BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
facebook is the best website EVER

Personal and emotional comments do not favor anyone. I do want to commend this member of the DDO community. This opponent of mine does not get in to the big controversial topics of the world. Instead, they go about these debates in a fun way. I wish this opponent would try to get more in depth about the arguments, but I am probably asking for something that won't happen. My opponent seems to be having fun and that's good enough. By the way WWE.COM is a professional wrestling website, not social network. Different and incomparable to Facebook
facebook is the best website EVER

In order for something to be the best, it has to have pros that out way the cons. You could arguably say that Facebook is the best website in the category of websites that lets you connect with friends, play games, and let you meet new friends. However, the title of this debate is not specific. Let's compare facebook.com to WWE.com. We can't, though. WWE.com tells you what's going on in the world of World Wrestling Entertainment controlled by a group of people who work for the WWE while Facebook is not about employees writing information, rather others writing for the pleasure of writing and letting others know what's going on in their life.
Everquest is the Most Revolutionary MMORPG of All Time

Thank you for taking this debate Water321. 1. There aren't millions of MMORPG games on the internet. First you state that "there is(sic) millions of mmorpg games on net" then you go on to say "you haven't tested all of the thousands of mmorpg games". Which one is it, millions or thousands? 2. At it's launch, Everquest was one of the first 3D computer games in existence. Everyone wanted to try out these fantastic new 3D computer games. The majority of computer games, console games released to day are 3D games. In fact all new console games are in 3D. To say that millions of internet users do not play 3D games is ignorance. 3. It's perfectly fine that most people don't know what Everquest is. I don't expect for the majority to even know what an MMORPG is. Do you even know what an MMORPG is? From your response it sounds like you don't. Furthermore, this debate is focusing on how revolutionary Everquest was, not whether or not there are way better games than Everquest. 4. MMORPG's are mainly played on computers. While some have been tested on console systems it was realized at an early stage that MMORPG's are much to complicated for console systems without keyboards, etc. All statements made talking about games on PS2, PS3, XBox, etc are thereby false and not admittable as evidence.
Everquest is the Most Revolutionary MMORPG of All Time

My first argument is that you said, "Without Everquest, the MMORPG's of today would be nowhere near as sophisticated as they now are." Ok there is millions of mmorpg games on net. I believe that is a opinion. Not a fact,back to my point you haven't tested all of the thousands of MMORPG games to state that. If you say is the best how come I don't see announcements on online. "Before Everquest there wasn't a single game out there that allowed a player to interactively explore a 3Dworld along with thousands of other players simultaneously." What if some players didn't like playing in 3d.There is millions of Internet users around the world which think differently. You cant state that. Most of the people don't know what is "Everquest".There is thousands of online games in the world including ps3,xbox360,ps2,computer. That are way better than "Everquest". Thank You
Everquest is the Most Revolutionary MMORPG of All Time

Since it's launch in April of 1999 the online computer game Everquest has captivated the minds of millions of players worldwide and revolutionized the MMORPG industry. Before Everquest there wasn't a single game out there that allowed a player to interactively explore a 3D world along with thousands of other players simultaneously. The MMORPG's that did exist only allowed a player to explore a 2D world and had nowhere near the content that Everquest did. Today, most of the major MMORPG's employ some of the same features that Everquest introduced to the gaming world. These features include, but are not limited to the following: -3D Character Modeling -First person viewing capabilities -Interactive NPC's with advanced AI -Complex economic systems -Advanced Tradeskill Platforms -Mobs requiring massive raiding parties Without Everquest, the MMORPG's of today would be nowhere near as sophisticated as they now are.
Birds Ought to be Exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act

Resolution: Birds ought to be exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter ActI will argue that they should be included in the HMSA, and my opponent must argue that they should continue being slaughtered outside of HMSA restrictions. Round 1 is for acceptance only. The final round may hold no new arguments, only responses to arguments made in the round previous and closing remarks. If there are any questions, please ask before accepting. Blame for any confusion that arises which could've been solved by the asking of a simple question will befall my opponent.
Birds Ought to be Exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act

