BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Female infants should be exterminated

It's no secret that we use women to birth out children, but what if we could forgo the need to use women in such a way. What if we could create an artificial womb?That's exactly what I've been working on for the past few years. The process is simple and this is my scientific study.Life without women a scientific studyI began searching back alley ways for bio matter, it wasn't long before I came across the caucus of a dead dog, I took the corpse back to my workshop where I began to precisely remove its uterus. After careful work I began to stuff the dog uterus into my rectum where it benefited greatly from my warmth. After a couple of weeks without defecating properly, I decided to check on the progress of my butt-uterus, upon inspection I came to find it had morphed to my anal cavity and was functioning as normal, now, being one with the dog uterus, I took the initiative to attempt fertilization.It was no easy process. I obtained some of my own sperm and began to funnel it into my buttocks. A few weeks later I could feel something moving around in my anus, however, that was where my scientific study was cut short, for I had been three weeks without a sh*t and needed to bear a log. The obvious side effect of taking a sh*t meant that my baby was aborted and shat out down the toilet.While I was never able to reach birthing a child, what my experiment does prove is that it's at least plausible and I firmly believe life without women is possible.This study could not have been completed without the help of my team. This is a big thank you to,-The once loving family member and pet of our neighbors, R.I.P Cindy the German Shepard, your uterus was as big as your heart.-My granddad for helping me funnel my sperm into my anus.-The Guinness book of world records for recording the gargantuan sh*t I took.
This Opera house believes that:on balance: resolved.

"North Korea is the most poorly done Korea this date. 7/10, too much water." - IGN "Breathtaking, action-packed, left me at the edge of my seat. Oh wait, I'm not talking about North Korea, I'm talking about Joseon Korea. North Korea is $hitty sequel." -New York Times. "North Korea has done a lot of bad stuff. I mean, look at dis page: https://www.hrw.org... . They put people in concentration camps, dat's bad. Like, Hitler did that stuff too. They totally cray cray right now. Not cool man, not cool" -President Obama "Yeah, I agree with Obama, like if you agree" -President Putin "DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS" -Napoleon Bonaparte.
The 44th US President has done a better job than the 17th President

There's a frequent claim that the sitting US President is the worst in history. I submit that this contention is in complete contrast with the actual historical record. Celebrated US historians have long contended that not only was Andrew Johnson the worst President in US history, but that the bar for "worst ever" was set so high that no future executive could be worse. Simply put, if you are of the persuasion that the current US President is actually the "worst ever" and care to bring that claim to bear against someone with some muster; this is the opportunity you've been waiting for.
The US should not resign from being a member of the UN

Thank you. I would like to dismiss good things that UN does for the US. Instead, I would urge my opposition should focus on how the US being part of the UN benefits the global society. I don't believe you presented an argument so I will start. My first argument will be that the US have done a lot of harm to the international community with UN peacekeeping as an excuse and refused to view minorities. When they do act, they are also incredibly inefficient. The Korean war included training guns that don't even work because of poor maintenance. Also, America bombed a Chinese embassy in 1999 in Belgrade and NATO submissively have planned the bombing. The UN is too close to America and it is killing the world. Technically America has the same influence on UN as China, Russia and the like. However, America wins almost every vote simply because everyone follows the country. My argument might seem incredibly empty and vague, but it really is all we need to know. Thank you.
The US should not resign from being a member of the UN

I accept. Because of the way this debate is worded there will be several ways to go through this debate. However, I would like to simply rebuttal the points given by pro and, if applicable, bring in some new points supporting my argument. However, as con, my main point is to rebuttal against your argument. It remains Pro's responsibility to bring in more points to the debate. Pro could rebuttal against my rebuttals, but I hope he would give points in each round. I would also like voters to be aware that it is Pro's liability to bring in new points to the debate. Thank you.
Impossibility exists.

