BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is a woman as fit as a man to be president

I agree we are all human although because Hilary is a woman she is emotionally unstable? I would like to ask for a little more clarification upon where you stand. It appears that you frown upon females because they show their emotions more. Where as Trump just attacks and tries to be little people. He is a true capitalist with no merit in politics what so ever. Emotions are the least of my worries when it comes to running a country.. On the other hand Trump is ego driven a true capitalist with no respect for anyone and that includes himself, he servers the mighty dollar bill! On the other hand Hilary resume is flattering with the statue of congress woman and Secretary of State. Which in turn deems her the only sensible choice!
Abortion

My opponent has made a point of saying he is completely against abortion in all circumstances. However, let's regard this moral situation: A foetus threatens a mothers life. Under my opponents reasoning, she should die - Abortion is murder. However, he is allowing the death of two humans, rather than just one. Under my reasoning, the foetus would be aborted, thus saving a mothers life and allowing more life to be made. No abortion: - Mother Dies - Potential life dies - Unknown potential life dies Pro-abortion: - Mother lives - Potential life is no longer - Ability for further potential life Obviously, allowing the abortion would reduce the deaths. It's the most practical option. I feel I have argued for the legality of abortion.
Abortion

this is very simple.....abortion is murder....or there would be no such thing as a pregnant woman or for a woman to be "expecting".....by the time the baby is born he/she is already months old and not 1 day old......america is hypocritical in there laws....it cant be both ways...if they dont wanna see an unborn child as a person yet then they shouldnt see the unborn child as one when the mother gets abused when she is pregnant and the baby in her stomach gets killed......if peaple dont wanna see abortion as murder when the mother wants to get rid of it...then they shouldnt count it as murder if someone was to hit a pregnant woman and kill the baby...they should get in trouble for hitting the woman,not also be in trouble cause of the baby..cause the baby didnt matter intill after he or she is born...remember?......hmmm.....here is a straight up example i will use (and no i dont hit woman).......lets say i was with this woman and she was pregnant and was allowed to have a abortion without peaple seeing it as murder........then i should be allowed to hit her in the stomach and kill her baby without getting in trouble for the baby.....yes..in trouble for hitting the woman.....not killing the baby.
The Post-Grunge Genre Killed Rock Music

Post Grunge isnt a distinct genre. Nobody has heard of it. People like you ruin music for the rest of us by trying to come up with random categorizations. Just enjoy music for what it is and stop trying to sound like you know anything. And the smashing pumpkins suck they r the most boring band ever. If you want to listen to some good tunes from the 90's check out Pavement. They r way more interesting musically. I know I lost this debate and I am glad. Anything to make you mad you friggin idiot.
The Post-Grunge Genre Killed Rock Music

No post grunge is a legitimate genre. I just used wikipeida as a source. Every artistic movement is a response to the previous one. Post-grunge was a response to grunge. It kept the same apathetic attitude, but making it more radio-friendly. That's a fact. Again, you bring up Cobain. He has nothing to do with this debate. This is about the music after the grunge scene ended. You have yet to address the topic. Actually, Nirvana was not the most important, but merely the most popular. Bands like Pearl Jam and Smashing Pumpkins were not "latching on." I doubt you've ever stopped to listen to them, but they are totally different than Nirvana. They couldn't have been copying Nirvana, since their styles are very distinct from one another. Also, Cobain wasn't a band. Nirvana was. You never had a contention to throw out. If you think I'm an idiot, why didn't you debate. All you did was prove your lack of knowledge of music. If your such a bad a$$, then grow a pair and debate me.
The Post-Grunge Genre Killed Rock Music

"Post-grunge did exist. It's the kind of music like Foo Fighters, Blur, and Bush. They are cleaner, simpler, songs that are written around hooks. Post-grunge is a real genre, but not one that killed rock music, as your contention would state." Post Grunge was made up by somebody on Wikipedia who intended to screw with you. It simply does not exist. Grunge itself couldnt get much simpler and written around hooks. Have you heard of the Vaselines? They are the simplest pop band ever and were a huge influence on Cobains songwriting style. He even said that he just mixed the pop grooves of the Vaselines with the indie rock sounds from the 80s. You say Cobain wasnt the only Grunge band. He was however the most important one. Anyone else who called themselves "Grunge" was just latching on. This includes incredibly generic music like Pearl Jam and the Smashing Pumpkins. I have thrown my "contention" out the window. Frankly I just think your an idiot and want to make you mad. Please vote for him it wont make him any less embarrassing walking around school with his cliche rock tshirts.
The Post-Grunge Genre Killed Rock Music

