BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the Olympics be moved out of Russia? (Open version)

As per the rules of this debate, I am not allowed to counter anything new or introduce any new contentions. as such, I will run down all the contentions and respond appropriately. Contention 1(a): Honour. I consented to my opponent. Contention 1(b): Human rights. My opponent consented to me. Contention 2: Safety. While I'm not allowed to counter, I will clarify that by "little harm" - I meant physically, as an individual. They pose little harm to the stadium, to their fellow members as an individual. I was saying that they could pose a threat when safety in numbers comes into play. Contention 3: Phrasing. (I can refute here as this is still on the definitions refute). Again, I would argue that these definitions are too vague. Propaganda of lesbianism, for example. Propaganda means: "understood activities on purposeful and uncontrolled dissemination of information in a publicly accessible way that can be harmful to the health, moral and spiritual development of minors. " But Activities isn't defined enough! The activities are "sodomy, lesbianism, bisexualism, transgenderism". Are two women holding hands a lesbian activity? Again, too much room for bias, even you stated that: "the police have the choice whether or not to enforce this law", which all but confirms my statement. Too vague. Opponent's Contention 1: Athletes' reward for their efforts. (Here however, I cannot as this goes into cost - which is new). I would make a counter, but alas, I cannot as per the rules. I would like to thank my opponent, junior_dominator, for this interesting, and eye-opening (for both sides, I would hope! ) debate. Please note, that wasn't a concession. I thank the voters and the audience that don't want to or cannot vote, too. An amazing debate! Until next time! J
Should the Olympics be moved out of Russia? (Open version)

Thank you for your contradictions, the following is my response: In response to the evidence my opponent has presented on the Human Rights and Russia and after reviewing the evidence myself, I concede to the argument on human rights in Russia. In reply to my opponents second contention, I agree that people with nothing on them pose little harm. However, you contradict this when referring to these same people triggering a riot or a protest, as that would then likely cause harm. What you propose is a hypothetical argument that cannot be determined with the evidence that we have. Even though many people dislike homosexuality in Russia, this does not mean that what you propose determines the safety of the athletes. In the section on the law, you disagree with my refutation, and I apologize once again for not providing all of the information from the link. I should add to it that understood activities are defined. I will this time quote the whole note: "As public actions aimed at propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexualism, transgenderism amongst minors in this article should be understood activities on purposeful and uncontrolled dissemination of information in a publicly accessible way that can be harmful to the health, moral and spiritual development of minors, including forming in their mind a distorted perception of social equality of traditional and nontraditional marital relationships." It specifically states that it concerns that which is harmful to the health, moral and spiritual development of minors in concern with sodomy, lesbianism, bisexualism, transgendersim. Note, sodomy includes oral and anal sex (1)(2)(3), thus the law is not reserved to simply LGBTs, but can include people of all sexual orientations. Concerning the enforcement of the law, the police have the choice whether or not to enforce this law, as they are not required to do so. In consideration of my opponents refinements to the delaying of the games, this has never happened before. That doesn't mean it can't, but as for the actual happening of this, Russia has invested $36.7 billion on 70% of the facilities, and is projected for $50 billion(this is not even the final estimate) (4). The reason that Olympic games are decided 6 years in ahead is because of the construction that they entail. If we moved it to a year from now, who's to say that another facility would be prepared in time? We could delay it another year, but we can't predict the future and we don't know what will happen from now. In conclusion, Russia should still maintain its acquired right to host the Olympic games. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://dictionary.reference.com... (3)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (4)http://rt.com...
Should the Olympics be moved out of Russia? (Open version)

Welcome all to this mighty debate! This is the "open" version of this debate, for any to accept! (I am doing a "private" version with conservative_18, should he accept.) This comes up after various news pieces about Putin (the ruler of Russia) "declaring war" on homosexuals, and people are worried that visitors are at risk. The rules are as follows: First round is acceptance only. Fifth round is for closing statements only - no new arguments or refutes. The BoP (burden of proof) is shared if my opponent wants to propose his/her own arguments. if s/he only wants to refute my contentions - the BoP is on me only. Only logic can be used. No religious arguments. I believe that's all. Good luck to whomever accepts, and allez! (Any questions please feel free to post a comment.)
Liam Neeson is better than Chuck Norris.

