BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global Nuclear War Would Save the Planet

If the ICBMs were to be let loose we would be destroying the planet, finishing it off, not saving it. Depending on who launches against who, it either would end in an eventual truce post-launch (which is far worse for both the environment and civilization than having never fired) or until the bodies controlling the warheads simply cannot launch anymore - which would confirm the destruction of civilization. The effects of multiple large-scale atomic fallouts are nowhere near as tranquil as euthanasia, the harrowingly unpredictable mutations and numerous cancers are only a fraction of the undocumented horrors brought about by the fallouts we've observed that occurred on a *much smaller* scale. It would worsen humanity's chances of shaping a better future, not improve it. If your solution to mankind's problems is depopulation, then there are superior ways of achieving that, such as regulating family sizes as done in China. Impelling a nuclear armageddon would be unnecessary
Best "Starting Episode" of MLP:FiM

I am terribly sorry about that forfeit; it was my first forfeit.... ever. After thinking it through, I've supposed that my opponent is correct. While Party of One is indeed good for adult or mature viewers to first watch (which I was supposing), the general audience probably outweighs the amount of 15/16/18+ viewers, considering what the show is for, Dragonshy does manage to space out the development better, and while I still do not drop my opinion that Party of One opens up for the third best episode of all time, it does seem that Dragonshy has better plot and equals Party of One in every other perspective. Thus, my opponent has won. Congratulations. Vote for him, judges.
Best "Starting Episode" of MLP:FiM

Read the rules carefully before accepting.This is a debate concerning the show "MLP:FiM"; meaning "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic."You must choose an episode, ONE single episode, NOT TWO, NOT THREE, NOT A SEASON, NOT A MOVIE, but ONE EPISODE from the show. All the episodes are listed here: http://mlp.wikia.com.... However, as stated before, you MAY NOT chose any film or any short for this debate.This debate considers all the episodes up to "Appleoosa's Most Wanted", including that specific episode.Definitions:Best: The highest quality.... we may debate over the definition and what makes an episode of "high quality", but the episode should be directed toward the missions of:-Introducing the mane six ponies-Entertaining the viewer-Making the viewer want to view more episodes of MLPStarting episode: This is assuming that the viewer knows little to nothing of MLP. Or even a viewer who is skeptical about the show and is doubtful, judging by the logo or perhaps what other people said about the show. We are also assuming that the episode we debate about will be the viewer's first episode, thus, the "Starting episode".I have chosen "Party of One". You can NOT choose "Party of One". Within Round one, you must ACCEPT ALL THE RULES STATED here, accept the debate, and choose the one episode you will argue that is a better STARTING EPISODE for viewers of MLP:FiM. You WILL NOT make any arguments in round one.Round two we both make our cases, round three we refute each other, round four we wrap up and not make any new arguments. The voters will decide the punishments if we break any of these rules.-PM me if you have any questions or problems.
The DrINKING AGE should be 16 for beer and wine 18 for the hard stuff

you set government authority at arbitrary numbers, Surely if alcohol is so bad, We should just make it illegal for everyone, But wait we already tired that did we not, Which leads to my next point, Prohibition never works does it, Or rarlely if a group wants product bad enough they will find a way to get it, Better to regualte it in a rational way, I think 16 is old enough for beer or wine
The DrINKING AGE should be 16 for beer and wine 18 for the hard stuff

