BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An experienced veteran should decide which user-generated questions in Triviador go into the game.

It is somewhat of a digression but not very. I was trying to generalize my point beyond political entities and will say here that for any organized group or event like Triviador, there is some semblance of authority. Even Wikipedia which prides itself on trying to be devoid of experts and authority, has authority figures like the founder who place announcements at the top of each page occasionally to steer the site in a certain direction for a certain agenda. I think we should be debating the merits of popular voting in question selection alone. For you would have to admit that in this status quo, not every aspect of the game is in popular hands (like the developing of new graphics, new versions, selection of events posted on the fanpage wall, etc.). All I am saying is that I don't see the popular question selection as an essential element in making this game inclusive for all. In fact, I think that people who have different backgrounds would have more luck with question selection vested in one person than in the current model. The reason is because I think that the vet will be instructed to include most questions except those violating certain provisions (i.e. bad grammar, incorrect, too obscure, repeat, etc.). I have submitted hundreds of questions into the game yet I only have one that made into gameplay. I do not think that all my questions are objectionable and I think that I, like many others, could get many more into the game if we had a proactive adjudicator rather than a faceless majority making decisions.
An experienced veteran should decide which user-generated questions in Triviador go into the game.

Reply 1. An interesting comparison, but a digression. This is a game, not a corporation or a political forum. But I also think our resolve is not too far apart. We agree, that at the very least, that maybe 20% of rejected questions could go to an adjudicator, but we disagree on who that should be. I stand by my suggestion that it should be Triviador. Reply 2. The question factory should be left as it is. Everyone that plays this must have their opinion respected & no one should be denied the opportunity to vote, it's part of the overall fun. Reply 3. Certainly, a vet will know more questions than a novice, but so what? If a question is repeated, eventually it will be weeded out. If the question has a slightly different angle but the same answer, I see no problem with that, either. This game should not become an elitist club for the select few. Reply 4. A mediator is just that. They mediate between player & Triviador, no more, no less. They do not make decisions concerning the question factory as far as I am aware.
We must Kill Cooper

I also now what to say at this moment in time wcept that i need to live and that i do not want to die Search lyrics & more FEATURED STORIES TOP SONGS VIDEOS COMMUNITY | SHOP | Globglogabgalab Tony Halstead Produced by Carsten Bruse & David Hutter [Intro] I'm the Globglogabgalab I love books And this basement is a true treasure trove [Verse] I am the Glob-glo-gab-galab The shwabble-dabble-wabble-gabble flibba blabba blab I'm full of shwibbly glib-a-kind I am the yeast of thoughts and minds [Chorus] Shwabble dabble glibble glabble schribble shwap glab Dibble dabble shribble shrabble glibbi-glap shwap Shwabble dabble glibble glabble shwibble shwap-dap Dibble dabble shribble shrabble glibbi-shwap glab [Bridge] Oooh, ha ha ha, mmm, splendid Simply delicious Ooooohm, ha haa ha ha [Verse] I am the Glob-glo-gab-galab The shwabble-dabble-wabble-gabble flibba blabba blab I'm full of shwibbly glib-a-kind I am the yeast of thoughts and minds [Chorus] Shwabble dabble glibble glabble schribble shwap glab Dibble dabble shribble shrabble glibbi-glap shwap Shwabble dabble glibble glabble shwibble shwap-dap Dibble dabble shribble shrabble glibbi-shwap glab [Outro] Ahhh "Globgogabgalab" is a musical number from the 2013 animated movie Strawinsky and the Mysterious House. As a character, the Globgogabgalab is meant to symbolize mindless consumerism, as described on the film"s official website: His body is like a huge lump of dough that is fed by the thoughts and stories of the books. The contents of the books work their" read more " Written By David Hutter Recorded At Berlin Hope Animation Release Date December 4, 2012 Home T Tony Halstead Globglogabgalab Lyrics About Genius Contributor Guidelines Press News Genius Annotate the Web Advertise Event Space Privacy Policy Licensing Jobs Developers Terms of Use Copyright Policy Contact us Sign in " 2018 Genius Media Group Inc. VERIFIED ARTISTS ALL ARTISTS: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z #
Science is a major threat to human existence

