BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Starchild skull is human

I can accept a shared BOP, but due to the nature of how Occam's Razor works if my opponent argues the Skull is of extraterrestrial origin, he is going to have a tough time doing so. My opponent is likely to give arguments derived from the world renowned BS artist Lloyd Pye. When I'm done showing why the Starchild skull is in fact human, I'll expose Mr. Pye's BS in all it's glory. congenital hydrocephalus. This unfortunate medical condition also known as water on the brain causes cerebral spinal fluid to fill the brain and the pressure builds up and expands the skull[1]. This This expansion can be seen in photos of the star child skull. Take a look at the following photos of skulls of people with hydrocephalus. These aren't pictures of aliens, but of people with a medical condition similar to the one facing the individual known as the starchild skull. https://craniophiles.files.wordpress.com... http://upload.wikimedia.org... Steven Novella a Neurologist has looked at the skull and thinks it comes from an unfortunate kid who suffered from hydrocephalus. DNA TESTING DNA tests were conducted 1999, 2010 and 2011 that all showed the starchild skull was human. http://www.badarchaeology.com... Every time a test is concerned it shows that their is human DNA in the skull. CONCLUSION That is sufficient evidence in showing the skull is human. Most of my case will be involve debunking pseudo science. So this round is intentionally kept short. sources 1. http://www.cnn.com...
Online Communication is worse than that of a class learning

As the representative for the "con," I will concede the following: School and/or college learning is boring because a specialized online tutor will be a better educator due to their expertise and singular focus on the student relative to a teacher's broader classroom focus. Secondly, if one were to compare every minute of online tutoring with every minute of classical schooling, one would find that a significant portion of classical school time is comprised of activities not wholly conducive to learning. Though it is true that the previous statement applies to the average and some students will not flirt no whether they are surrounded by blossoming buxom babes, still many students are best served isolated behind their screens, focused on their education. -A first, unedited, and facetious draft by the Agonist
Online Communication is worse than that of a class learning

School or college learning is boring 'cause you don't get all the time special learning as well as you can get a special online tutor for studying maybe you can use Skype for it but school is where children just like to flirt, roam, do time pass, make fun etc.... only some serious studious people don't to that stuffs and all but you can have a good time studying on the internet regarding distractions there are some programs which may help a student do wonders without any distraction..
There is a conspiracy at the heart of most Western governments, who's agenda is as follows:

It's disappointing that you won't debate.I'll put across a really simple argument so I don't look lazy.In most western countries, it's rulers are elected for temporary administration by the inhabitants of said country. In order to stay in power, these rulers must implement legislation that increases the welfare of their voters. If they do you opposite, by implementing legislation that decreases the welfare of their voters, they will lose power, because nobody will vote for them. It does not follow then, that it is in the interests, of even the most self-interested governments, to 'exploit the population of the world to the most severe degree'.
There is a conspiracy at the heart of most Western governments, who's agenda is as follows:

To exploit the population of the world to the most severe degree, in order to achieve the most satisfaction for themselves possible without the revolt of the people. The growth and advancement of the police, and social control forces, will be the response to such revolts. These will be implemented as far as they can go without the police and army revolting itself, however they will be rewarded for their loyalty to ensure their dedication, as is the case in all dictatorships. This is the true agenda of the world powers, not officially, but in reality. It could, theoretically, be changed by a general election, but non the less, this agenda is what dominates.
Create a country

1. Population 800,000 2. Freedom of speech, religion, press all remain intact. 3. No dress code for males or females, you can walk around naked. 4. All body piercings, tatoos etc. are allowed. 5. There are no automobiles, all transportation is done by train, foot, bike, boat, plane, horseback etc. 6. All energy is solar. 7. There are no fire arms in the country, nor are there any explosives. 8. The police force is made up of highly trained ninjas. 9. People of every race and religion are accepted as equals. 10. We are at peace with all nations. 11. We have no military at all. 12. The government is a democracy. 13. The national sport is frisbee. 14. There is no tax. 15. People are not paid to be a part of the government.
Create a country

In this debate we will create our own country and argue whose is better. You will give the location of the country(Cannot be the USA)(can be as large or small as you want, limited to size of a continent, in other words, you cannot have all of Europe and Asia, but you can have all of Asia.) You will give a specific list of laws of the country You will describe your economy: how you make money, government control, imports, exports, etc. You will describe your government. You will give statistics on demographics(you may choose these, they are not limitied to the demographics of the area you chose, for example, you can choose Nigeria and have all hispanic people living there if you want) You will descibe education and technology and its influence on society. You may give a brief history of your country if you want. First round: Give the location of your country and the name of said country. No other information until round two. My country will be South America and it will be called Dixie.
Create a country