DEFINITION OF LIVESTOCKMy opponent has attempted to show that poultry do not have significant value beyond their value as meat, and therein, should not be considered livestock. However, if we return to my opponent's very own definition of what livestock is, we can that it is:"The term Livestock is restricted to farm animals that are useful beyond their value as meat. "Note that the word 'significant' is not in there. All that is required for livestock-hood is that something have some kind of use beyond as meat. Just as a station wagon can't reach speeds as significant as a Ferrari but is still considered a car, so too should poultry be considered livestock, even if their value beyond meat is not as significant as other animals commonly thought of as livestock. My opponent has not actually denied the uses poultry have beyond as meat that I have shown. All he has done is try to downplay their significance, when significance of the other uses is not the issue, but rather the mere existence of the other uses. I'll just stop here and reiterate: According to the definition my opponent provided himself, chicken are livestock. Being livestock, they should not be subjected to the brutal deaths that billions suffer every year. RULE VIOLATION "I respectively contend that I did not violate any guideline explicitly states as a "rule". The only rule that I could suss out is "The final round may hold no new arguments, only responses to arguments made in the round previous and closing remarks. ""Rule that he missed: "Round 1 is for acceptance only. "I understand my opponent is new to the site, so I won't push this issue too much.
Birds Ought to be Exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act

Thank you. I respectively contend that I did not violate any guideline explicitly states as a "rule". The only rule that I could suss out is "The final round may hold no new arguments, only responses to arguments made in the round previous and closing remarks." The previous round was not the final round. I would also like to note my use of the word "significant" in my statement "Poultry has no significant value beyond eating it or it's products (eggs)" I do not consider chicken feathers as a "significant" asset. Perhaps chicken feathers could be considered as a significant asset before advent of synthetic materials. But chicken feathers do not have significant monetary or utilitarian value today. A sheep's wool is different. Certainly, synthetic materials could replace natural wool. However, natural wool still holds significant monetary value in the current marketplace. I also do not consider a pet as a significant asset. I am sure that a chicken can be kept as a pet. However, there are other animals that make much better pets, i.e. dogs and cats, which show more affection and desire to want to be around human beings. I contend that a chicken could technically be used for almost anything. One could use a chicken as a pillow. But a chicken's value as a pillow is completely insignificant. A chicken's value as a farm animal is much less than a cow's (which can be used for meat, clothing, power, etc.) or a horse's (which can be used as animal feed, transportation, power, etc) or a goat's (which can be used for meat, clothing, etc.) If a chicken's skin could be used for clothing, then I would agree that poultry has more significant value than it currently does. I would also like to contend that a chicken's meat and it's eggs are synonymous as food. An egg is simply part of the chicken, like the leg, thigh, or breast. [Not part of this argument BUT] Again, please let me note that I love all animals and never want to see any hurt. Personally, I don't even eat eggs because eating the unborn just doesn't sit right with me.
Birds Ought to be Exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act

I would like to note that my opponent violated one of the rules set in round 1.LIVESTOCK QUALIFICATIONMy opponent defines livestock as:"...farm animals that are useful beyond their value as meat."My opponent then almost immediately shows that chicken are livestock when he admits that poultry provide eggs. He says this in a dismissive manner, as if that 'doesn't count'. However, if a chicken can do something besides be eaten, such as lay an egg, it has met the qualification my opponent has set for something to be considered livestock, assuming 'value as meat' means 'able to be eaten'. Were my opponent to suggest that 'value as meat' means 'things that meat can do' such as lay eggs, then he would also be including a cow's ability to pull a plow, as that as something 'the meat' can do. Obviously this way of defining livestock completely renders the term livestock useless.Aside from what my opponent said about egg laying, poultry are used for other things that make it even clearer that they fit the definition of livestock. Poultry are used for, "eggs they produce, their meat, their feathers, [and] sometimes as pets."[1]I count 3 other things they are used for. To add to the list, chicken are used for 'shows'[2], like many other creatures considered to be livestock[3][4].WITHOUT THE HMSASince poultry are not included under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, they are killed in extremely brutal ways. I'll just explain through quote."Birds are first dumped or pulled from transport crates and snapped into shackles, often causing broken bones, bruising, and hemorrhaging. Next, they are shocked with electrified water; the majority are paralyzed but may not be rendered unconscious.Some miss the water tank and aren"t even paralyzed. Birds then have their throats cut, but according to the USDA, millions miss the blade and drown in tanks of scalding water while conscious and able to feel pain."[5] (emphasis added)To quote Morrissey, who could possibly be that hungry?Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.poultryshowcentral.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://thepigplanet.com...[5] http://www.humanesociety.org...
Birds Ought to be Exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act

