BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Conspiracy II: September 11, 2001

Sorry, but again I can't accept my opponents drawing, the best "nose out" examination on the web is this video. http://www.livevideo.com... anyone can clearly see this plane is a fake, and outwith "the nose out" theory the plane and the blast smoke both overlap the structure facing, not to mention the wing fades to nothing on approach. The image posted by my opponent (MS Paint) shows the plane with a square/flat nose, ? The planes nose can be seen changing shape before impact, here's a picture of a planes nose after being hit by one seagull. http://images.google.co.uk... And we're to believe that two planes just melted into buildings ? Videos of witnesses posted by my opponent do not prove anything, do these people know the difference between a jet and a winged cruise missile flying at speed ? How do I, master of electricity, hide a team of demolition experts and their hundreds of pounds of explosives, wires, transmitters, drilling gear, etc... from 250,000 people?? Answer below, and youtube video. posted as Proof ! http://www.livevideo.com... http://www.youtube.com... As stated in the first round that Zionists (Jews) were responsible for using the US Guv as puppets, so the question, "How many Jews died in the 9/11 WTC",? would you believe they (4,000) moved out just before 9/11 ? ZIM, an Israeli company, vacated its office (10,000 square feet) in the North WTC tower a few days before 9/11, breaking its lease. The lease ran till the end of 2001, and the company lost $50,000 by breaking the lease. Later, FBI agent Michael Dick, who was investigating Israeli spying before and after 9/11 and looking into the suspicious move, was removed from his duties by the head of the Justice Department's criminal division, Jew Michael Chertoff. Following link proves my account of the 9/11 attacks. (video included lasts 2 hours, but the first 15 Min's opens your eyes to Zionist's false flag operations in history) http://www.judenfrei.org... The website also shows how the Jews (Zionist's) had control over WTC, post 9/11 investigation, and more Jewish companies who vacated the WTC just prior to the missile attacks, thus breaking their lease agreement in the process. My opponent makes the comment, " making mountains out of molehills ",,,, I found this very interesting, never before has a steel structure fell due to fire, then all of a sudden we get 3 in a single day, we see planes melt into buildings, hear countless eyewitnesses testify about missiles, listen to firefighters and first responders talk about explosions on various floor levels, suddenly TV networks form an alliance and share live news reports, professional B grade actors posing as eye witnesses to sell the false story to the world, and on and on,,,,,,. Next round I intend to show how millions of dollars were made through insider trading due to the events of 9/11. I would say that my opponent is trying to make a molehill out of a mountain ! (A mountain of evidence) http://911-harley-shirt-guy.blogspot.com...
Citizens should have guns

That is true, I guess, but look at it this way. For one, we cant completely ban guns right now, because there are hundreds of millions out there, and there is no way that people would give up their guns. Also, if no one had guns, a criminal could get them, shoot everyone he wants to and no one could stop him. No one could stop him because no one has a gun, and he does. Have you heard about the shootings where one man has a gun, and the only way he is stopped is when he runs out of ammunition, and people can actually get to him without being shot? That is the only time where a person like that can be stopped. Besides, what about the people that live off the food that they shoot, like deer and other animals. Or the people who go out and go skeet shooting (such as myself). This is a recreational sport, which is fun and safe and easy to go out and do. A gun doesn't make a person bad, a bad person makes a gun bad.
Citizens should have guns

I have agreed with you many times during this debate, why would I be too stubborn now? I do not agree with you. I do not feel that you have any knowledge of what shooters or would be shooters are thinking. You have no idea why or why not people have chosen to or not to go on a shooting spree. You also have no idea if " the thought that people might have guns" stopped ANY shootings.Also, the gunman at the school killed himself, why would he be afraid to go somewhere where someone might have a gun?I doubt that he chose to go to a school because it's a gun free zone, he obviously wasn't concerned that someone may be carrying a concealed weapon.
Citizens should have guns

Wow. I did not say you were stupid, I said either you don't want to believe it, or you are too stupid to realize it. I could have said, "or you are lacking common sense." I know you would not call that name calling, or in the very least abrasive. I chose to conserve my words. Sorry. However, I don't want to sound obnoxious, but if you are going to stop the argument because I resorted to "name-calling" then I do not believe you have another argument to reply to me. If you agree with what I said, then say you agree. You do not have to be stubborn and immature enough to disagree even if you think I'm right. If you do not agree with me, then tell me why. If you do not have another argument, don't weasel your way out of this. That's all I ask.
Citizens should have guns

