BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christopher Columbus found america

They aren't mutually exclusive. Christopher Columbus found America. We have historical records that he existed and that he actually traveled to the continents. His first voyage was bouncing around some of the islands but his his second, third, and fourth voyages took him to the mainland. The fact is quite well established that Leif Erikson also found America. There's some interesting suggestions that the Chinese found it too. And it's exceedingly likely that the native Americans crossing the Bering Strait (it ices over and you can walk) also found America. Your central claim is mistaken. Simply establishing Erikson's discovery doesn't negate the topic at hand. Plenty of people found America a number of time. It's actually quite large and people bump into it. Columbus was the first European to bring the information to the attention of Western Europe. Which is actually why when he found America, it's a bit more important to history than when Erikson found it. ---- There's a lot of myths about Columbus which are plainly false. He wasn't some great unorthodox believer in a round Earth unlike those stuffy European thinkers of his day. In fact, most people believed the Earth was round. The difference in opinion was to the circumference of the planet. Most people at the time believed that there was an "ocean sea" to the west and by calculating the distance east to the Indies subtracting that from the circumference of the planet you could find how far east the Indies were. The thinkers in Europe calculated it to be about 11,000 miles (actually really close) whereas Columbus believed it to be about 3,000 miles by making really crappy estimates as to the circumference of the Earth as well as the distance east to the Indies. This is the reason he sailed west and thought he was in the West Indies when he was not. The assumption that there was nothing but a massive "ocean sea" was wrong. Columbus was given leave to travel west with three stocked ships (in order to buy drugs) and found America. Ferdinand and Isabella forced out the Moors. As a consequence they had a lot of people addicted to opium and no supply (the Moors were their supplier). The Muslims closed the route to the east and made access harder and so even a fool's quest with some minor potential was worth a shot. This is why all the other powers at the time scoffed at Columbus: he was wrong, his plan was stupid, built with wishful thinking and willfully bad calculations. The assumption of the "ocean sea" was mistaken. Columbus actually died thinking he made it to the Indies, the thinkers in Europe quickly figured out their mistake. Columbus died a loser. -------- All of this, however, is a moot point, Christopher Columbus *DID* discover America. Regardless of other people making the same discovery this is *still* true. It is not mutually exclusive. Leif Erikson (Erik's son, the Son of Erik the Red / surnames worked like that / hence all the Johnson's and Peterson's etc still around after they stopped doing that) found America in the year 1000, Columbus found America in 1492. -- Columbus found America. QED.
Christopher Columbus found america

I believe that Christopher Columbus did not find America in 1498 although the Scandinavians found it 500 years before Christopher Columbus (the viking era) was even born. In the year 986 Bjarni Herjolfsson left Norway to go to Iceland, where he then found out that his father was on a ship commanded by Erik The Red to colonize a huge land situated to the west and would be called "Greenland". One of Erik The Red's son, Leif Erikson was interested of the story Bjarni Herjolfsson had told so he and Erik the Red took 35 men left in the search for the land Bjarni had found. Leif first got to the Baffin Islands (North Eastern Canada), Going south they found the forested land now known as Labrador. A few days later the vikings found a even better territory. They built houses and lived there. The land was named Vinlandia meaning the wine land. They stayed there until they thought they had enough wine then returned to their home country Greenland. In the 60's and 70's in L'Anse Aux Meadows village (Newfoundland, archaeologists found remains of houses dated back 1000 years (time of the vikings). In the 90's a danish researcher found a polished stone coming from a Viking Craft. We have proof that the vikings were at one point there before Christopher Columbus. There is no proof whatsoever that Christopher Columbus had found America before the vikings.
From a debate judging standpoint LM should win the "Pizza Rocks My World" debate with cliffsofdover

I must negate, LM should not win the Pizza Rocks My World debate with cliffsofdover. I was considering putting forward the case that LM was not a debater in that debate, however, I will on this rare occasion decide that "I knew what you meant." Now, it seems my opponent lack a fundamental understanding of how debate works. "I am advocating possibility, my opponent is advocating certainty" is simply not valid. Take this debate, for example. I could not argue that it's simply possible that LM should have won that debate. I have to show that he should not have won. Or "There's nothing wrong with being a bit sexist sometimes." CON has to show that there is indeed something wrong with being a bit sexist sometimes. Or he could show that there's nothing wrong with being a bit sexist ALL THE TIME, but still, CON's position must directly conflict with the resolution. Let's look at "Pizza rocks my world". cliffsofdover: "Pizza rocks my world" Logical-Master: "Pizza might rock his world." THERE IS NO DIRECT CONFLICT THERE. IF the resolution stated certainty explicitly, then Logical-Master's case would have been valid. Logical-Master's case is the equivalent of saying "Yeah, that might be true" in an argument. IT IS NOT A CONFLICTING STATEMENT. PRO showed a few reasons why pizza rocks his world. CON did not show that these stated reasons were probably not causing pizza to rock his opponent's world. CON instead said "I dunno, it seems possible that the resolution is true." As CON, one must show that the resolution is NOT true. However, Logical-Master failed to do this. He did not show that the resolution was false in any way, and instead admitted that it might indeed be true. Thus, from a debate Judging standpoint, Logical-Master should not win the "Pizza Rocks My World" debate with cliffsofdover.
From a debate judging standpoint LM should win the "Pizza Rocks My World" debate with cliffsofdover