"I. Look, I was just trying to have a serious debate. Then all the sudden, I get attacked by a pack of trolls. I was not wanting this to be some kind of troll/joke debate, but here I go:"This is not a troll debate, this is a debate about Liam Neeson and Chuck Norris. When were we ever debating about trolls?"1. Yes, Norris can make his beard any color he wants. Neeson can make his hair any color he wants. All you need is hair dye. Hair dye does not prove in anyway that Norris is better. "I never said it did, this is a red herring. I just said that your argument that Chuck Norris cannot be God because Chuck Norris beard is brown is false. I never said this particular statement gave positive support in favor of my position. "And quit saying that Norris God. I know that you are an Atheist, and therefore saying things like that doesn't offend you or you don't think it offends anyone. Though, I am a Christian, and I know that there are lot of people in my religion that would be offended by this falsehood of which you keep stating. "Well, I believe that Chuck Norris is God. So, I am offended by the things above that you are saying. "And I don't have the audacity/need to make such outrageous claims as saying that, for example, that Liam Neeson is God. Nor would I say that Neeson is the subject of Jesus's prayer, or that he invented the idea of truth."Well, then you admit that you lose the debate because I am claiming that Chuck is God, the subject of Jesus's prayer, and invented the idea of truth. If you have no argument that Liam is better, then Chuck is better by default because God is better than anyone, and you have not torn down my argument that Chuck Norris is God. I proved it, because Chuck is truth itself, thus everything I am saying is true. If that is a non-sequitur, it does not matter because Chuck is logic itself, and God, so he can bend the rules in my favor to win because he is just that damn awesome. "For I know that none of that is true, and for the sake of an actual debate, I have been providing ACTUAL reasoning as to why Liam is better than Chuck."Where is your reasoning? You just bare-assert that Chuck is not God. That is not sufficient to tear down my argument."There are not different versions of Chuck. There is but one Chuck, and Liam Neeson is better than him. Anyway, why would God even want to be Chuck Norris? He has way better things to do."Where is your evidence that there are not different versions of chuck?"3. Chuck Norris is not truth. He is an actor, and that is all. Therefore, Norris is not logic either, nor is he God. Simply an actor."Chuck Norris is truth, and a great actor. He is also logic, and God. "4. Saying "doy" was uncalled for? Really? You've been saying that Chuck Norris is God. You think that ISN'T uncalled for?"Excuse me? The above is offensive to my belief that Chuck is God. I already proved it true. Yoda said it. It cannot be false! Galdof got my back too: I got presidential approval: There is no doubt anymore. Chuck Norris is God, and thus better than Liam Neeson. Oh, and what's this?
Liam Neeson is better than Chuck Norris.

I. Look, I was just trying to have a serious debate. Then all the sudden, I get attacked by a pack of trolls. I was not wanting this to be some kind of troll/joke debate, but here I go: 1. Yes, Norris can make his beard any color he wants. Neeson can make his hair any color he wants. All you need is hair dye. Hair dye does not prove in anyway that Norris is better. And quit saying that Norris God. I know that you are an Atheist, and therefore saying things like that doesn't offend you or you don't think it offends anyone. Though, I am a Christian, and I know that there are lot of people in my religion that would be offended by this falsehood of which you keep stating. And I don't have the audacity/need to make such outrageous claims as saying that, for example, that Liam Neeson is God. Nor would I say that Neeson is the subject of Jesus's prayer, or that he invented the idea of truth. For I know that none of that is true, and for the sake of an actual debate, I have been providing ACTUAL reasoning as to why Liam is better than Chuck. 2. There are not different versions of Chuck. There is but one Chuck, and Liam Neeson is better than him. Anyway, why would God even want to be Chuck Norris? He has way better things to do. 3. Chuck Norris is not truth. He is an actor, and that is all. Therefore, Norris is not logic either, nor is he God. Simply an actor. 4. Saying "doy" was uncalled for? Really? You've been saying that Chuck Norris is God. You think that ISN'T uncalled for? Better watch out, Chuck.
Liam Neeson is better than Chuck Norris.