Well, all music is made to attract the public; that's how labels make money. But I was just saying what people that agree with my topic would say. By saying that grunge was started by corporate labels, you are only supporting my contention. Your stance is for the stated topic. And yes, Nirvana would be nothing without the great bands you mentioned. But again, not only is that totally irrelevant, but it doesn't help your case at all. Plus, why are you so fixated on Nirvana? They were not the only grunge band, nor the first. As you said, they weren't ground breaking, they were just fun to listen to. But that is not what we are debating about. We're talking about whether post-grunge killed rock music. Post-grunge did exist. It's the kind of music like Foo Fighters, Blur, and Bush. They are cleaner, simpler, songs that are written around hooks. Post-grunge is a real genre, but not one that killed rock music, as your contention would state. Your third paragraph is total nonsense. First, you have no idea what music I listen to. And second, that doesn't even matter. You didn't address the topic nor my points. Unless you change that, you lose. P.S. RHCP kicks a**. Probably one of the best bands of the 90s. But that is a total different debate.
The Post-Grunge Genre Killed Rock Music

"Many people think that post-grunge killed rock music. They claim that it was started by corporate labels as a means to attract the mainstream public, but I think that this is an invalid point. Although rock music has been on the decline in recent years, post-grunge did not kill rock music. Note: Check out the wikipedia article "post-grunge" for examples of bands if you're not sure." I disagree with a lot of what you have to say here. Grunge music itself what started by corporate labels as a means to attract the mainstream public. Even Kurt Cobain admits that he just prepackaged a sound that had been captured by bands like Dinosaur Jr, The Pixies, Sonic Youth, Black Flag, Big Black and a bunch of other bands from the 80s. What he did differently is he used simple pop hooks. Sonic Youth was responsible for getting Nirvana signed in the first place. There was nothing groundbreaking about Nirvana. He just wrote some fun songs, nothing more. Post-grunge does not even exist. Why do you need to label something as post-something? $hitty bands like the Chilli Peppers have nothing to do with Nirvana. Maybe im debating you on something different. Im just tired of all these posers who listen to terrible music and would love to take on anyone and everyone when it comes to this subject.
Islam

Pro did not even make an argument. He just said kill Islam, ban Islam, and then let all Muslims free. Muslims don't need to be banned. Islam doesn't need to be banned either, neither religion or terror group like Al Qaeda caused 9/11, St. Jude's child patients made this "9/11 hoax" so they can behead and sexually assault 1,750,000 women every year since September 11th 2001, as explained in this video. Link to this video: . https://m.youtube.com...
fdr's new deal

The National labor relations act (1935) gave unions monopoly bargaining power in workplaces and led to violent strikes and compulsory unionization of mass production industries. Unions secured above-market wages,triggering big layoffs and helping to usher in the depression of 1938. The new deals didnt increase the numbers of jobs in the economy, because the money spent on new deal projects came from taxpayers who consequently had less money to spend on food, coats,cars,books and other things that would have stimulated the economy
Resolved - God exists

Lets get this going. Your on top of the debate leaderboard, so i hope you prove there's more to your rank than just mere numbers. I trust that the judges will exhibit an unbiased judgement and show their votes aren't just mere votes. Overall, i hope your not just a waste of my time. Terms: Reality - state of being real objective - based on external truth not on personal opinions and feelings subjective - influenced by personal opinions, thoughts, etc. Truth - conformity with fact or state Evidence - anything observable that can be used to support a position Absolute Truth - the state of knowing everything about the Truth Know - to perceive with the mind truth Experience - personal encounter or observance with something external Divine experience - Personal encounter with the divine in some way, shape, or form Mind - the consciousness that perceives, thinks, feels, senses, etc. Illusion - something deceiving and leading to a false conclusion of reality Physical - of pertaining to that which is material Spiritual - pertaining to that which is spirit Hope your not intimidated just because i spew forth a bit of "a few words of intellect" and not back out in fear like the rest of the people on this site. You can muster up the courage to stand your ground can't you?
The PC is the best console/gaming system.