Pro has apparently misinterpreted my second paragraph. My sentences before the rebuttal were explaining his argument, not agreeing with it. When I said "this is a paradox", that was me explaining the argument he has made. This should have been obvious because I didn't label my rebuttal until after that summary. He never answered my rebuttal; impossibilities do not exist in world Alpha. This is what his whole argument is about, so his case falls. He's dropped the entire Con case. Technology allows us to do anything, and nothing can be proven impossible because the idea of it is subjective. Based off the technology argument alone, voters can go Con because that it itself affirmed that anything is possible.
Impossibility exists.

Rebuttal: While I agree about the fact that Alpha cannot exist due to its paradoxical nature, I believe by bringing that up you may have given me the debate. Because you stated it could not exist that means Alphas existence is an impossibility. We will never be able to create a world where absolutely everything is possible. As long as the one impossibility of Alpha exists, impossibility will exist. Pro case: With the evidence I have given, I believe that I have proved thoroughly that my case is correct. All of my arguments are extended for the next round.
Impossibility exists.

Thanks to Pro for his argument. I'll refute it and then explain why nothing is impossible. His point is basically, in a world where anything is possible, it is possible for something to be impossible. This is a paradox; so we must assume that a world where anything is possible cannot exist. RebuttalIn a world where anything is possible, there would be no such thing as an Impossibility in the first place. Impossibilities cannot exist in a world where anything is possible. Therefore, saying that it would be "possible for something to be impossible" is not a valid conjecture because impossibilities do not exist in the world he has formulated. His argument about a "possible impossibility" is not a contradiction that prevents Alpha from existing because impossibilities don't actually exist. Con case:1. Technology's power is limitless; at some point we may be able to fly, travel to different dimensions, defy the laws of physics, or meet God using advanced futuristic tech. Things that our ancestors once thought could never happen have been made true through modern advancements. As technology continues to progress, more previously "impossible" feats will also beome possible, perhaps to the point where we can do anything. 2. Impossibilities are subjective. I may think its impossible for bees to fly given their weight being disproportionately large compared to their wings. But a biologist who knows that bees flap their wings fast enough to fly may disagree. There's really no way to objectively determine that something is impossible because there will always be those who think it isn't.
Impossibility exists.

I present a simple logic puzzle to help me prove my point. Imagine two non-coexisting realities. Lets call one Alpha and the other one Beta. In Alpha anything is possible, (Albeit some being improbable, all actions are possible. ) in Beta, there is at least one known or unknown impossibility. Now, in a reality where all possibilities are possible, wouldn't one possibility be that something could be impossible? Therefore, that reality cannot exist, because nothing can exist that makes its existence impossible. So if an existence where impossibility must exist is the only possible existence, that proves that there must be something that is impossible. Can't wait to hear an opposing side.
Fruit is healthy for you (If anyone is debating against me, you're stupid)

I will concede my opponent's point that I am a nice guy, at least in the context of this debate. I will point out, however, that I tend to be quite not-nice when it pertains to people who insist on holding fast to logical fallacies or who accuse me of making fallacies, particularly when they are steeped in such fallacies themselves and when I have committed none, or when dealing with consumate jerks, the disingenuous, or outright liars.
Fruit is healthy for you (If anyone is debating against me, you're stupid)

So you are saying that fruit is healthy but you can't have too much of it? I can live with that. Good Debate sir. And this is very good practice, for me, I don't know how old you are but I'm only 13 thanks for the training!!! I probably wasn't specific enough what I meant was "Eating reasonable quantities of certain fruits can be healthy for you".
Fruit is healthy for you (If anyone is debating against me, you're stupid)