LM is none other than me, Logical-master. And the "Pizza rocks my World debate is this debate: http://www.debate.org... I challenge someone here to show me why my opponent should win this debate. Offer me reasons and I will rebut them either by showing that cliffsofdover didn't say the points you put forward or by showing why your analysis is contrary to ethical debate principles. (Or any other option I can think of.) I stand in firm affirmation that I should win that debate.
better football team

I regret to inform you that the Pittsburgh Steelers have the most Superbowl victories (6), have won more championship (AFC) games, and has hosted more conference championship games than any other NFC or AFC team. They also have 8 Super Bowl appearances. The Detroit Lions have no Superbowl appearances. Provided the two dichotomies above, I challenge my opponent to offer an argument that would demonstrate inversely, that the Detroit Lions are a better football team. Thank you. http://www.steelers.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Yao Ming is better Lebron James will ever be.

Why would you make this debate? All you have done is debate one other user 8 times. You then VB'ed bluesteel's debate once you had completed your three mindnumbingly stupid debates.Multi-accounters like you who pose debates with the guise of legitimacy only to forfiet halfway through ruin the quality of the site. I regret taking this debate (I take ever NBA debate I see).Vote Con.And Pro, get a life.And yes, I realize conduct should go to Pro. I'm just annoyed.
Yao Ming is better Lebron James will ever be.

Wow. 10 minute rounds..."Yao Ming has had more minutes played and more points as well."Wrong.LeBron has 19,045 for his career. Yao has 9,247. Those are Regular season numbers."Lebron James has had less points and less minutes (especially in the fourth quarter)"Unsubstantiated claim."and Yao Ming gets asisted to , lebron is selfish and leds the whole team"Wrong again.Yao avergaed 1.6 APG. LeBron has avergaed 6.9."when Yao Ming was on the Rockets he had Kyle, Tracy, and shane on his teamLebron has no one, only himself."? I am not sure how this is relevant. LeBron has Wade and Bosh, two superstars.LeBron has a higher PPG, MPG, SPG, 3-pt%, FT %, etc. I'm out of time.___________http://www.nba.com...http://www.nba.com...;
Quick Debate: Xbox360 Vs. PS3

I'd like to start off by clashing my opponent's case. 1. Blu-Ray: My opponent stated that the PS3 had Blu-Ray. He also stated that this means the PS3 can play higher quality movies and allow the games to hold more information. By doing this, you have to use gigabytes and hold MORE information than the PS3 could possibly handle. 2. Rechargeable Controller: The XBOX 360 also has a rechargable controller. http://www.gamestop.com... 3. Free PS3 Network: (1). Nothing Is Free: You'd had to BUY the PS3 for however much as well as BUY games for however much if you wanted the PS Network. (2). People Don't Need XBOX Live: You have mentioned that it costs $100 a year. But if we don't want this? I'm pretty sure you agree some people do not want it. (3). Weaker Hardware? The XBOX has a better harddrive system than the PS3. People use BLU-RAY on their PS3 that takes up some GB space. XBOX 360 doesn't have a DVD Player, thank God. 4. IGN Rankings: SLIGHTLY edges? It doesn't even edge at all. Xbox has the better graphics and better Gameplay than the PS3, as well as holds more information. 5. System Failures: The PS3 shuts down from too much memory. 360 shuts down because of the fact that we get our games scratched up or our internet goes down. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now on to my own case: Larger Game Variety. Nothing to explain. Xbox360 is better in gaming, Xbox Live has more interaction. i heard that people don't really talk on PS3. More confortable controllers: 360 has a better grip.
Quick Debate: Xbox360 Vs. PS3