Hello, thanks for accepting and welcome to the site. In this section I am going to talk about price -PC games are cheaper- New AAA games might still be a bit pricey, but on PC you can expect to pick them up for about "10 less than their console counterparts. For every three games you get for you PS4 or Xbox One, you can get four on PC. There"s a bit more parity with indie games, though. -Discounts- So, PC games tend to be cheaper than their console counterparts, but it"s the discounts that are most noteworthy. Seasonal sales get pretty crazy, with digital distribution sites flinging dirt-cheap games around like confetti. Actually, confetti"s probably more expensive. -PC will last you a lifetime- Even if an argument that the new PS 4 is cheaper than an equivalently spec PC (They are roughly the same price if you build your own PC.) Main argument here, is that the PS 4 will go out of date meaning you will have to spend another $400 on the PS 5 , whereas A PC gamer will only have to spend $150 on a good graphic card upgrade. I believe this is the expense section covered. Now I will move onto the general benefits of PC. -Multiple monitors- The handiness of having an extra monitor or 2 is unbelievable. 1. You can have a world map open while exploring rust (PC exclusive.) 2. You can read game guides and watch videos without tabbing out. 3. Real multi-tasking requires enough screen space to keep two or more apps in full view simultaneously. 4. Cutting and pasting between chat is easier (Google translate.) Does PS 4 have Google translate????? 5. Video and gaming take on a whole new dimension with dual monitors. You can view much more of a virtual world and see bad guys coming from a distance. The list of PC benafits could go on forever so I will try to be concise. -Mouse and keyboard offers more precision. You could use a PS 2/3/4 or Xbox 360/One controller if You don't like the keyboard and mouse. -It"s the best platform for VR The Oculus Rift is just for us, at least at the moment. And while a consumer-ready version won"t be available until next year, countless PC games already support the device. -PC has a bigger, better game library I can jump into Elite: Dangerous right now, or I can jump back 30 years and play the original Elite. My PC is a time machine. The current generation of consoles have yet to develop a particularly strong library of games. Get a PC, though, and you"ll have access to thousands of games spread across over three decades. -The eSports scene is better on PC What are the biggest eSports games? League of Legends, Dota 2, StarCraft II - mostly games that are exclusive to PC. There are more competitions and massive global tournaments, and more opportunities to watch or get involved yourself. -MODS Mods are better on PC. There are more mods for more games. Steam workshop has 100,000s of thousands of mods for practically every game out there. -To conclude. You can spend as little or as much on a PC as you want and customise it to your gaming needs. While the PS 4 has a static price with no ability to upgrade or customise. Buy a PC and liberate you inner gamer!
The PC is the best console/gaming system.

Before I begin, I'd just like to say I am very new to this site and have never been in a debate. Any mistakes I make I hope will be confronted with respect for my newbie mind. Challenge accepted! The Playstation 4 is a much more sufficient gaming system than the PC. The reason being is due to the widespread use (I have other reasons that I will bring up overtime). The PS4 costs a whole lot less than your average gaming PC, which on average according to the members of the steam forums, goes on from 800$ if it's built (part by part) and can be up 2500$ if it's just bought in full. While the PS4 goes for 300-400$. Of course, the price range can fluctuate depending on what the specs you want for your PC, which brings me to my next point: If you're a console user, you don't have to worry at all about things like that. PC users are always caught up about what motherboard, GPU, or other PC gizmos need to be on their PC in order to run a certain game. PS4 users (and other console users in general) don't have to worry about this at all. All they have to worry about is the next hit game they're going to get. And that's completely excluding the all new PS4 pro, which includes 4k at a price of 400$ dollars. Imagine being completely new to PC gaming and decide to pick one up from Best Buy or some other store. Once you get everything on it set up, you decide to download a game (which takes several other downloads to do, depending on where you get the game) but, oh no, looks like you don't have the right requirements for the game you're trying to play. Looks like you're going to need to buy a 100$ piece of hardware just to play Rust. PS4 users can play any game on the market, with the power of a gaming PC worth thousands, all at a VERY low price.
Arranged Marriages Should Be Considered Illegal

I am on the side of having arranged marriages as legal. Firstly, an arranged marriage is not a punishment or oppressive idea but rather a way of life. An arranged marriage is not forced upon any of the parties but chosen by them. Not everyone wants to fall in love. Secondly, arranged marriages are deemed to be more successful. This was noticed in a study where the love DECREASED in love marriages but INCREASED in arranged marriages. (Source 1). SOURCE 1: file:///Users/Aftab/Desktop/Screen%20Shot%202017-12-17%20at%208.16.59%20PM.png
A Neo-Lorentzian Ether Exists