Being CON in this debate, I will argue that "Fruit is healthy for you(If anyone is debating against me, you're stupid)" is a false statement. As an optional burden, I will be arguing that a correct resolution would read "Eating reasonable quantities of certain fruits can be healthy for you". First, I would like to thank my opponent for offering this debate. I would like to point out, first, the resolution. This resolution is unqualified, and unclarified. It is saying that fruit, by itself, is healthy for a person. It does not qualify that it must be eaten, but rather as stated is that the fruit magically contributes to the health of a person through its very existence. If my opponent would like to argue that this magical contribution to health is real, I would assume he has some evidence to back it up. Second, I would like to point out that even in the case where the fruit is eaten, it must be eaten in reasonable quantities. Excess sugar and fiber intake contributes to obesity and intestinal problems, and can contribute to tooth decay. If my opponet would like to deny that tooth decay and obesity are things directly related to caloric intake, he is free to be laughed at. Third, not every fruit is right for every person. My opponent has made the implication that just because some thing is a fruit, it is healthy for you. Would this stand against Poison Ivy Berries? Certainly there may be contrived some situation where poison ivy can be used to contribute to the health of a person, such as poisoning some person who is abusing and trapping you, but that is not the general case; it is not the fruit-making qualities of the berries but rather the dead making quality of them, their potential as a weapon, which makes them healthy-making, and certainly not for the guy that eats them. "FRUIT" is not a sufficient classifier for "healthy", even in the scenario where we are discussing eating of the fruit. Fourth, "can be" is necessary; provided now that a person has eaten a fruit, we must also acknowledge that some people are allergic to otherwise innocuous foods, fruits incuded. Strawberries come to mind; they are a fruit, and healthy for many people to eat, but to the person who is allergic, they could be deadly (or merely inconvenient). Finally, I must address "(If anyone is debating against me, you're stupid)". To whom is the "you" addressed? My opponent has failed to clarify this. Does it mean ME, or the person reading the debate? The ambiguity of the statemnt leaves it open to interpretation, and indcates that he has not thought it through. Further, I have shown that the debate resolution cannot stand as written, and thus established that in this context, at the very least, that I am not "stupid", here taken to mean "a bad debater and foolish". The resolution stands in shambles, replaced by the superior "Eating reasonable quantities of certain fruits can be healthy for you".
any equation can never end on 0 unless its false

Again, this is math because this is regards to the equation not real life. From MY point of view, I do not have any more pens left. Of coarse the pens still exist in real because you can not break the law of conservation of matter. However, this is in regards to math. And false does not equal imaginary. False: not true or correct; erroneous http://dictionary.reference.com...
any equation can never end on 0 unless its false

its correct that the answer is false, as it cant happen in reality 5-5=0 where do you find this example in reality? i can add 5 pens to 5 pens and have 10, the opposite is not true plus is possible, and minus is impossible as i see it right now you cant cross out 1, because, 1 can never become 0 in reality, that would be destruction
any equation can never end on 0 unless its false

0 is a number, and is considered a number in mathematics 5-5=0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cross out all the ones and your left with zero therefore 5-5=0 Algebraic proof: 5+x=0 5-5+x=0-5 x=-5 Therefore, 5-5 =0 is correct
any equation can never end on 0 unless its false

"why does 1+1 equal 2 and not 3? because you have to imagine an extra, as 1 defines 2 and every other true number" 1+1=2 1 1. . .Count the ones, how many ones are there? Lets see. . . 1 2. there are 2 ones 1+1=2 Algebraic proof: 1+x=2 1-1+x=2-1 x=1 1+1=2 I have proven visually and algebraically 1+1=2 not 3 "if i take an apple from you, i added 1 to my stack while misusing 1 from yours, i can never minus first" This is math not conservation of matter
any equation can never end on 0 unless its false

that's right you have 0 pens, but not as an equation, just like 3 divided by 0 is 3 even thou you can never divide 3 by 0, yet the explanation is true equations are rigid, as math is absolute, why does 1+1 equal 2 and not 3? because you have to imagine an extra, as 1 defines 2 and every other true number okay, i can add, but only by misusing, but i cant minus, i can only add first, and minus is a result of that if i take an apple from you, i added 1 to my stack while misusing 1 from yours, i can never minus first
any equation can never end on 0 unless its false

but that is true, if i take your 5 pens, you have no pens, is true, as an explanation not an equation math is absolute its either true or false, there is no middle ground any false answer is imaginary, and any true answer is real, can be found in reality i cant even do a minus equation in my mind, it just falls apart so what this means is, only + is possible, and you can only + by misusing so plus is possible, and minus is impossible
There is more violence in the bible than in the Qur'an