"As my partner pointed out, only my point about nuclear arms had any bearing on the direction of the debate." My opponent admits that only her argument on nuclear weapons was relevant. Voters should disregard all other arguments, besides the nuclear one, without any second thoughts. When we analyze what's happened this far in the debate, we can see that I'm the clear winner. On what I've already quoted, my opponent has conceded, every argument but one, and she actually concedes that, if you read a bit further in this round. " Again, we are veering a bit off topic here. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is a political plus, but not scientific at all. Therefore, the raw fruits of science, without the political overlay, are dangerous to humanity." My opponent is supposed to be arguing the resolution, which is: Science is a Major Threat to Human Existence Her last remaining argument is thus invalid, because she admits that, nuclear war is not a serious threat to mankind, because of "political overlay". If we'll look back at the resolution, we can see that the debate is about whether or not, science is a threat to mankind. It is not a debate on whether it is a threat to mankind, without political overlay. When looking back at the resolution, we can see that my opponent has conceded every argument in the debate. She completely undermines her own case, and nothing is left standing, without any further work from me, this is an automatic win on my part. My opponent has dropped every positive argument, I've made and nobody in good conscience can vote against me. I'll end this round, like I ended the previous one. "Science is not a threat, no more than a doctor performing life saving surgery is a threat. If you die in a surgery meant to save you, but with only a 10% success rate and you die during the course of it, it would be nonsensical to blame the tool attempting to save you, instead of the disease. At best my opponent's arguments, rest on blaming the tool, but more realistically they fail. Two arguments have nothing to do with the resolution and one argument, has proven to be something very unlikely to transpire."
Science is a major threat to human existence

On Wylted's suggestion, I have looked through the debate several times, and I finally decided that a majority of what we both said is horribly off topic. As my partner pointed out, only my point about nuclear arms had any bearing on the direction of the debate. Rebuttal But fortunately, not all is completely lost. My partner's post, both his rebuttals and original arguments themselves, aren't arguing correctly as well. My partner lists a series of ways science has, and will be able to, help our daily lives. However, strictly speaking, this debate wants to determine if science could cause humanity's downfall, not if science is usually good and useful. So, the BoP kind of lies on me, and my opponent can't present anything but rebuttals. Counter Again, we are veering a bit off topic here. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is a political plus, but not scientific at all. Therefore, the raw fruits of science, without the political overlay, are dangerous to humanity.
Science is a major threat to human existence

I will be arguing that humanity's existance is directly and inderectly threatened by scienceI have made this debate impossible to accept. If you wish to debate, please apply in comments.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Main PointsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Defense against round 3 rebuttalsRulesNo forfeitsNo deconstructive criticismNo vulgaritiesNo changes to debate structure, or definitions without consent of both debators.If a rule is broken, the offending debator forfeits the debate.Definitions:Science - the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Threat - A person or thing likely to cause damage or dangerhttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Human - Of, relating to, or characteristic of peoplehttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Existence - The fact or state of living or having objective reality http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Thanks to all who apply, and good luck to my partner!
Universal health care should be supported

I'm not going to type a lot because 1. It is not necessary and 2. I don't want to waste your time. So here we go. Since you don't like my definition of support here is the first definition. to bear or hold up So how are you going to hold up an idea without giving money or physically getting up off of your butt? So unless YOU actually do something YOU do NOT support the resolution. So in reality in order to agree with the resolution, you must get in there and do something, not just think that it is moral and right. Your thoughts do not help the idea become reality. Which brings me to this.... If implentation is not a part of this debate then why debate? There is no reason to argue this point if it's not going to happen. So to go back to morality, it is your duty to provide the world with health care. So take the money out of your pocket and make it happen and I'll be all for it, but to use MY tax dollars to pay for it is unacceptable. The United States is in over 9 trillion dollars in debt with limited health care for its citizens. To go back to my first round, we must help ourselves first. We do not have the resources to do so. Thank You
Universal health care should be supported

I will begin my debate by attacking your definitions. I agree with UHC, however your definition of should is based off of your own opinion. Below are the definitions of "should" directly off of dictionary.com. should 1. pt. of shall. 2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased. 3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that. 4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize. In your definition you said "morally obliged to". Definition #3 has nothing to do with morality. On dictionary.com it is said that must is a synonym to should. Here is the definition of must. 1. to be obliged or bound to by an imperative requirement I pose this question to you, "Why is it OUR duty and OUR imperitive requirement to make universal healthcare for everyone?" It isn't our duty, so by using the 3rd definition of should we MUST do nothing. Universal Health Care is not our problem. You say in your 4th argument that support does not mean we have to do anything. Here is the definition for support: to maintain (a person, family, establishment, institution, etc.) by supplying with things necessary to existence As you can clearly see it says we must supply the "thing"(in this case, UHC) with necessary items. This can be from giving money to speaking at a convention or voting on a ballot. Either way it takes some work from the individual supporting it. Since it's clear that support takes work, let's break this down. The United States doesn't even have Healthcare for many of its people so extending it to the world be useless. You say that UHC encourages the concept of helping others, but we must help ourselves first. In status quo we ourselves do not have full health care, so why worry about the rest of the world?
Creationism's Claims Are Valid