That was not the point I was trying to make. It may not have stopped the ones that did happen, but think of all the ones it stopped before it happened just by the thought that people might have guns. If no private citizen had access to guns, then there is a VERY high chance these shootings would increase rapidly. you realize the vast majority of these shootings happen in gun free areas, don't you? There is a reason for that, which either you don't want to realize, or you are too stupid to realize. Not trying to be insulting, but thats just the way it is. The reason for that is because the criminals know that no one is going to be armed, right? Yes. The school shooting: gun free zone, the theater shooting: gun free zone, the mall shooting: gun free zone. Are you starting to see a trend?
Citizens should have guns

Well, I do not know of an instance where a concealed handgun stopped a shooter either. However, I do know of mass killings where a concealed handgun would have stopped a shooter, if they had one. It's not only that, but it is also that the criminal knows no one will have a gun, which means he can do it wherever, whenever he wants (if no one could conceal a handgun). He knows no one could stop him. However, if we are allowed to have handguns, then he does not know who could or couldn't have a handgun.
Citizens should have guns

I agree with the statement "we cant completely ban guns right now, because there are hundreds of millions out there". I understand that it really would not be feasible to take away all guns. I believe that laws created now that restrict guns can have a greater impact on future generations and will be more effective in decreasing the likelihood of tragedies such as Newtown and Columbine. I do not, however, agree that there are many, if any, instances where a civilian carrying a concealed weapon has stopped a mass shooting. I believe the argument is flawed. The gunman would be stopped by police, for they would be able to carry guns. As for people who " live off the food that they shoot", in reality how many people are there like that? For the sake of this debate, let's assume that there are people who kill their own food, and live off only that. I say-You cannot please everyone. They may have to give up that lifestyle in order to protect their fellow citizens. As for you and your skeet shooting, there are, or could be, facilities that provide that kind of entertainment so that individuals do not need to own their own guns. I also agree with your statement "A gun doesn't make a person bad, a bad person makes a gun bad", but the only way to keep guns from becoming "bad" is to keep them from people who make them so.
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

Please read everything below before accepting. Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the not main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause. BoP is shared. DefinitionsMankind: "The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind. "[1]Main: "Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;"[2]Cause: "A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect. "[3]Global Warming: "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation. "[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...
God does not exist.

"If you can make 'God' you can make an infinite number of thinks with the same nature. (Not able to prove/disprove) You could make it so they could all exist at once, or any combination including non at all. But not all of them include God. By the workings of infinity God might as well be only one of these." You make the mistake of only looking at the possibility if God was the "only" unprovable thing (which would have the odds 1/infinity). However it is possibly that there are 50 things, of which God is one (and so those would have the odds of 50/infinity), it is also possibly that there are 1,000 things, or BB[10] things. What we end up with is a possibility of infinity/infinity, which is an indeterminate form. This states that the odds of God are simply unknown. It is also faulty to say that God cannot be proven. God cannot be proven with our current knowledge and technology, that is not to say that he will never be able to be proven. We can look at evolution as an example. We cannot prove evolution (as you link shows) with the limited amount of data we have witnessed. However, in 5,000 years (assuming detailed records are kept), we may then be able to prove it. Another example in the past, was calculating the speed of light. Isaac Beeckman attempted to calculate the speed of light back in the early 17th century, however he lacked the technology to do it (obviously), so at the time, it was unprovable, but now we can (and have). Many scientific laws we unprovable when they were first theorized, but now have been concretely proven or disproven. God will be no exception, at some point he will be proved or disproved. I'm not saying that there is a God, nor that there isn't. But there is no proof for or against, and so no way anyone can logically say "God does not exist." Thank you.
God does not exist.

If you can make 'God' you can make an infinite number of thinks with the same nature. (Not able to prove/disprove) You could make it so they could all exist at once, or any combination including non at all. But not all of them include God. By the workings of infinity God might as well be only one of these. Yes it did only define Busy Beavers, I thought there was a good chance you wouldn't have heard of them so saved you the time of researching about it. There is no evidence against God, God is made so we can't use evidence for or against 'him'. To make it more obvious the point I'm trying to make, the chances of God are infinitesimal, basically from 0 (impossible) to 1 (certain) God is 9/9 - 1. Which = 0. Impossible. How does that work? http://en.wikipedia.org... That explains how it works.
God does not exist.