Thanks for accepting, here goes. Personally, I see many Christians who criticise the Quran on the "violent" verses but the verses in the bible turn out worse. There is also the time and date of the verses, for instance, in Surah 8:12 where it says God will cast terror into the hearts of the disbelievers, this verse was revealed during a battle between the Quraish and Muslims, had the battle not occured, this verse would not appear. Jesus, being extremely peaceful and that then says "Do not suppose I came in peace, I came with a sword" in Matthew 10:34. http://biblehub.com... But as for the bible, I saw this in 1 Samuel 15:3: Attack the Amalekites and kill men, women, children, babies, horses and donkies, not sure what the donkey did. http://biblehub.com... And unlike Christianity, Muslims are not allowed to harm women, non-combatants, children, or even religious buildings (mosque, temple, church, synagogue, etc), we can't even chop down trees, those are true standards of war in Islam, it is also obligatory to make peace treaties if the enemy wants it. 4:90 https://quran.com... Before you start thinking "Old Testament", don't think the New Testament is innocent either! There is sexual violence in the New Testament, that is concerning. And some violence as well. http://shiloh-project.group.shef.ac.uk... [1] http://shiloh-project.group.shef.ac.uk... [2] http://biblehub.com...
There is more violence in the bible than in the Qur'an

There is a lot of controversy between Muslims and Christians, but the problem with Christians is that they always talk and complain about violence, slavery or sex slavery in Islam but never bother looking at their own religion first. Rules: 1) No curse matches 2) Use reputable sources (reputable YouTube videos count) 3) No hate preaching 4) No trolling 5) Shared burden of proof 6) Forfeiting without a valid reason will be an automatic loss.
Atriox vs Master Chief

Considering the fact that the debate is about a character from a first person shooter game fighting a character from a Real Time Strategy game, I think it is only fair to compare things from each game. I decided to go ahead and test your statement about it taking more than 10 hits for any Spartan to destroy a tank. On Halo: Reach, where you play as the Spartan IIIs, which are inferior to the Spartan IIs in almost every way, it takes 6 punches to destroy a Covenant Wraith or UNSC Scorpion. If you punch the tanks as fast as possible, it takes 3 seconds or less to destroy them. This means that just any Spartan equipped with the MJOLNER armor can destroy a fully armored tank in 3 seconds or less. And this is with the outdated Mark V Spartan armor. The Master Chief currently uses Mark VI Spartan armor, which is much more advanced than the previous models. So, according to Halo Wars and Halo Wars 2 gameplay, Red Team is significantly weaker than most more modern UNSC Spartans and their armor is much less powerful. Now if Atriox had a plasma pistol in a fight against Chief, there is no way he could win. There is almost no way a charged plasma pistol shot would hit Chief, especially at medium or long ranges, due to the speed of charged plasma pistol bolts. Realistically, the plasma pistol would only be effective at close ranges or close medium ranges. This was a fun debate. I do hope that that their votes are not biased as well.
Atriox vs Master Chief

