BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Contraction Debate

I apologize for the FF. I'm not used to the single-hour time limit. I've already lost anyway so might as well have some fun. "Domr, what is your name?" Is a simple question where I am just inquiring about your name. Perhaps as a greeting."Domr, what is your name?" Implies that the question was misheard and the 'is' was being emphasized for clarification"Domr, what is your name?" This question is emphasizing the 'what'. The name is known, but the origin/sense of the name is not. I.E. What is that thing?"Domr, what is your name?" This question is excluding every other person. This is used to make sure that Domr isn't accidently giving the name of an entity name "Your""Domr, what is your name?" Again, the emphasis is meant to clarify that the question is aimed at the name, and nothing else. So, where's the contradiction? Nowhere in particular, but when you take into account the Pro answered all the questions the same, then it becomes apparent."My name is Dominic Richard Groth." Is only appropriate for the first question, as both contain no emphasis. however the following questions are all asking for different things, more clarification. Repeating the answer to question 1 would mean incorrectly answering the question. Not by providing the incorrect answer, but by providing the answer in the wrong way.For example, question 2 should have been answered My name is Dominic Richard Groth. Notice the emphasis on 'is'. Very important. This new answer is now confirmation instead of the basic answer. He is stating that his name is in fact Dominic Richard Groth. However, my opponent didn't do this.The same basic principle applies to all the proceeding questions. My opponent answered them in the incorrect way. Which is in itself a contradiction of the reality of the question. Please, provide more complete answers Pro.
Contraction Debate

I am sure your italicise has some sort of subtle meaning. However, to clarify, so there is not confusion to our voters, I will define name:Name:noun a word or a combination of words by which a person, place, orthing, a body or class, or any object of thought is designated,called, or known. . http://dictionary.reference.com...This definition leaves the door open to any designation someone has given me. For the purposes of your question(s) and this debate, I will answer with my birth name, as this was the first designation given to me.1. Domr, what is your name?2. Domr, what is your name?3. Domr, what is your name?4. Domr, what is your name?5. Domr, what is your name? **As all of your questions are the same (except for certain words in italics) I will give the same answer:My name is Dominic Richard Groth. My name is Dominic Richard Groth. My name is Dominic Richard Groth. My name is Dominic Richard Groth. My name is Dominic Richard Groth.
Atheists are Delusional

So, I'm mostly agreeing with the definition my opponent gave, although I'd like to alter it slightly to say that delusion is rather a belief that is held without any proof. Ex. you could say that believing in a creator is a delusion since there is no proof. Is is impossible to disprove either though. Implications of atheism are such that a atheist can not believe in morals, without deluding himself. As Charles Darwin himself said: 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent Onto my first point. If there exists no God, then no life after death exists, or there is no proof of it. I therefore believe that anyone who knows they will die, and that they will cease to exist after that, is delusional if they continue to live life, try and make money and achieve other things. It is all for nothing, and I think doing things for no reason at all is stupid, and a person who would in the light of this fact take life seriously, is in fact delusional. Secondly without some divine power behind it, no foundation for morals exist. I think the best 'godless' way to define morals is acting in a way which benefits the most people, and harms the least. I think however, that the questions then arises. Why would you want to benefit people? Why don't you want to harm people? There is no answer to these questions and I thus conclude that there is no basis for morals, and a atheist claiming to have morals, is delusional. Thirdly, life has no meaning, or at least meaning we understand. If you took any fact and continued to ask the word 'why', you would be asking why forever, since the only knowledge we have of the universe is relative to other knowledge we have. Imagine it as a giant equation, except that we don't have enough information to ever figure it out. In any case we don't have now, we have no proof of meaning in life and therefore I'm saying that a atheist who still finds meaning in life is delusional. Those are my first three points. I think atheists who acknowledge these points and still continue to live on, are simply acting on the instincts imprinted in their very being and are not acting in a logical way. They have no logical foundation for their actions and since many of them to believe that, I believe they are delusional. Thank for reading and good luck to my opponent.
Word Debate

Okay, I have seen many of these and thought this might be interesting. Instructions: Pick any word and state the definition. Rules: Only one word. If you don't put a definition, you lose. My word is: Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis Definition: pneuï¿½moï¿½noï¿½ulï¿½traï¿½miï¿½croï¿½scopï¿½icï¿½silï¿½iï¿½coï¿½volï¿½caï¿½noï¿½coï¿½niï¿½oï¿½sis    [noo-muh-noh-uhl-truh-mahy-kruh-skop-ik-sil-i-koh-vol-key-noh-koh-nee-oh-sis, nyoo-] Show IPA noun an obscure term ostensibly referring to a lung disease caused by silica dust, sometimes cited as one of the longest words in the English language. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player ever.