You're link does nothing to prove your case, only defines busy beavers. As you said, there are infinite things we can't prove/disprove (which is incorrect to begin with, there is an unknown amount things we can't prove/disprove), among these is proof for God or against God. I am still waiting for some kind of logical proof or evidence as to the debate "God does not exist." I need something to work with.
God does not exist.

Just to clarify, this means there's an infinitesimal chance of God's existence if there's no other reason or evidence as to why God exists. The chances are less than rolling a hypothetical dice with BB[BB(9999)] sides, and having it land on '1'. Basically as good as zero. [1] If you say I can't say God doesn't exist. It's like saying I can't say I exist, because there's an infinitesimal chance I don't. But I say I do exist, I think therefore I am. Therefore God doesn't exist. 1. http://www.scottaaronson.com...
Grand Theft Auto is the greatest video game series of all time

Looks like my opponent forfeited this round. Although ratings don't matter as I said, they do give you a general idea on how good the game could possibly be. Take Zelda for example, Ocarina Of Time is almost listed in the top 3 games of all time on any website you go to. Last I check, I don't even think any of the Grand Theft Auto games made the top 10, let alone the top 20, and you'll typically find at least three zelda games in the top 20. 1: Ocarina Of Time 2: A Link To The Past 3: Majora's Mask And, other Zelda games might even show up here and there but not any of the GTA games. So, this includes IGN, Gamespot, and whatever video game website you can find, you're going to see Zelda games top the list. Also... Popularity. Doesn't mean a game is better, but it shows you what people are into. Zelda is known all around the world, and GTA isn't. Zelda is at comic cons, GTA isn't. (Now these arguments are getting similar to my Star Wars arguments I made in another debate where someone claimed the LOTR series were better). Anyhow, in short, Zelda has changed the way video games are played. It may have not been the first big hit 3D game like Mario 64, but it's release kept Nintendo in business for years to come, and again helped the video game community bloom. I could argue all day as to why i feel Zelda games are better, but it seems my opponent forfeited, so I'm going to end these arguments here.
Grand Theft Auto is the greatest video game series of all time

First off. I want to make a quick note that "GTA is the greatest video game series of all time" is merely an opinion, and can never be true as it will stay an opinion. Some people will like other game series more - Fact. There is literally no way you can prove it's the greatest because of these reasons. .. But to make things fair. I will pick a game series to argue against you as you suggested and that game series is. .. .. .. .. . The Legend Of Zelda, and will be arguing as to why Zelda is better (again although it's an opinion, no matter the ratings, and yadda yadda) but seeing the burden of proof is more so on you/pro to prove GTA is better than Zelda, please explain why to me, and I will start my debate in round 2.
Con Will Accept This Debate

Alrighty let's get down to work shall we? First off you cannot deny that my opponent has attempted to create a truism which goes against the object of debate.org. However I will argue her points. Since she doesn't have any definitions I will supply the one needed to win this debate. Will: expressing the future tense. https://www.google.ca... The problem presented now is the word "will" situated in the debate title and resolution. The word "will" presents something that is going to happen in the future. Right no I "have" accepted the debate. It is no longer a situation regarding will or any future implication. Therefor by definition con "will" no longer accept the debate as he already "has" accepted. In conclusion... Thanks for this interesting topic and I hope to debate you again in the future.
Gun control

I'm just debating the statement you made at the start of this debate. You said "Gun control is pointless and stupid because it would have the exact opposite effect than law makers and Democrats want it to and I'm going to prove it" I defined gun control by Merriam-Webster at the beginning, and that definition stands. Gun control is not the ban of guns. It's the "regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns". The pro side has yet to prove that the regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns is pointless and stupid. If you were to vote for pro, you would be saying that we should not regulate people with guns. That is beyond stupid. Gun control isn't taking guns away, it's making sure it doesn't get into the wrong hands. One more thing I would like to point out, pro never proved that EVEN BANNING GUNS was a bad idea. He just asserted. I'm not saying we should ban guns, actually, quite the opposite. Voting con is saying we should keep regulations of guns. Thank You
Gun control