"1. Hahhaha. It is obviously untrue that Norris is God. God's beard is white, silly!"Chuck Norris can make his beard any color he likes, as Chuck Norris is God himself, and thus better than liam Neeson."Plus, there is proof that Chuck was born in Ryan, Oklahoma."Only that version of Chuck was born in Ryan, Oklahoma. Chuck is God and can take many forms."We all know that God, the real true one, was born out of thin air. Oh wait you wouldn't know that...you're an Atheist."Actually, Chuck Norris as a whole was not born at all. Only a version of himself began to exist in Ryan. "2. So, I have just proven that Chuck is not God."Actually, my opponent has not. I proved Chuck is God. Why? Because Chuck Norris is truth itself, therefore, everything I am saying is true. If you believe that was a non-sequitur, it does not matter; Chuck Norris is logic itself, and has given me the powers to win this debate because he is Chuck Norris......Chuck Norris. "And plus, who in the name is Liam Nielsen? It's spelled "Neeson". Doy." Yes, I made an error. However, that "doy" was rude and uncalled for. Thus, even if I get spelling and grammar points deducted, you will get conduct points deducted. "The case is still wide open, my friend." My friend Yoda has something to say about that:
Liam Neeson is better than Chuck Norris.

1. Hahhaha. It is obviously untrue that Norris is God. God's beard is white, silly! Plus, there is proof that Chuck was born in Ryan, Oklahoma. We all know that God, the real true one, was born out of thin air. Oh wait you wouldn't know that...you're an Atheist. 2. So, I have just proven that Chuck is not God. And plus, who in the name is Liam Nielsen? It's spelled "Neeson". Doy. The case is still wide open, my friend.
Liam Neeson is better than Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris did not invent truth. All he invented is his own cowboy-ness. 1. You say that Jesus prays to Chuck Norris. This is obviously untrue. The only being Jesus prays to is God himself, and Norris isn't God, now is he? Also, your profile says that you are an Atheist. So why should you be bringing up Jesus if you don't think he was real/ he was the son of God? 2. Liam Neeson is good enough to not have such scary fans. Liam's fans are obviously more sane, because there are not so many "Liam Neeson jokes", or whatever. This proves that Neeson provides a sense of sanity and more directness to his job, enabling the ability that makes him better than Chuck, for he is still popular without all the freakiness Norris fans have. 3. Chuck has proof of fighting skills but Liam doesn't? Are you freaking kidding me? Watch some of his movies. 4. Liam Neeson is close to his 70's. Liam is 61. And about being closer to God, just because your old doesn't mean you are closer to God because you can die at any age. Plus, you're an Atheist. So why do you bring up God if you don't believe in Him? 5. There is obvious evidence that Liam can fight. Again, watch his movies. Who the heck is Sheen. And you brought up that God thing again. And I will bring up again: You're an Atheist. Oh, and you posted a picture, I'll post one, too:
Liam Neeson is better than Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris invented the idea of "truth". Therefore, you can bet you bottom dollar that everything I am saying is true. If you think that is a non-sequitur, just remember, Chuck Norris is logic itself. DivinityJesus prays to chuck norris Proof Of Fightning SkillsChuck Norris actually has moves (Check Video)Chuck Norris Is OldChuck is in his 70's, this means he is closer to God than Liam because God is the oldest person there is. This alone would not give him extra powers, but he is Chuck Norris.ConclusionJesus prays to Chuck Norris, and Chuck Norris is devine. There is evidence that Chuck can actually fight, there is no evidence that sheen can actually fight. Chuck norris is also closer to God, and God gives him powers to overcome Liam because of this? Why? Because he is Chuck Norris. I win. Why? Well, my friend Chuck has something to say... http://www.youtube.com...
Liam Neeson is better than Chuck Norris.