Please let me state that I love all animals and respect all life. And the only reason that I am debating this is to play the devil's advocate. The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 only protect animals that are considered "livestock". The term Livestock is restricted to farm animals that are useful beyond their value as meat. For example, a cow can be turned into beef, but it can also be use to pull a plow. Poultry has no significant value beyond eating it or it's products (eggs). Therefore, poultry should be exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958.
I'm going to win. 2+2=4

Now, I will move onto the second part of my opponent's resolution. That being, that my opponent will win this debate. This is erroneous and unlikely for several reasons.1: My opponent has not provided a counter argument, thus meaning their BoP has yet to be fulfilled.2: My opponent has forfeited a round of this debate.3: My opponent cannot mathematically refute modular arithmetic, since it is a proven mathematical concept4: My opponent cannot know if they will win, thus their resolution is inherently flawed.5: A victory for my opponent is hinged upon the equation 2+2 always equaling 4, which I have proven through mathematics as false.Conclusion: My opponent will not win this debate. If my opponent does not fulfill their BoP in the final round, or if my opponent forfeits (either by inaction or by stating so) they will lose this debate. Unless Pro proves that modular arithmetic doesn't exist ,which is refuted due to the existence of clocks and calendars, then my opponent cannot fulfill their BoP. Thus, my opponent will lose this debate.
I'm going to win. 2+2=4

My opponent's basis is that 2+2=4 in any given system. This is not the case. To show this, I will use a watch as my example.Say that I left work at 7 o'clock am. Then, I come home at 5 o'clock pm. Now, in military time, 5 pm can be changed to 17 o'clock. However, clocks operate in a system known as modular arithmetic. The system that clocks use is known as 'Modulo 12'.What modular arithmetic does, is that it wraps numbers around a circle (like a clock) until they reach a certain value. Once this highest possible value is reached, numbers repeat themselves from the starting value. In the case of clocks, this value is 12, hence 'Modulo 12'.So, when doing arithmetic with a 'Modulo 12' system, we can see that standard arithmetic no longer applies.For example, since 12pm is noon, and 5pm is 5 hours from noon, the equation for this circumstance using modular arithmetic would be:12+5=5 (since 5 would be equal to 17 o'clock)We could further move on to say that in a 'Modulo 12' system, other equations could occur such as:14+3=5 (since 14 o'clock would be 2pm, and adding three hours to 2pm would make the time 5pm)13+9=10 (since 13 o'clock would be 1pm, and adding nine hours to 1pm would make the time 10pm)We could also switch this to start from am time:7+6=1 (7+6 usually would equal 13, but 12 is the highest possibility, so the number 1 space ahead of the highest possibility would be the Modulo 12 value).11+5=4 (11+5 usually would equal 16, but 12 is the highest possibility, so Now, I will apply 2+2 into a system of modular arithmetic. For this, I will begin with a Modulo 2 system that uses the numbers 0 and 1.2+2=? (We know that the beginning '2' value would be a '1', so we must move 2 spaces ahead of '1').1+1=0 (1st space), 0+1=1 (2nd space).Thus, 2+2=1.Next, a Modulo 3 system with the numbers 0, 1, and 2.2+2=? (We know that the beginning '2' value would be a '1', so we must move 2 spaces ahead of '1').1+1=2 (1st space), 2+1=0 (2nd space).Thus, 2+2=0.Finally, I will use a Modulo 4 system, that includes the numbers 0, 1, 2, and 3.2+2=? (We know that the beginning '2' value would be a '1', so we must move 2 spaces ahead of '1').1+1=2 (1st space), 2+1=3 (2nd space).Thus, 2+2=3.In conclusion, the variable '?' in the equation '2+2=?' will not always equal 4, since different systems of modular arithmetic might be employed.
Conspiracy III: The Kennedy Assassination

"An excellent round. I look forward to another." I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint my opponent, because I concede all points. This is the first time I've done this or even thought about doing it, but I suppose this is the problem with attempting to argue something you don't fully believe in. Every argument I could think to bring up in this round, even I can rebut, so I know my opponent could. Also, I'm heading to New Zealand late tomorrow night and would have had to forfeit the final 2 rounds anyway. I may as well do it now and commend my opponent for an excellent debate. I do apologize to Tarzan; I'm sure you wanted to go the full 5 rounds for this one. All argument points to PRO.
Conspiracy III: The Kennedy Assassination