True gun control and a gun ban are two different things but if you pay close attention to what politicians say like for instance former president Obama he says quote "these are only the first steps" implying that control is just a stepping stone on the path. We already have super strict gun control laws the problem is enforcing them not making them stronger. You see, background checks can only go as far as the info that is submitted about that person which is why so many mentally unstable people get their hands on fire arms because somebody didn't tell the government that Jonny here was in a mental institution. The laws are strong enough because you can't get a gun if you've been in a mental institution, convicted of a felony, on the no fly list for suspected terrorist links, an illegal immigrant etc. Yet they still say we have some of the most lax gun laws in the world. But like I said the problem isn't the laws themselves it's enforcing them. A gun sales person can't refuse the sale if they find nothing wrong on the background check otherwise they would be out of a job. And the laws don't stop the criminals that have stolen guns from other people like Adam Lanza from the Sandy Hook school shooting who was a reported mentally I'll individual. He killed his mother stole her gun and shot up an elementary school. Current gun laws wouldnt have stopped that from happening and new ones wouldn't have been able to either short of banning the guns used. In short there's nothing wrong with the gun control system itself just the people who are in charge of monitoring and updating it.
Issues of Immigrations

I for one had doubled checked my arguments and I'm sure I proved that immigration is not an issue in the United States. Forgive me if I offend, but logic says it all in my arguments. Closing Statement: - In this debate my focus is on "No Issues Of Immigrations." There are definitely no issues of immigration because.... 1.) " The Melting Pot Theory" The melting pot theory is, people of many diverse cultures and diverse beliefs coming to America and assimilating the American belief way. 2.) This country was founded by immigrants. 3.) Immigrants come into this country with advantageous ideas that turned into businesses. Example: Google.com, Yahoo.com, and Instagram. 4.) Security:--- Numbers on border crossing has declined overtime. (http://www.rita.dot.gov...) 5.) And for those immigrants that make no good contribution to this country and do nothing but the worst are rewarded with commitment in jail and then deportation. (http://www.invw.org...) Let us all remember that this country was made up of immigrants and also that this country is the land of opportunity. God Bless America. Thank you
Issues of Immigrations

I have proven that there are no issues with immigration by stating the following, " America is defined by immigrants." "Immigrants are a good source of people for America because they strengthen our economy thus making out work force young." "They helped us start businesses like Google, Yahoo, they have created industries in which had created jobs for Americans." I absolutely have given reasons to why it's not an issue to the immigrants that are already here. You're right about the national security and the statistics of those that come to the country by crossing the borderline. But the numbers have gone down dramatically over the years by the strength of our national security.http://www.rita.dot.gov... ---- this link indicates that the numbers on border crossing has declined overtime. And again you're right for the drug deals immigrants bring in and out the country but don't forget that there are deeply consequences for those that break the U.S. LAW. Such as deporting those that are not legally here in the U.S. and arresting those that legally here in the U.S. http://www.invw.org... But my focus is clearly on the benefits that immigrants have provided for America which I had already provided in my other round.
Issues of Immigrations

You have shown that there are some benefits to immigration, but you have not proven your resolution that there are absolutely no issues with immigration. Issues with Immigration 1.Security "Typical illegal aliens come to America primarily for better jobs and in the process add value to the U.S. economy. However, they also take away value by weakening the legal and national security environment. When three+ out of every 100 people in America are undocumented (or, rather, documented with forged and faked papers), there is a profound security problem. Even though they pose no direct security threat, the presence of millions of undocumented migrants distorts the law, distracts resources, and effectively creates a cover for terrorists and criminals. (http://www.heritage.org...) 2.Drugs "Federal investigators believe that as much as 2.2 million kilograms of cocaine and 11.6 kilograms of marijuana were smuggled into the United States via the Mexican border in 2005. With the decline of the Medellin and Cali cartels of Columbia, two Mexican drug cartels " the Sinaloa cartel and the Gulf cartel " are battling over the billion-dollar drug trade between Mexico and the United States. These cartels also have ties to U.S. gangs that serve as distribution networks in the interior United States. A 2006 study by the House Committee on Homeland Security warns that the Mexican cartels have essentially wrested control of the border from both the U.S. and Mexican governments (http://www.nccivitas.org...)