BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People Can't See Genius

Yes, they were geniuses. All three of them turned their imagination into a reality. They did not treat it as a toy - they took their imagination, sat in the dark, and created a future from it - a future nobody else could see. I'm beyond self-humility (I have it, but others don't, so I use what I know to bring out people's true nature). When I say "I am a genius", I feel nothing; but seeing others react to it like flies really amuses me because I know exactly why they react to it the way they do. There's a reason why in the entire history of mankind one person or a small group of people come out of the wood works to clean up the mess made by the rest of the world.
People Can't See Genius

"People can't see genius." I suppose you actually mean non-geniuses can't see genius, right? Because you did go on to say that geniuses see the genius within each other. I'd like to ask you a question: Who, other than yourself and friends, do you consider a genius? Particularly, any celebrities? Was Da Vinci a genius? Newton? Einstein? Anyone? Also, I'd just like to say, and perhaps in another debate I'll support my claims with evidence, but for now I'm just going to state my beliefs, I believe that there is no point in intelligence if it doesn't lead to wisdom. Furthermore, I believe that the wise recognize the importance of kindness, humility, and also self-restraint. So, I'd appreciate it if you could contain yourself, keep this debate focused on answering the question: can people see genius? No name calling, nothing not related to your argument.
People Can't See Genius

People can see ignorance; people can see intelligence; people cannot see genius. Geniuses that live without tangibility go through more pain than geniuses that live with tangibility (e.g inventions). I am a genius. Here's the main ways to understand that I am indeed a genius: People treat me differently from actual stupid people. People do not think about the real reasons why my win ratio is this low. People accuse geniuses for being "specially stupid", which is how I am being treated right now. Children have been sent to Special ED for being geniuses because nobody in the entire school, nor the families could tell the child was a genius. People accuse genius for arrogance because people's egos are under fire when they are faced with something beyond this self-appointed reality it's created. When people address a genius, they are immediately turned onto a defensive mode; they condescend endlessly while constantly goading the genius - implying how the genius is just stupid and valueless - even though the people seem to have this undying need to keep poking them with a stick. People treat special people like bullies treat special kids. It's all about attention - people will do anything to amuse themselves, which is why many families contain that one sibling that makes fun of another sibling every chance they get during every family get together. Geniuses come in many different forms, so people assume you're not a genius because you don't do anything like the geniuses that are already known and historically remembered today. If I placed a genius next to an idiot and asked a crowd of people to pick out the genius from the idiot, they would pick the idiot instead of the genius - why? The human brain is relational, in that it cannot connect with somebody that's beyond their current frequency. The states of humanity consist of frequencies based on microscopic electromagnetic waves. The genius is on Gamma; the average person is on Theta. I can break everything down. I read people like books. I can solve Riemann's Hypothesis in 10 minutes. I can adapt to anything. I knew everything my mother learned in college by simply thinking on my own time. Nobody I spoke to could do this. Common sense is not so common, nor is simplicity is as simple as it should be. I write. I compose music. I fight. I think. But people still consider they know more than me just for the sake of bluffing. People simply cannot see genius. It requires a genius to see a genius. I have genius friends who have tangibility in their lives; they are successful - I am a genius without tangibility; that will change when I connect with other geniuses that can transfer my thoughts into demonstrable experiments.
In defense of history's worst: Osama Bin Laden is innocent (Part 1)

I’m looking forward to reading the other debates in this series. I have to applaud Pro for his willingness to debate in favor of an extremely unpopular opinion. I too have read some debates in Wylted’s series and found them very interesting. One more definition Osama Bin Laden: Full name, Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden. Born: 10 March 1957 Died: 2 May 2011, founder of Islamic Militant group al-Qaeda 9/11 We all saw this argument coming. On September 11, 2001, there were various terrorist attacks in the US in which 19 terrorists hijacked four airliners with the intent of suicide attacks. The result was the loss of 2,996 lives [1]. There were many civilian lives lost, making this a crime against humanity [2]. Bin Laden at first denied the attacks, but in 2004 he created a video claiming responsibility “As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women. "” [3] This is an admission of guilt [4]. Other Crimes Bin Laden has been charged with other crimes. His most well known before 9/11 was the conspiracy and murder of US nationals. The evidence of the charges were from courtroom testimony from a former Al-qaeda member and phone records [5]. Al-Qaeda Bin Laden is responsible for the foundation of Al-Qaeda [6]. Which is a militant group that has killed many civilian and military targets [7]. Bin Laden is the cause of these targetings, making him responsible. The resolution is negated, there are good reasons to think Bin Laden is a criminal. He is guilty of crimes against humanity. Now to Pro. [1] . http://www.statisticbrain.com... [2] . http://www.icc-cpi.int... [3] . http://www.theguardian.com... [4] . http://www.law.cornell.edu... [5] . http://edition.cnn.com... [6] . http://www.theguardian.com... [7] Ibid.
In defense of history's worst: Osama Bin Laden is innocent (Part 1)