"I am so sick of the nanny state every thing you say may very well be true? So what? I would go ahead and begin by saying that I would like to agree with you on the government being a nanny state towards its citizens. However, I agree with this because I believe the government is doing this to protect us from ourselves, Making me say that our government being a nanny state is a good thing. Our government knows that quite a lot of people make bad decisions everyday. This is why we have public services such as law enforcement, Firefighters, And emergency medical services; they are to help keep us alive. "Is it up to the government to dictate what we eat or drink if teens drink it should be up to parental authority notthe government, It is up to parents to say what is best, Not the government or some do gooder government bureaucrat. " I also would like to say that I believe the government regulates the age of alcohol drinking for situations such as public drinking. There are 37 states who have underage drinking exceptions only for when the minor is accompanied by a family member. Therefore there are places in the United States where you can allow your kid to enjoy a beverage with family without needing to drink in public. "i think you give the young adult the info of the dangers and let them decideand stop trying to micro manage peoples lives! " I might add that your idea of giving the young adult the information about the dangers of alcohol and let the choose is a fair argument. In the United States, At 18 you are considered an adult and are legally allowed to kill another man if you enlist in our military. This is where the argument that the drinking age should be lowered to 18 because you have the possibility to kill another man. For my rebuttal, I suggest that we should allow young adults be able to enlist in the military at 17 but should not be allowed into combat until he turns 21. I feel as though this would help prevent deaths of young kids in our military as well as help weed out people who don't take the military seriously. "freedom over tyrrany! " I agree that freedom should be valued over tyranny, However setting our drinking age at 21 while giving exceptions for family events feels understanding and only helps out the young adult's brain development.
The DrINKING AGE should be 16 for beer and wine 18 for the hard stuff

I am so sick of the nanny state every thing you say may very well be true? so what? Is it up to the government to dictate what we eat or drink if teens drink it should be up to parental authority notthe government, It is up to parents to say what is best, Not the government or some do gooder government bureaucratat 18 i think you give the young adult the info of the dangers and let them decideand stop trying to micro manage peoples lives! freedom over tyrrany!
The DrINKING AGE should be 16 for beer and wine 18 for the hard stuff

When i visited my family in Holland in 1977 there were naked women in windows, Pot smokers everywhere, And the drinking age was basically 16, 18 for hard liquor, But according to cousin Bert the law was never enforced, I DECIDED TO invstigate, He was right, You could do anythng in the netherlands as long as you were not hurting others, So cool, And everyone was having a splendid time, I SAY WE TRY ALL THAT HERE, Especially the naked women in windows
Minecraft sucks 6

I actually sent you a private debate but since you are here in going to do these: So minecraft sucks bacause: Laggy Bad graphics Lame combat Wrong kind of music during the wrong time(minor) Glitchy Unfinshed product as there are TOO many bug fixes which seemed like they planned it from the start to keep it fresh. Addictive Minecraft merchandise and handbooks are also expensive scams. I will save my words and will debate more later.
Minecraft sucks 6

Ok so im going to start strait off by telling you that you will be voting con because pro has not fulfilled BOP, they haven't shown how MInecraft is a bad game, at most they have shown why they do not enjoy it. Because of this you vote pro. Now I will respond: Multiplayer: again no refutation Lag: again this isnt due to the game, its due to physical aspects of its host, you cannot show that this makes the game bad, and you haven't shown this is the games fault so I win this point as well. Graphics: this has gone un-refuted throughout the debate. My opponent even states there is realist lighting, and since this games goal isnt to have rounded edges my opponent isnt showing why the game is bad, but instead he is suggesting that it should be a completely different game. Combat: again, vanilla fighting is par with other games of this nature, and mods allow growth. My opponent does not understand the concept of hacking or virus injection. They also have not refuted that there are launchers that come with modifications that are risk free. Music: Its common sense the music adapts, my opponent conceded this and now claims there is no evidence. If anything my opponent doesnt win this point because he hasnt provided evidence and he holds BOP. Glitchy: My opponent doesnt understand the history of MC, so i will clarify, not that it matters because they havent shown how the game is bad or supported this point. Minecraft started development after the creator (Notch), played a building simulator. After several years and several million dollars made, Minecraft was purchased by MIcrosoft. On a completely separate note: Oracle a company not related to Mojang or Microsoft, developed Java. A programming language that would close unused processes, unlike C++ where you have to deconstruct objects. They have no relation. Story line: There is no story line in minecraft, Dialog apears after killing a mob in the game. Thats it, the text was a tease from Jeb_ the current Developer for MC. This point falls null.
Minecraft sucks 6