Since I agree with Con, in general, this is quite difficult to argue. The only thing I can say, to sum this up; All the data, evidence, is the same. The difference is in the results, conclusions, or interpretations. Even though the creationists position, to us, seems illogical, we must acknowledge that to them it is entirely valid, and thought out. I have argued creationists that are very knowledgeable in various areas of science and can argue their case with strong "validity". Is it true? No, more than likely it is not. But just because we disagree with the conclusion, and can show a much more consistence and concise explanation, it does not automatically make their position, or their claim invalid. It may make it wrong, but a scientific argument is often wrong, while still being valid, used, or pursued. So in making an claim, with divine cause, if it follows the evidence no matter who disagrees with the conclusions, it is, or could at least be considered "valid". I can grant there are many specific creationist claims that are indeed not valid, but we are not talking about each specific claim, to my knowledge. Many of their claims can be considered valid, even if wrong or if we do not agree. Con, I apologize. I realize this was not the debate you wanted. And I realize that I was not able to sufficiently argue for a view that I do not share.
Creationism's Claims Are Valid

I would like to accept this challenge, even though it is a position I am against. Having the burden of proof, I am to demonstrate that the claims of Creationism are valid. The universe and life have originated, if we understand what modern science claims. This claim is consistent with a worldview of creation. I could hypothesize that the universe was originated by a force of creation, which began what we experience as space time. Further, through the reactions unleashed after the big bang, stars formed, then exploded, creating the elements that are needed for further complexity in the universe. With the development of galaxies, and star systems, planets; further complexity can persist. The building blocks were then available for the creation of more complex beings. Through the manipulation of natural laws, chemical reactions, and environmental constraints, a seemingly or arguably perfect system was created to take in energy and act on coded information. An extremely complicated machine, an organic machine that through it's coding could adapt and evolve into all the life we see today. Further, this evolution lead to a capacity to sustain "mind" and acknowledge our surroundings, and question from whence we came. That blurb takes from things we "know" of science. It is consistent with our understanding even if not entirely agreed upon. It could be considered: Valid - having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent. To Con, I contend that claiming a position does not have a valid or cogent argument, in general, is simply denying the actual argument. More energy should be invested in the argument, then in the denial of such.
Creationism's Claims Are Valid

ResolutionCreationism's claims are valid.Pro - Has 30,000 characters and the burden of proof to demonstrate that the claims of Creationism are valid. Pro can also refute Con.Con - Has only 20,000 characters to refute the validity of Creationism's claims.*There are no rounds - there are 3 sets of 10,000 characters, and there is no acceptance round...just start debating.Pro WinsIf we accept the resolution.Con WinsIf we reject the resolution.DefinitionsCreationism - the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, rather than by natural processes.Claims - assertions of the truth of somethingValid - having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.*Definitions - are agreed upon by posting your first argument.*Definitions - can be changed in the comments section, before the debate, as long as both Pro and Con agree in the comments section.May the better argument win.
TROLL DEBATE: Wreck-it Ralph is a bad movie.

My god....how silly.Ralph hates the movie, so it's bad?No no no, Ralph doesn't hate the movie. He only wants to wreck GOOD things. Look at the house. It's perfect. Ralph WANTS TO MAKE THINGS BAD, which is why he wants to wreck the movie. The movie looks too good for Ralph, and Ralph only wants to wrecks things that are too awesome for his taste. Your evidence is insufficient. Ralph is a weird bad guy, he wants to destroy good things, not bad things.Now, as for the Bad Guy Affirmation, the movie isn't actually bad. If it's good then the statement doesn't really apply to the movie. But for people who think the movie is bad, the Bad Guy Affirmation statement actually twists peoples' minds around so that they actually think it's good. Because being bad looks like the movie's purpose, everyone will think the movie is good; therefore the movie is good. People who think the movie is neutral won't think of it as "Bad" either, since "Being not good is not bad" according to the affirmation. Therefore, no matter who you are, you will think the movie good, and therefore the movie will be good. Now, as for the Cybugs, they only wanted the movie to end because Cybugs are stupid and they're like viruses. Good people can be inflicted with virus and be killed as well! The famous Marie Curie died from....exactly what she was trying to work out....cancer. -.-As you can see viruses can infect good people/movies too, not just bad people/movies. Besides, the sugar tastes awesome, so they must only want to eat good things. Because they only want to eat good things, and they want to eat the arcade, the arcade must be good, therefore the movie must be good.Sorry if my round's not funny as my opponent's. I don't really have any trolling juice in me right now. Back to you, Gaming-debater.
TROLL DEBATE: Wreck-it Ralph is a bad movie.