1. The Boogie Man checks under his bed for Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris checks under his bed for Liam Neeson. Liam Neeson is practically the acting king of action. It's a shock that he hasn't been in the Expendables. Let's take a look at some of his roles: -Ra's Al Ghul: The man who trained Batman, and leads a whole league of epicly trained ninjas. (Batman Begins) -Zeus: The god of gods! (Clash of the Titans) -A guy who punches freaking wolves. (The Grey) -The man who trained Obi Wan Kenobi AND Darth Vader (Star Wars series) -This epic lion guy (Narnia series) -Spy guy who causes a whole lotta chaos to save his family. (Taken, Taken 2) -The leader of the A-Team (The A-Team) -Adolf Hitler (Hitler wasn't good, but it's just the "power thing) (The Great War and the Shaping of the 20th Century) -A scarred vigilante. With an R rating! How exciting! (Darkman) -Jesus Christ. No literally, he played Jesus. (Pilgrim's Progress) -Oskar Schindler (Schindler's List) PLUS MANY MORE! -I await your rebuttal.
Liam Neeson is better than Chuck Norris.

I believe that Liam Neeson is better than Chuck Norris. By saying better, I will prove that he is: -A better actor than Chuck Norris. -"Tougher" than Chuck Norrs. And anything else my opponent has to offer. First round is for acceptance. Debate will begin with my first statement in round 2. Good luck to whoever my opponent may be.
The universe needs a creator, therefore God exists - part 2

Due to an issue of this website, I was unable to access the debate yesterday and today until midday (speaking in regards to the time of my country, Greece, namely GMT+2). As a result, having planned to compose my reply yesterday, since I had insufficient time to do so today, I became unable to respond properly. After personally coming in contact with my opponent, sengejuri, I decided to give this round to my opponent for further arguments and instigate a part 3 of this debate. It should be noted that my opponent informed me that they too might not be able to make a round 5 argument in time, but I shall give them the opportunity.I await my opponent's reply on my part 3 suggestion, through their next debate round, a comment or a private message.As the debate is not finished yet (and in case my opponent does make use of the next round), please do not vote. If everything proceeds properly, please do so in the part 3 of this debate. Thank you.
A saltwater croc would beat a great white shark.

If crocodiles are so smart as you proclaim then why arent they doing more productive things, anyways quality of quantity, reading your wall of biased text hurts and you cant accept the fact that the shark has the natural advantage. Smartness does not contribute to the survival factor of the crocodile. For example, place the smartest animal on Earth (human) in the water with a shark and guess who will win, we will be able to sense the shark under us and even see it coming. Anyways as said before the shark would win in a deep sea fight anyday, the crocodile has been scientifically designed to roam in shallow murky water and walking on land. Its body would not have the dexterity of a GREAT WHITE SHARK.. Not to previously mention you are fighting a fully adult male GREAT WHITE on his home turf.
A saltwater croc would beat a great white shark.

this debate is rather mediocre. now you have no proof crocs are this intelligent, but lets say they were, a crocodile would still have trouble analyzing a shark surprise attacking from under the water, the crocodile's mouth makes it hard to bite underneath themselves because they never needed to do that. Now you keep going on about a crocodile biting a shark. A fully adult male great white's body is extremely large and even a fully grown male crocodile would have trouble beating a great white. The great white will win 100% of all battles because the shark is fighting in his home territory, crocodiles do not swim deep underwater and one bite from the underside will kill the croc easy. Give me some real facts instead of blabbering about things that cant happen.
A saltwater croc would beat a great white shark.