What you're comparing is a first person shooter in-game things to a Real Time Strategy game. You have to remember the only reason it takes red team to hijack longer is because of balancing purposes. In the fps games, it is different due to multiplayer balancing. Comparing these two are not accurate, as they are very different in how they play because they are totally different genres. You talked about chief being able to punch and destroy a tank in a few hits. It actually takes much more hits for any spartan including chief to that. In reality, more than 10. And with Atriox's superior strength, he could make that less punches for himself. Now if we still want to talk about long-medium range, to make this fair, we should give Atriox a form of gun then, as it is not fair to give one a weapon, and another, mainly just a melee weapon, which is why i stated that the fairest way for any sort of true fight is through a fist fight. I'm sorry, but i am actually giving chief the credit he deserves on his scale, which is strong, but inferior in every single way to strength. You have to remember that Atriox's suit is compromised of ODST and even Spartan armor, which is likely to have shielding components which is mixed and combined with his knowledge on his enemies tactics. About you're headshots claim on Halo 2 as opposed to halo 3 and above, i'm sure the banished brutes would take even more headshots to take down, and overall body shots due to their full armor suiting in halo wars 2, which is produced on nothing more than heavy-duty steel and metal. Let me play you're long to mid-range game now, as i apologize, but close range fair plain field combat easily goes to Atriox without a doubt. Let's give Atriox a simple plasma pistol. As i'm sure brutes were trained to use more than just a gravity hammer. One charge and hit at chief, and his shields are down. Atriox could either keep shooting his plasma pistol, as i'm sure chief would not challenge a heavily armored brute warlord with shields down, or he could charge at the Chief, and pull him closer with his gravity mace if chief tries to run away. Overall, i feel both me and you had a well-put debate, but ultimately, it is up to the people's votes. Hopefully their votes are not decided on personal preference and nostalgia, but instead of the debate we put up
Atriox vs Master Chief

I don't think you are giving Master Chief enough credit in close quarters combat. Chief is capable of destroying a tank with his fists in 3-5 seconds by jumping onto it and punching it until it blows up. This is something that even the members of Red Team are not capable of doing so quickly, as seen in Halo Wars and Halo Wars 2, it takes them almost 20 seconds to simply hijack, not even destroy a vehicle. So it would make sense that Chief could easily do what Atriox did to Douglas's arm and helmet. Atriox might be able to land a few blows on Chief, but Chief could easily do some serious damage to Atriox since he is faster and could dodge a few of his hits. With weapons on an open battlefield, Chief certainly has the upper hand. While it the Brutes in Halo 2 do require many headshots to be put down, this is not the case for the Brutes in Halo: Reach, Halo 3 and Halo 3: ODST. In these three games that came out after Halo 2, Brutes can easily be taken out with only one headshot once their head armor/power armor is disabled. Since these games came out at a later date, this retcons the amount of headshots brutes are able to take before dying. While with weapons on an open battlefield, Chief could certainly win in medium and long range engagements. In close quarters combat with no weapons, Chief and Atriox appear to be more closely matched than it seems.
Atriox vs Master Chief

Yet i would still have to disagree with this. I can still argue about long ranged tactics for Atriox to have the advantage, but the fairest way to show true power is not through long ranged tactics. Its through a very close fist fight. Let's even take all of the weapons out of play here. In a close quarters fight with nowhere to run, chief is outmatched in strength. Speed is not of the essence in close quarter fighting, giving Atriox the huge advantage. Once again, the fairest way to compare two individuals is a fist fight. but if we want to talk long range still, yes. We don't know the true range of the gravity mace, as that is yet to be explained in detail. but what we do know is that is was able to pull a Spartan in from fair range for a hammer. You said an easy few headshots could kill Atriox. Brutes have been known to survive quite an extensive amount of headshots and survive. But i would have to say it would only take one hit from Atriox to have chief defeated due to his pure strength and armor enhancements. I will say once again. The best way to compare two individuals is through a fist fight in close quarters, which no doubt Atriox would come out victorious. If you were also to take the armor out of both of these individuals, Atriox would still reign supreme. We saw how easy and effortlessly Atriox broke Douglas's arm in Halo Wars 2. It does not matter if it is inferior armor, as it is still spartan armor, and how effortlessly Atriox broke his arm and helmet. I'm sure it would be no challenge at all for Atriox to do the same to Master Chief. In conclusion, giving both sides a fair starting point in a true test of pure strength without weapons, Atriox is unmatched