1. Given your location, the low population will create a high population density, which is fine if managed correctly. Given the small area, military is not as necessary for you, and your system of transportation is manageble, since your country is a few islands. I do believe, however, that some sort of coast guard is necessary. In my country however, it is necessary to have automobiles in addition to other transportation. It is also necessary for a powerful military in our country since it has a large quantity of people in addition to covering a very large land area. I also want my country to be a superpower. -Energy will be hydroelectric for me, because of the Amazon river. 2. The dress code for my country was just because I don't like to see too much, if you know what I mean. It is entirely personal, but I don't want gaudy dress in my country. 3. I will disagree with your statement on firearms. People must be able to defend yourself. Since your islands will have a large population density, crime will be bad. Yes, you could argue that criminals would have guns, but I would argue and say that civilians wouldn't. If a person broke into one of your islander's home with a crowbar, and your islander also had a crowbar, the islander would most likely loose because the criminal would have an element of surprise. The innocent islander would have a better chance with a gun. 4. My country would require a small police force due to the civilian police force of shooting the criminals in progress of commiting a violent crime. Small crimes will be dealt with by the police force. Your country will probably require such a police force, especially considering crime will be encouraged by the higher cost of living in an insland lifestyle. 5. As far as race goes. My country will have no racial conflict. Your country may or may not, depending on how you manage it. I do not want to risk having any form of social conflict to have to deal with in addition to any potential economic problems. 6. Taxes-My country will of course require taxes. Your country will require taxes if you want to have any police force or government service. Thus, this is not economically feasible, especially in a densely populated area that will see economic problems. 7. Your idea about not paying people is good as it provides no benefit for being in the government other than making people better. However, being in my country's government would be demanding and officials would be paid since there is no time for them to hold a job. My country will be better because: it has a better system of revenue, it has no racial conflict, it allows people to defend themselves, it should have little crime, it has all the resources necessary to become self dependent, and it has a powerful military that can defend it. The list goes further, but this is the jist of it.
Spartans are superior to ninjas.

Like Pro, for the most part I'm also new to debating. I will be defending the position that ninjas are superior to Spartans (so the burden of proof is equal). My arguments will begin next round. Just some quick definitions. Ninja- a person trained in ancient Japanese martial arts and employed especially for espionage and assassinations. Superior- of higher rank, quality, or importance Spartan- a warrior from ancient Sparta Definitions come from Merriam Webster's dictionary online. I hand it over to Pro to make his case.
Life has no unquestionalbe value if there is no God who created all things.

You are subject to death, you are imprisoned in your body under death penalty and condemned to die, I have no reason to kill you and if I did, I would not have to because I know death is taking you anyways. Whatever subjective meaning you find in your life does not prove unquestionable value. Since death is guaranteed for you, whatever subjective meaning you find is not unquestionable value since all the value is lost in death. You may find subjective meaning valuable, but it's value is not unquestionable.Can you explain how the subjective meaning you find proves unquestionable value if God did not create all things?
Life has no unquestionalbe value if there is no God who created all things.

If we derive our own meaning for life, life has no unquestionable value if I decide life is meaningless. The definition of value is not in question.....the debate is about unquestionable value.....If God did not create everything, then who assigns value and how is the value they assign unquestionable? If value is assigned only by you, I find your assignment highly questionable. There is no value of life at all if "existence which was dead spontaneously became alive" and caused us to be here knowing existence. What's the difference if we don't know existence? If we don't know existence, we won't know suffering, pain, grief, death. So because we know the problems, it seems the problems destroy the value of life.....if existence could give value to life in the first place. How can existence which was dead then spontaneously become alive be valuable to me when if I am nothing but existence, I can exist dead with no pain.......or cease to exist? or cease to know existence? It's like a math problem. Existence was dead..........is that a 0 or a 1? Let's say it is a 0 since dead means no life. Then it spontaneously became alive.......that's a positive, we can give it a 1 as a positive. Then we die......that's a negative 1.........so we start with dead existence, a 0, then we add 1 for life, then take away 1 for death, and we end up back at zero so if there was any value to life it is negated by death. I find this line of thinking highly questionable, I cannot see how unquestionable value can be proved in this. If you say you have intrinsic value, and I say I don't, who is to say who is right? Because the only standard of value is derived by your own reasoning, I can question your reason logically, and what you say is value of life is highly questionable...........In fact, if you say life has value simply because you say it does, I totally reject that idea and by your logic I see no reason to say life has unquestionable value.
Life has no unquestionalbe value if there is no God who created all things.