Thank you for accepting! My reasons, 1. Blu-Ray PS3 has blue-ray, Xbox360 doesn't [1]. This means that PS3 can player higher quality movies, but also the games can hold more information. This results in the ability to have every game fit on a single disk, as well as noticeably better graphics [2]. 2. Rechargeable Controller PS3 has rechargeable controllers [1]. No batteries needed, unlike with the 360. 3. Free Playstation Network PS3 has a free network while the Xbox Live Gold will cost you $60-$100/year [3]. That's enough to buy 1-2 additional games per year. This cost actually makes the 360 more expensive than the PS3. The PS3 can be bought for $299 [5], while the 360 costs $229 (unless you grab that bargain version) [6]. This means that the 360 (which has weaker hardware) will cost you at least as much as a PS3, if not more, due to the Xbox live cost, and that cost has to be paid every year. If you've had Xbox live for the past 4 years, assuming you only get the regular $60/year deal, you've spent extra dollars on your system, effectively making the system twice as expensive. 4. IGN Rankings IGN did a comparison between the two systems, measuring such things as CPU, GPU, RAM and hard drive. Out of all four, the only one the 360 came out on top for was GPU, and even then it's a split-decision at best. "The verdict: Both the Xbox 360 and PS3 rely on custom-designed graphics cards. The Xbox's Xenos card features more video RAM, but this RAM is shared with the console's system RAM. The PS3 has 256 MB of dedicated video RAM in addition to being able to share up to an additional 224 MB from the system RAM. In terms of bandwidth, the PS3 slightly edges out the Xbox. However, the Xbox has the advantage of 10 MB of eDRAM. When relying on the eDRAM, system bandwidth jumps up to 256 GBps. Ultimately, while the PS3 GPU shows higher general performance numbers, we're inclined to give this category to the Xbox based on the peak performance of the eDRAM and the general versatility of this setup." [4] 5. System Failures Xbox360 has a 42% hardware failure rate, compared to only 8% for PS3 [7]. To conclude, the PS3 is a stronger and less expensive system that is also much more reliable. If you want to spend more money on a weaker system which is prone to failure, buy an Xbox360. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://ps3emulator.org... 3. http://www.xbox.com... 4. http://ca.ign.com... 5. http://www.walmart.com... 6. http://www.walmart.com... 7. http://www.destructoid.com...
There is a higher power in the universe.

I would first like to point out that con refused to answer my two questions which were a), how/why are there billions upon billions of galaxies in our universe, and b), how did the first living organism arrive on earth. I disagree with you again. Science will ultimately NOT prove/explain everything. That is the point I am trying to make. Science has not proved why I have a consciousness and why I'm able to be aware of my awareness and dogs and cats aren't. Science has not proved the two questions you refuse to answer. Science has not answered many many questions. And the big bang THEORY is not proven. It is, at it is clearly said in its own title, a theory. Not a proven fact.
There is a higher power in the universe.

I am going to take this as a concession due to faltering from the BOP. Due to my adversary saying he cannot argue the resolution vote con Since we have that out the way let's just discuss as you wished Everything is a domino effect from the big bang, we know the big bang exists by the CMBR that is in the sky. This was discovered by penzias and wilson and won them a nobel prize. The CMBR. Essentially everything arose from the big bang. Literally science has the concept and scope as to how and why we are here. Sure there are gaps in it thus far, but that does not mean you need a creator to fill in those gaps. Science has always and will always be able to fill in the gaps. What we are missing now we will know years from now and this is the continual process of science and understanding. Everything including matter and energy arose from the big bang, and anything prior to that is unobservable
There is a higher power in the universe.

You do make very good points, and it's hard for me to keep debating my opinion lol. However, I would like to argue with you on the last paragraph you said in your claim: Modern science shows us how we are here and why we are here. It shows us that something can come from nothing and that there is no need for a creator. We can see something from nothing because of quantum fluctuations and how we evolved into humans. There is no need for a creator because science has explained everything. First of all I disagree completely with the very first sentence. "Modern science shows us how we are here and why we are here." Could you explain to me how modern science shows us how we are here? I haven't found anything in modern science that tells us how we got here. There's so many questions I have that science can't explain. Where did the very first living organism come from? I have this feeling you're going to tell me abiogenesis, which I believe is complete nonsense. You cannot create life from inanimate substances. Also modern science does not show us why we are here. In fact it does the complete opposite. Nothing at all has been able to tell us why we are here. Why is anything here? Why is there life? Why am I alive right now? The point I am trying to make is that there are too many things that actually CAN'T be explained by science to say that there is no higher power whatsoever. I would still like you to answer me the questions of why and how are there billions upon billions of galaxies in our universe, and where did the very first living organism come from.
There is a higher power in the universe.