I'm gonna clear i up a bit. So, the fight scene is in the open ocean. Keep in mind that this argument is about the croc being CAPABLE of killing a shark. It isn't about who is definitely going to rape the other guy. It would make somebody stupid to try to argue about who is gonna always win a fight, 100% guaranteed. This is about how a saltwater crocodile is good enough to make a fight against a great white, a 50-50 fight. The shark does have home advantage. But. Is the crocodile adept at swimming? Yes. Is the crocodile able to at least keep its weak spot away from the shark, while also going on the offensive side? Yes. Keep in mind that the crocodilians are the smartest reptiles. A saltwater croc is able to learn about a something's habits. A croc could see the fact that a human goes swimming every sunset. Then when it's ready, the croc will simply wait in the pool for the poor sucker to come (kinda scary.) The croc could learn how the shark swims, and anticipate the next move. About the breathing problem, again, a croc could hold its breath for around 2-3 hours. A fight wouldn't last that long because either somebody would have won, or they both would have retreated due to fatal wounds. Guess I should leave it at that. May I also say that a croc would always win if the shark is in its territory (river.) Nothing should be known for certain.
A saltwater croc would beat a great white shark.

One may win and one may lose. Given each animals size, age and health at battle there is no easy winner. Great White Sharks do have the advantage in deep water, the crocodile would have trouble fighting the shark from below, but in shallow water (a crocs territory) Great whites do not occupy. So it is impossible to equally weight the scales. If the crocodile was placed in deep sea waters then the shark would win. If the shark was placed in shallow murky water then the crocodile would win.
A saltwater croc would beat a great white shark.

I'm just gonna start it simple. The last argument concerning this topic was "kinda" full of bull. My argument is that a saltwater croc is COMPLETELY capable of destroying a great white shark. Although they'd probably both retreat before any real damage is done, I'm just throwing the argument out there. Now, people say that a shark is way more capable of maneuvering in water than a croc. This is true, and not true. Sure a shark is more agile in water, but the croc is still has the ability to protect its under belly from a devastating bite. With that being said, there isn't really another place a bite can do much harm to a croc. The great white, however, has quite a couple weak spots. The fins are easily a target, spreading out more than a croc's arms and legs. Without one of the side fins, a shark couldn't swim straight. Without the dorsal fin, a shark couldn't stabilize itself, nor could it pull off its sharp turns for a bite. When a great white is turned over, it enters a state of tonic immobilization. In this state, a shark's fins straightens and its muscles become relaxed, vulnerable to attacks. When a croc could hold a shark in this position easily. Here comes some "stats." An average saltie is around 16-17 feet long, and weighs around 2000 pounds. An average great white is around 13-17 feet long, and weighs about 2400 pounds. When it comes to size, they're neck and neck, but the bites beg to differ. A great white's bite specializes is slicing into flesh. The bite force of a of a good sized great white would be around 700 psi (pounds per square inch.) The croc's bite is specialized in getting a good grip and crushing bone. The bite force of a good sized saltie, would be around around 8000 psi (didn't believe until I looked it up, go ahead.) With this amazing bite force, a croc could easily cripple a vulnerable area of a shark, such as the fin or jaws. Why? A shark's skeleton isn't completely made of bone. Most of it is in fact, cartilage. You see the white stuff at the end of chicken drumsticks that you could easily crush with your own teeth? That's cartilage. Some people argue that a croc would come up for air in a middle of a fight. Crocodiles, in fact, could hold their breath for 2-3 hours. I doubt the fight would last that long. People don't consider the croc's ability to maneuver in open water. In a fight in an ocean, a croc wouldn't completely get raped by a shark. The fight would just be more balanced. In a shallow estuary, a croc would obviously win, but I'm not talking about obvious wins. So in a fight of an average, adult croc and shark, both would measure around 17 feet. The environment would be a mile off the coast of Australia, and the water would be in normal condition. Just a normal day. (This is actually my first argument on here so sorry if I don't fulfill all of an argument's requirements.) :)
Thermite was as least partially responsible for the collapse of the WTC towers.

Recently, scorpionclone held a debate holding that the WTC collapses were an inside job. As part of this, he said thermite was, in a large part, responsible for this collapse. Focusing on this specific topic of the widespread conspiracy theory, I hold that there is no credible evidence that thermite was involved. I am unclear as to exactly what evidence scorpionclone has, so I'll defer the initial argument to him.