Rebuttals: Con actually merged multiplayer, and lag. Multiplayer lag. And we are debating about the LAG in the MULTIPLAYER. But he just end up claiming a point. He hasnt debated on the connection issue nor the 20 TNT part. Nothing is rebutted at all. Bad graphics- Minecraft has big pixels and then the blocks, minecraft is ment to be blocky but it actually ends up making the game boring and slow paced(it says you have to jump to climb up a mountain). Minecraft needs more shapes. Combat- Con seemed to have trouble on supporting his arguement on the minecraft combat system and end up using mods as an excuse. Con accuses me i had not provided enough evidence, but con did not address my source about the problems kids can have with minecraft( http://minemum.com... ). Not everybody has a cleaning software, and a cleaning software can be judgedd from lousy to good. Wrong music in the wrong time- This is not a support to say the music is bad., no evidence says the music "adapts" Glitchy- I know java is from oracle cooperations, microsoft paid java to write minecraft but they should re think. The indie developers marcus persson (aka notch) and jeb. Fact: i had minecraft and was a fanboy for 3 years. No evidence also had been shown that glitches only affect servers. Once again con claims its caused by the server, but do you know there is a goofy job if a video game tester. The source mainly say its about the company . Addictive- For you, it should seem that minecraft is not the main game you play, but for others, it can be a differet story. Lousy storyline- Now minecraft has a storyline, now while i risk admitting it. Microsoft is actually taking risks for the game to be criticised by critics. You kill the enderdragon with no given purpose, no other quests to support your reason. Soon the offical credits roll in. Too bad my underated farcry 4 game was criticized for its main storylines, but it actually has 7 storylines of different characters. Last time, games was like a gamebook, now, they mainly focus on action. Sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
God Exists

I and others will continue to believe that there is a universe with real function that is factually proven and the belief of God will continue to be an unproven theory where my opponent could not give any Logical or concrete evidence that there is a God somewhere in the universe rather than existing functions that teach us our moral rights. It is evident by construct I did not debate each of his beliefs because I felt the need to just debate my own standpoint than structurally antagonizing his, But my point was made loud and clear and I hope one opens his mind up to more righteous logic on what we debated today.
God Exists

She has not interacted at all with the cosmological or contingency arguments that I presented in my original post. Neither has she been successful in grounding objective moral values and duties in a godless universe. This leaves premise one of the moral argument intact. As a result, It seems that all three of the arguments I presented in my opening post remain successful in giving us good reasons for believing that God exists. My opponent has not given any positive reasons to believe that God does not exist. She seems to simply be asserting that God is just a human construct without giving any reasons for thinking so. I have not detected anything approaching an argument against God's existence in her responses. For these reasons I hope that you will agree with me that there are good reasons to believe that God exists and not comparably good reasons for believing that God does not exist.
God Exists

"God" works through Humans and life on earth not "Chairs". If you don"t understand the use of language that enables us to communicate in comparison to conclude that a God being is human construct then I cannot help ya! But thank you so much for the debate - we can agree to disagree as I conclude that my debate and your debate are still awesome theories (mine more so) Lol! There"s a ton of people that agree with my conclusion and people that agree with yours. Good Luck with everything you believe in! As long as you have good intentions with everything you do you"ll be alright living here!
God Exists

I am a Female actually Lol! You kept referring to me as "him and he". My Oponent and I agree on the statement that there is a motion outside of ourselves that consequences our actions good or bad. I conclude that this is simple the function of the Universe, And my oponent Concludes that this can only be a function of a God. My oponent fails to realize and understand the use of language as a tool* The Universe doesn"t call itself universe, Humans named it that so we can communicate. Same for the word God. God doesn"t call itself God, We call it that. "Universe, Or God doesn"t need the tool of language like humans do because the power and energy of the universe or God is more simply an Existence. When you focus on language you can identify that if you take the "Names" away, You are left with the focus of Natural Functions. To Conclude the only a body, Or "God" is the reason for such works, Is a very Human conclusion not being able to idea energy"s outside of a "simple/one, Being". It would actually make more sense to conclude that the universe functions morality, At least on Esrth, Instead of giving the praise to what human constructed, A "God" Universe, Source, Natural Law, Indeed does exist and does function, "God" can not be concluded the same way and is more so theatrical. I hope I was better able to articulate my argument! :)
God Exists