Possibility - The fact or state of being possible. Possible - Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances. For something to be possible it must have the chance to be true without contradicting empirical facts. The fact that a higher power exists is possible but not proven. There is no empirical evidence to show that it does . Most people can only logically assume that a higher power does not exist. This does not mean that it is true or not true, but it does means that there is a high probability that a higher power may not exist. So we can acknowledge that a higher power could exist, because there is no way to show that a higher power existing is contradicting proven facts or empirical evidence. Therefore a higher power existing is a possibility but not proven. My adversary must show some type of empirical evidence that shows that a higher power does exist. The issue with this is that he has to provide empirical evidence and facts to show that a Higher power exists or he does not uphold his BOP, but this is impossible to do because there is no empirical evidence for a Higher being. Thus he cannot affirm his BOP A failure to uphold his BOP warns a vote for con C1) Lack of Need for a higher power Modern science shows us how we are here and why we are here. It shows us that something can come from nothing and that there is no need for a creator. We can see something from nothing because of quantum fluctuations and how we evolved into humans. There is no need for a creator because science has explained everything.
There is a higher power in the universe.

I would first like to point out that I do believe in evolution. It's provided a lot of information to the evolution of species and the like. However, I don't think it should stop there. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't see how there could NOT be a higher power in the universe. I read up on space and galaxies and the billions and billions of galaxies in our universe and I always think, not why, but HOW? How did those billions of galaxies get there? How did we develop into such complex beings? How did us humans become so intelligent that we created the internet and the vast doors that that opened. I simply cannot see how any of these things can be possible without the intervention of a higher power.
A slice of pizza is way better than a turkey sub.

Well, tastes are subjective, so therefore different people will have different opinions on this. But here are a few reasons that turkey subs may be preferable:1. Subs are healthier than pizza -- provided that you use the right kind of bread! Pizza tends to be covered in unhealthy greasy nonsense.2. How about people who are lactose intolerant and can't eat cheese? For them, a sub is better because pizza would jeopardize their health.
Pee is stored in the balls

Pee is stored in the balls. The balls get smaller after a man pees. This is because of the pee being gone from the balls, it makes them smaller because the pee is no longer there. Pee is secreted from the testicles which are part of the balls, therefore pee comes from the balls. When a man has to pee but doesn't, the pee builds up in balls where it stays until he is able to pee. This is known as holding it. Unlike men, women do not have balls, so their pee is stored somewhere else.
Should Hunting On Sunday In Maine Be Legal

Hunting on Sunday in Maine should not be legal. While it is a bit ridiculous to halt commerce on a certain day of the week in the name of some archaic religious practice, it's also stupid to hunt. Why, after two million years of human evolution, do we still feel the irrepressible urge to go out and take the life of something? Hunting is the most idiotic pastime I can think of. I'm not against killing domesticated animals-we need to eat, after all- but hunting is beyond comprehension. You go out and kill a deer or something, and it doesn't even taste that good-you just kill it for sheer ecstasy. Hunting is an outlet for people with severe psychological issues. Deer aren't fierce animals, and although they're not too scarce, they could become extinct. Maine, in addition, has a very active ecosystem, due to its coastal location, so killing one deer could affect everything else. It doesn't even have to be deer, killing anything has an impact on something else. Sunday, at least, gives the animals a day to hide from beasts like you. You storm into their natural habitat with a tranquilizer in one hand, and a gun in the other, and you see a deer, and you nab it, and then you go home and eat it. Can't you just be satisfied with hamburgers? That deer probably has kids! I admit, the work schedule in Maine may be hectic, but can't you find something else to do in your free time? Read a novel, ride a bike, play shooting games at an arcade- there are thousands of ways to spend your days off. Is killing something the only way you can achieve satisfaction? Your obsession with hunting lowers my thoughts about Maine in general. Do you people all hunt deer up there? Are you sick in the head? Don't you care about nature? next thing you know, you'll kill people. It's psychopathic. Judges, vote carefully. I await your response.
Theism is perfectly valid

Call it what you like. It is a simple fact that the Abrahamic god is a ridiculous myth. You are replying without touching that fact!As long as you let that fact stand, I am cool!Christianity and all the Abrahamic religions are clearly ridiculous, evil myths. This is proven by their teachings such as saying a god had a child with a virgin earthing to be temporarily tortured to death in a human sacrifice of himself to himself, the idea of original sin and inflicting so much pain and misery over some distant ancestor eating a piece of fruit, the idea of hell and a supposedly just and merciful being sending his own creations for sadistic eternal torture.Thank you for letting my points stand and admitting that Christianity etc. are ridiculous, man-made lies!
Theism is perfectly valid

You certainly seem to place the possibility of God at zero. And yes, all religions are the creation of men. But Christians believe that there is no single church that is above all the rest. We only believe in Christ our Savior. You really love that caps lock button, don't you? And there should be a rule of copying and pasting from your previous debates. If you didn't have a problem with us believing, you wouldn't be ranting about theism's "evils" like you do. And you haven't even taken a stab at refuting my argument, so it stands.