Sampras himself admits that, "…you can't compare the eras…"{1} So, based on my opponent's source, my first contention still stands. The game is completely different now - different rackets, styles, and skill levels. This negates both the career grand slam and and winning on every surface. Michael Stephens' article entailed no "intensive research." It is simply his opinion based on statistics, which cannot be reliably compared because of the implications of my first point. The resolution states that Federer is the greatest player NOW, not that he will be at the end of his career. We cannot compare the time periods, and Federer cannot beat Nadal; vote CON. 1} http://www.usatoday.com...
Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player ever.

"Sampras, John McEnroe and others declared Federer to be the greatest player ever Sunday" http://www.azcentral.com... Even if we can't compare them, I think Sampras knows how good he is, and if he said Federer's better, we should probally go with that. http://www.thesportstruth.com... Micheal Stephens through intesive research lists Federer as the Greatest tennis player ever; Nadal wasn't even on the list of top twenty. My argument on a Career Grand Slam goes dropped, the greatness of winning on every surface can't be denied. Plus, even with all his acomplishments, Federer is still playing at the highest level: He'll win more.
Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player ever.

Even if the skill set is as good, (I assume that this is your own opinion), the entire game has changed. An MSNCB Sports writer says, "There is no resemblance between the game of the 1960s and 1970s and the game of today."{1} So comparisons between the past and the present are impossible, and therefore, determining the best player is impossible. In addition, Federer is not as good one current player: Nadal. Federer has lost to Nadal in 9 out of their 15 matches. Writer Greg Couch summarizes, "You cannot be the best player ever if you can't beat your rival."{2} Clearly, Federer is not the greatest of all time. 1}http://soundingoff.msnbc.msn.com... 2}http://tennis.fanhouse.com...
Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player ever.

The skill set is tennis is as strong now as ever. And you could say in one given year, yes maybe one slam is a little easier or a little harder. That is why you have to look at the players entire career. An entire era of tennis can't have only on good player. Federer has everything he needs to make him the best ever, including an arch-rival in Nadal. Nadal is definently an elite tennis player, and Federer's outstanding dominance while he is playing is incredible. Also, Sampras was good yes, but he didn't complete the career slam failing to win the French open. When the comparision is made to Sampras you have to see that Federer was able to win on ALL of the surfaces elite title, and Sampras fell one short. Thus, Federer is the best.
Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player ever.

Thanks to my opponent. Though Federer recently tied Sampras for the overall record of Grand Slam wins, among other accomplishments, this does not mean that he is the greatest player ever. The main reason for this is variations in skill level among the competition from year to year. Because we will never be able to see who would win between Federer and Sampras, we can never know who the greatest player is. Federer may only be winning as much as Sampras did because the other players this year are not as strong. We cannot rely on comparisons of victories because of these variations. Greatness is not determined by "the ability to play to win, and win big." We can never know if Sampras would beat Federer simply based on win-loss records.
Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player ever.

With Federer's recent French Open Championship, he ties Sampras with 14 major titles (the most all time). Greatness is determined by the abiality to for a play to win, and win big. Tied for the most grand Slam titles, Federer has also complete the career grand slam (winning the Australian, French, Us Open's and Wimbledon). Federer also holds the record for most consecutive Grand slam finals. Federer also has the most concecutive weeks ranked at number one, as well as 4th on the all time list. Federer is 8th on the all time list in tournment titles (7 behind Sampras which he should easily catch befor retiring). And on top of all these historical all time records: He's still playing, oh and guess what. If you hadn't heard: He's still winning.
In human reproduction, vaginal birth is superior to anal birth.

Well, for this round I will do what my opponent does so we can have a somewhat close debate.Anal birth is far superior because:1) It hurts less (For all you guys, you have a big deuce once in a while. Now imagine that coming out the FRONT, except BIGGER, and SQUIRMING, and CRYING.For all you girls who haven't experienced it yet, its the same thing, except out your muffin)2) It doesn't mess up the goodie box. (People go more for the front than the back)3) Its new, unique, and a good way to start conversations. I mean, "I found a cute scarf at the Gap" is boring. How about "my baby came out my bum!" that sounds WAY cooler! 4) You get to freak out your kids in 20 years.Mom: Honey, I need to tell you something.Son: What mom?Mom:...... You came out my bum.Son: I KNEW IT!!!!!!!5) Show's that women are badass (literally)ANAL BIRTH FOR THE WIN!
Barack Obama will win the Nevada caucuses tomorrow on the Democratic side.