God does not exist. But if your use of diction God is used in placement for words such as universe, Or source, Then that idea is very well true. But mass majority do not use the word as such and narrates the idea of God to be a body, Energy, Or thing, That holds all power. This idea is absurd. For 1) if God is the absolute most powerful thing or idea, What does he need us for? What does he need us to serve him for? We can only do so much and we havent even evolved enough still to be the best at the limited things we can do on this Earth. We live for ourselves and one another. Not for this story book idea of "God" or Jesus. One should be more concerned with the works of natural law (Karma). Those who like the tradition of religion, Can learn most ideas of sin and blessing to better align their walk, But to praise a jesus, Or God, Is wasteful and deviates the mind and perception in a nonfunctional way. Universe, "God", Natural law really teaches the lesson to have Good intention in things you do, Help thy neighbor, And learn from perspective and wise man. As there is nothing new under the sun with the limits we have here on Earth, If and when you make a mistake, Is when "God" sends you Thoughts*(which are lessons;perspective), Or the proper/authorized person(human/another God(person with access to God)) to advise you how to go about a better walk in your own life. Example: If one feels guilty, You recieve thoughts that penalizes and teaches you how to not to go about things. Everyone has access to this "God", These lessons, Karma, Natural law, Source, Or whatever you choose to call it. The fact that their are lessons in this world the teaches us good and bad, There is obviously a function that is beyond or above us and what we can do that we are readily able to strive by in each of our lives. This proves the idea of a "Higher Power" But the man in the sky that sends people to heaven or hell is an idea that is synonymous to the elementary story of Santa Clause. Every new day is everyones opportunity to create the idea of themselves in a better light. When being judged it happens hear on earth not in an after life. (Yes your mind and soul keeps going, Energy cannot be created Nor destroyed). No one is who they were 10 years ago so for people to believe they will get sent to a "hell" for a "mistake" is absurd. "God" is more forgiving which is why he allows you a lifetime to get it right. There is definetly a High Spurce of Energy that help align our walks, But not a God that sees you when your sleeping, Or knows when your awake (Joke lol! ) So my answer is yes and No as a debate of perception from a different Corner to look at it from. I hope that i was able to articulate these ideas as best as i could as well, Thank you for the Debate.
The Death Penalty should be banned in most cases in the United States

Banned - To remove the practice ofStructureMe[1] Rules/Structure[2] Opening Arguments/Contentions[3] Closing Arguments, Rebuilding points, Closing pointsAdversary[1] Opening Arguments/Contentions[2] Closing Arguments, Rebuilding points, Closing points[3] Shall type "no round as agreed upon"Rules[1]FFS shall result in the loss of a conduct point with multiple FFS possibly resulting in a full 7 point drop at the discretion of the judges[2]Failure to type no round as agreed upon in the last round will result in a full 7 point drop[3] Directly and intentionally plagiarizing information will result in the loss of conduct and possibly a full 7 point drop at the discretion of the judges. [4] Votes shall contain a proper RFD[5] 10k character limit, using Google docs or other sites to go over this shall result in the loss of a conduct point and if breach multiple times possibly in a full 7 point drop at the discretion of the judges. If this occurs shall shall vote on the information of the site and not the information that exceeds the 10k word limit.
The Pacers aren't going to make it far this year/season.

