilliant philosophy in a tremendous number of respects). Now then, what does any of this have to do with Palaeontology? Simple: there is absolutely no mention of any prehistoric life in the text. There are only examples of modern animals native to the area that each story originated from. What does prove? No knowledge of prehistoric life had been ascertained within the time periods the texts where written in. Should the religious books be the true to the start of the world then there should also be mention of animals resembling those of an Argentiosaurus, a Baryonyx, a Dunkleosteus, even a Quetzalcoatlus. However, the only references show snakes, lions, sheep, and eagles. The lack of evidence to show that there where creatures larger and more spectacular than the local flora and fauna is reason enough to doubt it's validity. Only recently, as prehistoric study continues, do the religious movements try and explain the new findings and incorporate it into their original beliefs system. Religion rules the world. Governments are run by it, laws are made in accordance to it, even days off are given to celebrate it. This science alone can show that the Bible, Koran, and others where all written by people in an attempt to explain something vast and mysterious, but only with the limited amount of knowledge at hand. Religions around the world would be found to be a lie and collapse. Palaeontology is thus, more controversial than gay rights, gun control, drug legalization, abortion, or any other topic. Religion has come into play somehow in all these subjects. Only Palaeontology has the ability to topple the only barrier between belief, and true logic. Summary: This argument is not about whether religion is bad or not, but that Palaeontology is more controversial than better known subjects because of it potential to destroy religion, the worlds foremost superpower.
Resolved: Institutional Racism is Significantly Present in America

I will refute institutional racism in America based on two definitions: 1) The Pro's (Redmoonlight) source but using the definition it points to by link (click the link for institutional racism in website provided by Pro): a) Definition: Institutional racism refers to racism perpetrated by government entities such as schools, the courts or the military. Unlike the racism perpetrated by individuals, institutional racism has the power to negatively affect the bulk of people belonging to a racial group. b) Link: http://racerelations.about.com... 2) The definition provided by The Oxford English Dictionary: a) noun: [MASS NOUN]: Racial discrimination that has become established as normal behaviour within a society or organization b) Link: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Resolved: Institutional Racism is Significantly Present in America

In this debate, I'll be arguing in favor of the resolution that institutional racism is both present in America, and present to a "significant" degree. Definitions: Institutional racism: societal patterns that have the net effect of imposing oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity. [1] Significant: Sufficiently"great or important to be"worthy of attention;"noteworthy. [2] America: The United States of America. [1] http://civilliberty.about.com... [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... First round is for acceptance. I'll have the burden of proof to provide evidence to support the resolution. Con is responsible for refuting my assertions and evidence.