I: The Downfall of Einstein’s Philosophy of SciencePro's point is, actually, irrelevant--at least, his points regarding verificationism and positivism are. What matters in a scientific theory is whether or not it explains our observations; that is the foundation of science--it's what makes science, well, science! Even if a theory originated from a philosophical background of "godsaidit," if it correctly explained our predictions, then it would be a decent theory. Pro is making a poisoned fruit analogy, but that only works in legal system.Most of the rest of this argument suffers similar problems. Nothing here makes any experimental attempts to prove that the ether exists, and there are no actual experimental problems listed, nor firm logical ones. Philosophy is only important in science to the extent that it informs us how to perform basic science. By itself, it does not prove or disprove a scientific theory.II: Experimental Vindications of the Neo-Lorentzian InterpretationFirstly, it's worth noting what the traditional definition of "aether" is:"(archaic, physics, uncountable) A substance (aether) once thought to fill all space that allowed electromagnetic waves to pass through it and interact with matter, without exerting any resistance to matter or energy (disproved by Einstein in his Theory of Relativity)."[1]Obviously, this cannot be said to be remotely close to the Lorentzian aether theory. It may well be true that we can use the background radiation as a sort of coordinate grid, though that has its own problems--space is expanding, after all, so in terms of absolute distance the background radiation will continue to change. In terms of scale, things will remain the same, but distances will change while position on the background radiation grid will remain identical.Entanglement is usually, in these discussions, considered to transcend time and space.[3] I'll have to do more research to be certain, but it does appear that Lorentz ether theory is not supported by this line of evidence.Pro then mentions the subject of virtual particles--however, these are called virtual for a reason. They aren't fully real.[2] He also claims that because Einstein said that denying aether demanded that space have no underlying properties, the finding of virtual particles demonstrates that aether exists. Of course, this is a rather fringe view in physics, to say the least, and just because Einstein said it doesn't make it true. Pro has given no reason to think Einstein was right, nor that a quantum effect like virtual particles should be considered significant when regarding large regions of space.III: ConclusionPro is incorrect in his main argument here. He has to show that a Neo-Lorentzian aether is better supported philosophically and empirically. I can beat him at only one avenue and still win.1. http://en.wiktionary.org...2. http://profmattstrassler.com...3. http://www.nature.com...
A Neo-Lorentzian Ether Exists

AveResolutionThis debate will be about whether or not the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is true. I will be taking the position that the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is true. The winner of this debate will be the person who proves their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, when you weight each side, one side was better supported than the other.RulesThe first round is for acceptance of the debate format and rules. The next rounds are for back and forth debating. I made this debate 10k characters so that each debater can have a very good reference page.DefinitionsI will be using William Lane Craig's definition of each interpretation, as I find them to be suitably simple and understandable for a debate like this.Neo-Lorentzian Interpretation: This interpretation posits a 3+1 dimensional ontology featuring a privileged time and a privileged rest frame. Lengths contract and time rates dilate in the usual relativistic way only for systems in motion relative to the privileged rest frame.Better: best supported by philosophical and empirical inquiryVale
The bible is not a credible source.

Rules for this debate. 1. First round is acceptance and stating what side you are on. 2. This is a debate about whether or not the bible can be used as a credible source 3. The bible that will be referred to is the bible that Catholics and Christians use/believe in 4. No new rebuttals in the final round as I will not be able to respond or counter them. I am stating that the bible can not be used as a credible source and that it is not a credible source.
Milhouse Is Not A Meme Is A Meme Is A Meme Is Not A Meme

ClarificationWhile I made the claims that Milhouse is not a meme, Milhouse is not a meme is a meme, and Milhouse is not a meme is a meme is a meme, I am not obligated to prove any of those statements. I am only obligated to prove that Milhouse is not a meme is a meme is a meme is not a meme. The burden of proof is shared.1. Official Meme Sharing Sites Don't Recognize"Milhouse is not a meme is a meme is a meme" has no confirmation as a legitimate meme according to any of the top meme explanation websites. These websites include Know Your Meme[1], Meme Generator[2], and 4chan[3]. Without any highly recognized website declaring that Milhouse is not a meme is a meme is a meme is a meme, there is no valid internet culture support for such a claim. Without internet culture support, it can't be a meme.2. Common People Don't RecognizeEven compared to the few existing searches made for Milhouse is not a meme is a meme is a meme, the interest in such a topic has most recently dropped to a practical zero. The few people that ever showed interest in Milhouse is not a meme is a meme is a meme have dropped off to nonexistence, while the query itself never beared enough proper popularity to become a meme in the first place. If a meme is defined as "an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture[4]," then that is a definition that "Milhouse is not a meme is a meme is a meme" does not meet.ConclusionIf neither the official meme recognition organizations nor the popular crowd recognize Milhouse is not a meme is a meme is a meme to be a meme, then by definition, it isn't a meme. No evidence can be valued above the denial of both the people and "the internet," thus my initial statement can never be fully refuted.Sources[1] http://knowyourmeme.com...;[2] http://memegenerator.net...;[3] (we don't talk about /b/) [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Milhouse Is Not A Meme Is A Meme Is A Meme Is Not A Meme

This is Milhouse. Milhouse is not a meme. But, Milhouse is not a meme is a meme.And for that matter, Milhouse is not a meme is a meme is a meme. But Milhouse is not a meme is a meme is a meme is not a meme, so gtfo.First round is for acceptance. Good luck.
It is morally permissible to use deadly force as deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.

If you start u cant use the last round. Id actually prefer the aff to go first. Im doing this as practice for an upcoming debate tournament so if your going to accept and not post your arguments please dont bother accepting. I'd like to refrain from making this a definitional argument and debating sources. Also lets keep it traditional and not worry so much on the v/vc and focus on the topic.