http://www.youtube.com... Thanks for accepting. Ralph hates the movie Ralph says "[he's] going to wreck it!" But he is not specific about what he's gonna wreck. I assure you he isn't talking about the penthouse. He clearly specifies that he wants to live in it, so why would he wreck it? We know he isn't happy until the movie ends. Bad movies make people unhappy, so he must be talking about the movie. We also have evidence of this from the Bad Guy Affirmation, a mantra that video game antagonists say in the movie. The mantra goes: “I’m bad, and that’s good. I will never be good, and that’s not bad. There’s noone I’d rather be than me” Right after the bad guys are done saying it, the title of the movie pops up under Ralph. *long gasp* They have the same name! that means the MOVIE was talking! The movie is trying to warn you about how awful it is! The Cy-Bugs Hate the Movie Most of the movie takes place inside the arcade, so there would be no movie without an arcade. From the following quotes in the movie, we can tell that they want to and can eat the arcade. "Menacing creatures known as Cy-Bugs are a deadly threat to not only their game, Hero's Duty, but to the entire arcade. They know just three things: Eat, destroy and multiply. Cy-Bugs can morph into anything they eat-from an attack buggy to an assault rifle. They do have one weakness: an attraction to bright light. (They are bugs, after all.)" [1] If they want to eat the whole arcade, then the movie must be awful! They started with Sugar Rush for two very obvious reasons: 1) It’s defenseless and 2) to get on a sugar high! This is their logic: A: If we start with Sugar Rush, we’ll eat it quickly AND get on a sugar high. B: If we get on a sugar high, we’ll get through the better defended games faster by eating and moving faster C: If we get through better defended games faster, the easiest ones will be there for last. D: By getting through the hard ones faster, we increase our chances of eating the whole arcade. CONCLUSION: If we eat Sugar Rush first, we’re more likely to manage to eat the whole arcade. If they started with Sugar Rush, then with that logic, they must have wanted the movie to end. If they wanted the movie to end, it must be terrible! Your turn. Sources: [1]- http://wreckitralph.wikia.com...
video games are entaining and are fun they arnt bad in any way your also giving your fingers exercis

Video games are bad in some ways. They make your eyes blurry and they make you get really tired easily. They don't give exercises to your fingers, they give you that repetitive syndrome of your fingers some how. The only videogames that get you exercise are Eye Toy and the Nintendo Wii. and I don't your going to play those all the time, and video games only give you exercise if you jump around.
The Death Penalty

Firstly I will defend your arguments "How could this man possibly just go to prison."Very easily, he could be given a life sentence and you would never see him again. Some would argue life in prison is worse than death "He took innocent lives so why shouldn't a fair punishment for him be the death penalty." Because death penalty is costly [1] and the person who they find to be the murderer may be the wrong person [2]"An eye for eye, right?"Wrong. Many well respected people (ahem Gandhi) didn't believe this to be true "I do realize many arguments against the death penalty are that what if an innocent was sentenced with a death penalty. While this is possible it is very rare. An innocent man has a better chance of being killed by a falling meteor."Actually, the chances of being falsely accused of the death penalty are 0.897226753670473% (although this is only based on cases that we suspect, there is undouptably countless other cases that we haven't suspected) and the chances of being killed by meteor are 0.00039999999999999996% so the chance of being killed by accidentally accusation is much higher.[3] "The death penalty offers more reward than risk."What are these rewards? "Also another thought is when someone doesn't get the death penalty there is a decent chance he will be out on the streets before he dies."Based on what evidence? Now onto my arguments Argument 1- It costs so much money to kill someone.According to my sources [1] it costs over 2.4 million taxpaying dollars to put someone through death penalty. I did that math and that amounts to approx. two billion nine hundred forty-two million four hundred thousand dollars being wasted killing people, and twenty-six million four hundred thousand of that was spent on killing innocent peopleArgument 2- It doesn't deter crime ratesStudies have shown that the death penalty doesn't deter crime, states without death penalty actually have lower crime rates (whether this is relevant or not is up to your interpretation) Argument 3- If the state is allowed to kill people whose to decide who they can't kill?If the state has the power to kill someone simply because their judges say so whose to say they can't falsely accuse an enemy of the state and kill them? [1] http://www.statisticbrain.com...[2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[3] http://www.wired.com...[4] http://www.deathpenalty.org...
The Death Penalty

No problem. First of all I'll say while I do agree with the death penalty I think it should be very hard to be sentenced to. So imagine this. It is a summer night and your sleeping in bed with your wife and daughters downstairs. Someone breaks in and before you can do anything about it he has brutally slaughtered your wife and daughters. How could this man possibly just go to prison. He took innocent lives so why shouldn't a fair punishment for him be the death penalty. An eye for eye, right? I do realize many arguments against the death penalty are that what if an innocent was sentenced with a death penalty. While this is possible it is very rare. An innocent man has a better chance of being killed by a falling meteor. The death penalty offers more reward than risk. Also another thought is when someone doesn't get the death penalty there is a decent chance he will be out on the streets before he dies. Very few people serve a full life penalty. Would you really want to take a chance of this man being back on the streets someday?