I'll be arguing from my own perspective, which is heavily influenced by Existentialism and Buddhism. I believe that if we understand what it means to be human, we can derive a meaning of life. I believe that people find their own purposes, and that the purpose of life in general is to become a fully developed individual by making interpersonal connections and by sticking to ones own principles. I am against nihilism, hopelessness, and suicide in every case that the individual is as conscious as a normal human being (so not in a vegetative state, for example). Life is the experiential manifestation of existence itself (existence was dead and spontaneously became alive) and as existence we are trying to find out our true nature. I will argue for a psycho-spiritual Karmic principle and the inherent aesthetic value to be found through experience that makes life worthwhile in an objective sense.
Life has no unquestionalbe value if there is no God who created all things.

My opponent can be atheistic, agnostic, or of whatever faith can be named under the sun. This debate is about the meaning of life. You can see by my screen name what I think the meaning of life is, but this debate is to question my opponents beliefs about the meaning of life,If I clearly show my opponents beliefs are questionable, I should be awarded the points for having the better argument. This debate is about my opponents beliefs, not about mine. If somebody who has the same beliefs as me wants to argue the Con position, they are welcome to do so.
Life has no unquestionalbe value if there is no God who created all things.

My opponent has painted some beautiful pictures, but not shown anyting of unquestionable value. Again my opponent agrees with me in saying there is no unquestionalbe value if God did not create all things....""" we can see just how absurd the very idea of an "Unquestionable Source" really is. In this debate there is no need for me or Con to assert that unquestionable value comes only from God's placement of value. The debate is about whether or not there is unquestionable value if God did not create all things, and my opponent has repeatedly agreed that the idea of unquestionable value is absurd so there is no unquestionable value if God did not create all things."The value of anything is up to the consumer." "If we find value in life, we will cherish it, and make good use of it, keeping it in good shape."My opponent makes these assertions but does not claim to be showing unquestionable value, in keeping with his previous arguments that life has no unquestionable value he can speak of. If the consumer places a value on something, I may find value questionable and I probably won't buy it. What happens when we can no longer keep life in good shape? At that point, life's value is questionable if God did not create it......my opponent says life is , and is it worth it to continue through terrible pain, suffering, grief, torture?My opponent asserts life's value is questionable if God created all things or not. My opponent is agreeing with me that life has no unquestionable value if God did not create all things. My opponent has clearly agreed with me repeatedly in statments of his such as "Of course the value of life is questionable; we question it all the time. "Remember, the challenge of this debate was for my opponent to show unquestionable value of life if God did not create all things. My opponent has repeatedly agreed with me and has shown no unquestionable value of life.
Life has no unquestionalbe value if there is no God who created all things.

Not straying from the topic. If we take a look at the value of life from an economic standpoint, we can see just how absurd the very idea of an "Unquestionable Source" really is. If I'm walking down the street and I see an artesan trying to sell a painted clay vase... I think it's absolutely beautiful, priceless, even, and certainly worth at least half a million dollars! I tell the artesan that I will not accept this vase for any less than that price. Tears of joy come streaming down His eyes. He meant to sell it for mere hundreds! I give him a supafat check, and I take the vase. We are both ecstatic; I have the vase of my dreams, and the artesan is a rich man. I think it's horribly made! The design is boring, the shaping is clumsy, and the paint is dull. I wouldn't pay FIVE dollars for such a piece of trash! I laugh at the artesan and his joke of a vase, and strut off. A tear comes to His eye. His feelings are deeply hurt that something that he took pride in is seen as worthless by another. I am dissatisfied because I would have still liked to buy a vase if there were a nice one available. ...When I get home with my half-million dollar vase, I drop it and it shatters. I'm devastated! I do everything I can to put it back together, and I even bring the fragments back to the artesan to see if he can help. He obliges, but he says that he'll have to teach me how to use this special crack-sealant that He has invented. Together, we fix the vase, and though it is now somewhat flawed, when I bring it back home, it's worth even more to me. I keep it in my trophy case with a beautiful rose inside. Hadn't I cared about the vase in the first place I would have just dropped it and shrugged it off. The value of anything is up to the consumer. If I believe that life has value because, and only because God says it does, that's arbitrary and not very critical of me. If we find value in life, we will cherish it, and make good use of it, keeping it in good shape. /nochars
Life has no unquestionalbe value if there is no God who created all things.