BROOOO CHIILLL I'm just kidding LOL but I do agree with you though. As in far, I do mean making to like the final round with like the Heat or like the Spurs. And the Pacers have been known for not making it far like that. They have been having a rough season right now and they need to tighten that up. I bet you right now that if you Google "Pacers" then click on "News" all you see is just headlines about Lance Stevenson. The Pacers are always getting badly talked about at my school or anywhere else so they need to prove them wrong. But not at the rate they're going.
The Pacers aren't going to make it far this year/season.

First I'd like to clarify your definition of "far" this season. By far, I assume you mean making it to the playoffs or even to the second round. I argue that the Pacers will not only make the playoffs but they have a fair chance of making it to the second round. 1/ Compared to last year, Pacers have no expectations or pressure on them to succeed. Last year they were, by many analysts, favored to not only make it out of the east, but to win it all. Pacers are playing free and their coach is on a long term contact. This allows the team to play relaxed, settle into their positions and have fun on the court. They still have plenty of time to gel and build chemistry. 2/ They have an all star big man in Hibbert. Without George in the lineup, Hibbert can regain his confidence and reclaim himself as the captain of this team. Rodney Stuckey is a formidable acquisition as well. Once David West returns, Pacers have a chance to collect some wins and gain momentum. 3/ The eastern conference is weak and if the Pacers can obtain a number 6 spot or greater, they can have a real shot at making it past the first round. Sidenote: I am not a Pacers fan.
The Pacers aren't going to make it far this year/season.

I mean, we've lost all our good players. Paul George Lance Stevenson And probably many others. We have played 10 games already this season and won 3/10! Come on Pacers! We can do better. Our biggest blowout this season so far was 108-87. We loss by 21 points(if your bad at math. And If you disagree please tell me why?
Jesus isn't the son of God

The response was very nice by my opponent. He tried to prove the logical aspect of the debate that he thinks I didn't provide. He says "this debate is not about the nature of son but about the father". I would like to tell my opponent that I'm well aware of the nature of God. I am also religious and not an atheist. Now let's discuss the topics spoken by my opponent. Definitions; I'm well aware of all the definitions. Thanks Omnipresent. Now that is where, My opponent is wrong. Being omnipresent does mean being literally present everywhere. That does not have to be physically or by moving his presence to some other body. The meaning of omnipresent is that God is present everywhere in the sense that he can see everything, no matter where it is. Nothing is hidden from him and he is basically, for us, spirituAlly present around us. God does not need to put his presence in some other being. He is well able to do everything from up there (That's another concept) he did send 'messengers' (not sons) to convey his message to the people. And they did a very good job. And Jesus too was a messenger. Not son. "God has the ability to have son" No he doesn't you see, sons are needed in two cases. Either when you're too old to carry on your work any longer, or when you plan to retire. Since God is not in need of either ofthose. He doesn't need a son. And he can't have a son. Why? He is God. One other aspect of God is, He is one. And having a son would make two Gods. Two Gods. Two different Gods. One son and another father. How can a God die? As stated that Jesus dies. God cant die . GOD can't feel pain. As Jesus did. So, Jesus wasn't God. Nor was he son of God. SON:; My opponent claims that God gave birth to Jesus. How can a God give birth to a human? Is God human too? My opponent himself says 'only one God can be "all powerful" does that imply that son of God isnt powerful? Why is he son if he doesn't have all the powers inherited? CONCLUSION: - Things wrong with my opponent argument;- 1) God's son is in human form? 2) God just didn't need a son. He has messengers and angels to convey his message. A bit of my actual argument too here... 1. Jesus always said God is the greatest and told people to follow God. Were he the son of God. Would he not say that follow me, because he too is a God in a way. But he constantly says to follow God. 2. Jesus did have a mother. Mary. The father is what people imagine God to be. Now people just cant imagine a person without father. So thwy imagine God to be the father but what about Adam? He too didn't have a father. Yet people don't say him to be son of God. Why? If Adam didnt have a father. So it is possible that Jesus didn't either. I'll keep it that much as of now. Thanx :)