Many thanks to Tarzan for allowing me the opportunity to debate this interesting topic. I am arguing that John F. Kennedy was not shot at by Lee Harvey Oswald alone on that day in 1963. I will address my opponent's arguments in turn: "1) There were multiple shooters/bullets…." Even if we are to accept that a single bullet could have or did act in this way (which is itself hotly contested), consider the following: - Nellie Connally, wife of Governor John Connally, was sitting right next to her husband when he was shot. She is adamant that her husband was hit by a bullet separate from the two which hit Kennedy. - 35 witnesses who were present at the shooting thought that shots were fired from in front of Kennedy (the infamous Grassy Knoll area), 56 witnesses claimed to hear shots from the book depository, while 5 witnesses heard shots from both directions. Is it more likely that they're all wrong, or that they're all right? - Roy Kellerman, a Secret Service Agent, saw a 5-inch diameter hole in the back right-hand side of Kennedy's head. This was confirmed by Clint Hill, another Secret Service agent, who sheltered Kennedy's body on his way to the hospital. Robert McClelland, a doctor who personally saw to the head wound, used his experience to determine that it was an exit wound and that a second shooter from the front of the car delivered the fatal head shot. - Former U.S. Marine snipers Craig Roberts and Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock: "We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can't do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?" Now, it's easy to ignore any one of these facts in isolation, but when we consider that they are all separate accounts from separate people, it becomes very difficult indeed. "2) The Grassy Knoll & various persons there... 3) Mr. Tague. 4) Oswald couldn't have gotten three shots off in the 6-8 second time frame he had." I concede point 4 to my opponent, and will not pursue points 2 or 3 just yet. Thanks to JCMT, I look forward to his rebuttal. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Conspiracy III: The Kennedy Assassination

The proposition on offer is that John F. Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone and of his own volition. ********************************************* An opening volley of popular contentions and their rebuttals: 1) There were multiple shooters/bullets. Here's a couple shots that explain the Single Bullet theory: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu... Both are CGI images based on the composite footage from film and still shots. The most significant piece of information on this point is that the seat that Kennedy sat in was higher than that of Connally, and Connally was not seated directly in front of Kennedy. 2) The Grassy Knoll & various persons there... The Black Dog Man, the Umbrella Man, the mystery black couple, the three hobos... have all been shown to be benign. If My opponent wishes to bring these up, we shall do so, but they are all mini-debates unto themselves. The source of the Grassy Knoll speculation stems from the hole in the windshield of the car - a hole that was later demonstrated to have been created from the inside of the car going out. 3) Mr. Tague. A bullet fragment from the nick in the curb lanced through his cheek after passing through Kennedy and out the front windshield of the car. Simple. 4) Oswald couldn't have gotten three shots off in the 6-8 second time frame he had. First of all, the gun would only needed to be reloaded twice, since the first round would have already been chambered. A test by the FBI showed that the same rifle Oswald used could have been fired accurately three times in 4.5 seconds. ************************************* Source (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu...) and derivatives. AFFIRMED.
THBT humans are not experiencing (nor under threat of) overpopulation

Debate Impossible to accept. Read the rules and comment if you want to join debate. I do not plan to open this debate until at least 3 days later. Failure to abide by the format or terms of the debate will result in a loss of conduct during voting stage. If Con finds the terms to be unreasonable or inaccurate then he or she may alter the terms, but only with an argument as to why. Burden of Proof is on both sides. Terms: Overpopulation: Overpopulation is a function of the number of individuals compared to the relevant resources, such as the water and essential nutrients they need to survive. It can result from an increase in births, a decline in mortality rates, an increase in immigration, or an unsustainable biome and depletion of resources. Danger: The possibility of trouble, danger, or ruin.
Gay Marriage

Debate Format:Round 1: Opening statement (1-2 sentences) Round 2: Argument Round 3: Rebuttals and new arguments Round 4: Rebuttals and closing statementsDebate Rules:-Remain respectful to opinions-The use of ANY source is allowed-Follow the debate format-Cite any web sources*******************************************************************************Opening StatementI believe that the "traditional marriage" between one man and one woman is the backbone of the United States of America, and is what our founding father's intended on preserving (among other things) when our great nation was created. Homosexuality has created a concern for the safety of our future generation, and the sanctity of life in general.