Predicting a caucus is far more difficult than predicting a primary as a caucus isn't a popular election like a primary is. That said, Hillary is leading in virtually every poll conducted by anywhere from 3 to 30 points with the sole exception of the research 2000 poll which has Obama leading by 2 points. While polling data has been less than reliable thus far, and as I mentioned the unique way caucus' are conducted would seem to lessen the blow, the fact that so many polls have Clinton leading has me concluding she will be the likely winner in Nevada and possibly in blow-out fashion. I also think you are underestimating the Clinton political machines ability to rally the troops to caucus. Yes the culinary workers endorsement is beneficial to Obama, however I don't think that in itself will be enough to overcome a fairly distant 2nd in the polling data.
Barack Obama will win the Nevada caucuses tomorrow on the Democratic side.

The Nevada caucuses start approximately 15 hours from now. I have several good reasons for thinking and predicting that Barack Obama will carry the day on the Democratic side. 1. He has the support of the most powerful union in the state, the Culinary Workers. They will mobilize caucus-goers far more effectively than other organizations backing Hillary or Edwards. In a political environment like Nevada, where turnout is expected to be relatively mild - especially compared to Iowa - activism will be the crucial tipping point. This will help Obama. 2. Recent polls show volatility, but Nevada, being new to caucusing so early, is notoriously difficult to survey accurately and effectively. 3. Hillary's chances suffered after some of her supporters attempted to eliminate gatherings for the caucuses at casino locations. This will backfire on her. Because of the above reasons, I predict an Obama victory tomorrow. I'm not sure about the margin. It could be really close or it could be Obama winning by anywhere from 5 to 10 points.
Barack Obama will win the Nevada caucuses tomorrow on the Democratic side.

It's untrue that Edwards has been "campaigning" for Hillary in Nevada. Edwards criticized Obama for some remarks the latter made about Reagan and the Republicans, as well as a distasteful ad run by an outside group supporting Obama, but the theme of his campaign has consistently been about change, same as Obama. Edwards called Hillary the "status quo" candidate in trying to emphasize this motif of futurity and breaking with the past. I believe every single poll taken has Hillary and Obama within the margin of error or so near it that the results are largely insignificant. As I said above though, Nevada usually, and especially this time around, is notoriously difficult to poll. I think tried-and-tested organization will be far more relevant than what some polls say. Obama has a distinct advantage here and should come out ahead. Also the recent bickering between the two has damaged Hillary more, according to a few national polls. Obama is likely to profit from a bonanza of black support in Nevada.
Barack Obama will win the Nevada caucuses tomorrow on the Democratic side.

Oh, absolutely within the margin of error, and if it were only a handful of polls I'd argue exactly that, but it's not,it's a culmination of multiple polls. That, to me anyway, suggests the margin of error is much lower. Caucus' are strange animals, and literally anything can happen in them. However Clintons solid lead in virtually all polls, combined with Edwards sounding almost like he's been campaigning for Clinton in Nevada I'm convinced Hillary holds the advantage in the caucus. You also have to remember that Bill Clinton carried Nevada twice. While that doesn't necessarily transfer over to his wife, it does have the potential to play at least a small part in the process.
The effect of the Paris attacks is European nationalism

Second, the object of your argument is to tell me why you think that Europe will NOT see a rise in nationalism. Therefore, I will start my debate with a statement of condolence to the victims of the attacks in Paris. That being said, I firmly believe that the result of the Paris attacks will be a rise in European nationalism. Following World War 2, many, if not all, European nations experienced a sharp decline in nationalism. This was due to the stigma of Nazism (predominately) throughout Europe. Thus, the European Union was born. However, in recent years, due to the mass migration of so called "immigrants" from non-European nations, there has been a very high rise in the sense of independent European identities. There was nearly a 10% decrease in the amount of people wanting to stay in the EU ,according to a Ipsos MORI poll, in Britain this October. Germany has seen a large amount of protests over the immigration policies of Merkel, most notably in Dresden. Following the Paris attacks, of course, the debate of the Syrian "refugee" crisis has become the main issue. The first thing France did when Paris was attacked, was close the borders. That is just a small example of what many in Europe will do, due to a rise in a need to preserve their national identities.
The effect of the Paris attacks is European nationalism

its not just european nationalism thats is the effect it has an effect all over not just europe some countries may/already have closed their borders or thought about closing them. i mean if they are attacking paris then where to next if the fail to succeed or if they do succeed there going to attack more heavily populated areas seeing as it a larger ratio of death/damage to the reputation of themselves or there country. it effects everyone especially paris since it is a heavily tourist attraction more than anywhere.
In United States public K-12 schools, the probable cause standard ought to apply to searches of stud