If you decide it's worth your while to try to kill me, then I think you would be giving me the right to kill you before you kill me. That's called war. But we are at peace, so let's focus on the subject here, does life have unquestionable value if God did not create all things? My opponent has admitted "Of course the value of life is questionable; we question it all the time." This is the entire point of my argument. Whatever meaning we derive for life, the value is questionable is the value does not come from an unquestionable source. Subjective meaning does not imply unquestionable value. One person may find subjective meaning in pleasure or in aesthetics, but does that mean the value of life is gone the moment pleasure and enjoyment of aethetic quality s gone? That moment of loss can come at any time, so all of whey we thought had value is lost and has no value because it's gone? So my opponent now asserts ". Life would even be of questionable value if there were a God that created all things: We could ask him "Why did you create us?" Either way, my opponent is aggreeing that life has no unquestionable value is God did not create all things. If God did create all things and my opponent still finds life's value to be questionable, my opponent has only strenthened the poition that life has no unquestionable value if God did not create all things. What my opponent is actually proving to be absurd is the idea that the feeling of or belief in subjective meaning implies unquestionable value. Subjective meaning implies no unquestionable value for life. As a conclusion for this round, I'll adrees my opponent's conclusion in his last arguement.........What gives you the right to ask questions in the name of Hell? Do you have unquestionable value to ask in the name of Hell what kind of debate this is? You are supposed to be arguing in favor of unquestionable value of life but you keep on agreeing with me repeatedly that you see no unquestionable value in it.
Life has no unquestionalbe value if there is no God who created all things.

Of course I'm subject to death. That's why I had better hurry up and make this life worth my while. Doesn't mean you have the right to kill me. Of course the value of life is questionable; we question it all the time. Doesn't mean that it isn't of any value. We all have the capacity to find subjective meaning. Life would even be of questionable value if there were a God that created all things: We could ask him "Why did you create us?" Your entire premise is absurd. I use the time I have to be happy by sticking to the principles I have created for myself based on the belief that I am one with all other beings as part of existence itself. I try to show compassion for all beings and connect with others. I try to do the right thing based on how I'd like to be treated myself. I try to let go of my anger, hatred, greed, and jealousy so that I might live in peace. Life would be miserable if I didn't strive to find meaning and value. But I do strive, so I'm happy. I really don't understand what you're asking. I'm free to enjoy life. It doesn't have unquestionable value, so I make sure that it does have value. I believe that one day there will be nothing left. That there is something now can be of great value if I choose to see it that way. Honestly, what the hell kind of debate is this???
Communism is Un-American and stupid

The death squads information was released by the American organizations such as the CIA shortly have the Nicaraguan Civil War. That's why I obtained a MA and PhD all under Cuban education for free. I do believe it costs to be educated in the United States. In 1953 the united states set up a puppet democracy when they installed the shaw in Iran. The shaw was a brutal and tyrannical leader who murdered many of his own people. This of course led to theocratic republic we now see in Iran. Vietnam garnered public support based on an admitted lie which led to the death of millions. America likes to claim that we are the liberators of the world, but its very simple, in my eyes we go to war with countries that don't accept our corporations or open themselves to western manipulation. The U.S. likes war you make billions off of it and the U.S. has continuously lied to the american public to engage in them.
Communism is Un-American and stupid

Death squads??? What kind of propaganda has your dictator been releasing? Cuba? Good education? Your funny. Your views are radical. I have served in Iraq. Why do you think we entered Iraq? 9/11! Reagan was a superb leader. If you believe that communism is American, then you have not payed attention in history. Look at Kim Jong On! He is absolutely destroying NK. He loks people up in concentration camps! (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...) What are your reasons for thinking America is an imperialistic power?
Communism is Un-American and stupid

All communists are violent? Are you absolutely crazy? You are making a hugely absurd generalization which has no basis whatsoever. Communism is relatively peaceful and in Cuba we have one of the best healthcare and educational systems in the world as does China. America has this false sense of power in which it believes it has to have control of everything that goes on in the world, this is inherently wrong as seventy-five percent of the worlds nations refuse to actually cooperate with American policy. The United States is absolutely an imperialistic power, if you dont think so you are not paying attention to history. The United States has funded right wing, radical, death squads under president Reagan(contras). The U.S. played both sides in the Iraq Iran war by supplying arms to both Iran and Iraq. The U.S. under the guise of the wolfowitz doctrine has invaded, occupied, and set up a puppet democracy in Iraq. Isn't that 'unamerican'?
Communism is Un-American and stupid

Look, I know America threatened to nuke the USSR. But listen, communists like Mao Zedong killed 45 million of his own people in a four year span. Our country was not completely founded by slavery. It was mostly founded by bringing the states together to form a federalist agenda. At least the people under a Republic have say in what the country does. Communists are violent, and they supply no personal rights. To me that's pretty un-american.