Hello my view is con- searches This is the 4th amendment standard used to determine if an officer can conduct a search of a person. The officer must have probable cause to suspect that a crime has occurred, at which point a prior warrant is no longer required to search an individual"s person. For example, if the officer sees blood on the hands of someone during the search for a murderer, then that is probable cause to detain and search that person. Do not get caught up in debating what is and is not probable cause; that is not the issue in this resolution.
In United States public K-12 schools, the probable cause standard ought to apply to searches of stud

I will be defending the notion that probable cause ought to be implemented in public schools. Debate Precepts: Round 1-Acceptance Round 2-Case Round 3-Rebuttal Round 4-Defense(No new arguments introduced) public school- a school supported by government funds probable cause-reasonable grounds (for making a search, pressing a charge, etc ought-used to indicate duty or correctness Definitions provided by Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Troll Debate Week 3: Satan and Morals

===Definitions===Satan will be defined synonymously with the Devil and Lucifer as portrayed in Christianity. Lucifer was originally an angel in Heaven but was cast out along with his followers after he attempted to become on par with God's greatness.Morals regard right or wrong conduct in the broadest sense.===As per my opponent's rules I'll refrain from posting an argument this round, opting to simply define the relevant terms of the resolution and to wish my opponent the best of luck in this upcoming debate.===
Troll Debate Week 3: Satan and Morals

Hello, and welcome to Cheesedingo1's 3rd weekly troll debate. I decided to do this debate from one of my friends who loves insane conspiracy theories and making fun of afterlife deities and demons. So, without further ado, I will state the resolution.Resolution: Morals should be defined as "All that Satan deems is true".It should be duely noted I said SHOULD be defined, not IS defined, because I'm sure some people would just accept this and look up the defenition of Morals into dictionary.com and say that satan has nothing to do with it. I'm saying that the defenition of morals should be about the judgement and decision of Hell's loving father and all he finds true.1st round: Acceptance2nd: Arguments (and ONLY arguments. No rebutles and attacks.)3rd: Attacks on opponent's arguments and strengthening of your own arguments.4th: Rebutles, final attacks, and conclusions. That is all. BRING IT ON!!!!!
Troll Debate Week 3: Satan and Morals

C1. Satan Causing Good and EvilCon misses my point entirely. I never contended that God planned any of this out. I merely pointed out that what we are dealing with in this debate is the creation of good and evil and who was responsible. Obviously since there was a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil BEFORE Adam and Eve ate from it, there was good and evil before Satan came into the picture. If my opponent is correct and there wasn't any metaphysical good or evil before Satan tricked that brainless woman, then why call the tree by the name at all? It was clearly meant to signify something and the thing it signified was that evil already existed in the world. It was just not yet apparent in God's creation. The act of biting into the fruit signified the first act of rebellion and going against God (on Earth). Therefore evil became pronounced. It did not begin to exist though, it just became apparent throughout the world.C2. Good Existing Without Evil.The question is, who is more likely to have created morality, God or that dlck head punk Satan. Con's argument may be summarized as follows: God created the world but not what man created for himself. God didn't himself create duct tape or blindfolds or car trunks or shovels or secluded locations. No, my opponent argues, people created those things. And since it was Satan that induced people to create morality, Satan deserves the credit. Now the main flaw in this argument is that Con fails to notice the causal line always going back to God. Who created humans? Who created Satan? God. So by extension, God was the causal mechanism necessary for anything which his own creations create. But even besides this Con's argument still fails hard considering he has not really defended why it was eating of the apple that CREATED morality and not what simply made it pronounced in the world and caused humanity to recognize it. As I've shown in C1, the mere existence of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil implies already the existence of moral properties in the world. C3. Dinosaurs. Yo dawg, trolling or no trolling I really do think you deserve a Clarke Medal. No disrespect man. C4. Airplanes and Evil, Platypi and Virtue. Yes I conceded the point and I have enough cojones to admit it like a man. It is my opponent who fails to understand the true point at *steak* here. Everyone knows platypi (blessed be their name) and airplanes (burn in hell Wright brothers) have nothing to do with any of this. My opponent has simply added this point in order to confuse the readers. Because really, he is an agent of Satan. Was it not obvious? I mean come on, he's trying to convert you to Satanism. Well I for one hope you can all see through his pathetic tricks. Remember, vote Con....for Jesus. ===Conclusion===I agree with Babydingo on voting. Don't give me arguments for his forfeit. Give me arguments because my arguments are better. Thank you. ....and remember kids, troll to infinity and beyond.