Having been inspired by Wylted's "In Defense of Evil" series I decided to start my own. Definitions:Innocent: not guilty of a crime or other wrong act [1]The burden of proof in this debate is on Con to show that Osama Bin Laden was guilty of any crimes he was charged with, the standard of proof being beyond reasonable doubt. If you don't qualify for this debate leave a comment and I'll consider you. Structure:Round 1 - Con ArgumentsRound 2 - Pro rebuttals and arguments, Con rebuttals and argumentsRound 3 - Same as above.Round 4 - Con rebuttals, Pro may only say "Thank you for this debate" so there are an even number of rounds.
God exists by deffinition

It is clear that to progress in this debate, some definitions are needed; God- the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe: http://www.google.co.uk... Exists- To have actual being; be real: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Pro is free to challenge these definitions in the next round if he so chooses. Pro's argument seems to be that since people believe in God he must exist, but this is a blatant non-sequitur. People believe in all kind of things, but that doesn't mean they exist. This is even logically contradictory- people often believe in things that contradict what other people believe, so they can't both be right. Pro might claim I'm attacking a strawman, or arguing semantics, but look at the resolution- does it say 'God exists in people's minds by definition' or 'People believe in God by definition'? No, Pro must demonstrate that God is an actual being who exists in reality by definition. Until he does so, the resolution is negated.
Without God man cannot live morally, unable to stop sinning, continually condemned by their nature

Hello, we meet again, I wish you good luck. First and foremost, lets clarify what the definition of God is. You refer to the Bible, so I assume you refer to a supreme being as seen below. "1. Goda. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." According to archeological evidence and Darwin's theory of evolution humans inhabited the planet Earth long before the Old Testament was written. "Instead, hominid evolution produced a dense thicket of branches, with several species co-existing at any given time except for the last 30,000 years or so" [2] Now look at the timeline, humans have existed for at least 30,000 years. Early hominids have existed for much longer "The 2.8 million-year-old specimen is 400,000 years older than researchers thought that our kind first emerged." [3]. "Judaism is one of the oldest religions in the world that still exists today. Jewish history, beliefs, and traditions were recorded in the Hebrew Bible beginning as early as the 8th century BCE." [4] Now that leaves a 22,000 year gap between the first humans and the first recordings in the Hebrew Bible. Humans had 22,000 years to develop morals. Humans must have developed at least some morals to survive that long. Think survival of the fittest. If humans fought all the time, we would have gone extinct before God came to guide us. As for sin, how do we even know that sin exists? We cannot sin if sin does not exist. I ask my opponent what evidence do you have that sin exists? 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...3. http://www.bbc.com...4. http://www.religionfacts.com...
Without God man cannot live morally, unable to stop sinning, continually condemned by their nature

Thanks for the debate. My opponent has not swayed my opinion in the least. I find it much more likely that man has existed over 30,000 years than7,000 years or so as my opponent suggests. My opponent seems to hold-fast to population growth in the 1970s to modern day based upon the U.S. census as a constant for human population growth. I don't agree, it makes no sense to me. There was less food available in the past, and population is often the function of food availability.
Without God man cannot live morally, unable to stop sinning, continually condemned by their nature

Outline round 4I. IntroII. More food now than beforeIII. What ancient or wild food looked likeIV. Sin versus immoralV. ConclusionVI. SourcesI. IntroI thank my opponent for continuing the debate. I'm going to focus on two key points my opponent made as seen below."Food avaiability was greater in the past than the present, a simple look of the terrain as described by archeologist demonstrates that the deserts of today were lush jungles, " Christianbeliever"There is existence of evil actions as there is evidence of kindnesses suggest the absurdity of the sin question as is evidenced by the existence of exceptionally evil souls." Christianbeliever First, food availability was considerable lower. Otherwise, the human population would have most likely ballooned just like Christianbeiever stated in the previous rounds. Second, my opponent seems to be confusing immoral acts and sin. There is a large difference between a human law and divine law. II. More food now than beforeWatch the documentary king corn to see just how much food we can produce per acre. The mountains of grain weren't possible in ancient times. [12]III. What ancient or wild food looked likeBananas would have lots of seeds, chickens would be much smaller and lay less eggs just for starters. [13]IV. Sin versus immoral actionsA human law might be stop at stop signs. This is not a sin, but arbitrarily running stop signs is considered an immoral act. A divine law would be laws against adultery. Many consider two consenting adults have sexual intercourse to be moral according to man-made law regardless of their marriage status. According to many religious texts of varying religions this is against divine law. V. ConclusionThere is no way the paleolithic era could have provided enough food for humans to grow to the populations my opponent suggests. Also, people are definitely capable of immoral acts, yet we are still waiting for evidence of humans having souls. VI. Sources12. http://www.kingcorn.net...13. http://tedxtalks.ted.com...
Without God man cannot live morally, unable to stop sinning, continually condemned by their nature

Outline round 3 I. Population as a function of food availability II. SinIII. SourcesI. Population as a function of food availability "Proponents of this theory indicate that every time food production is intensified to feed a growing population, the population responds by increasing even more. Some human populations throughout history support this theory, as consistent population growth began with the agricultural revolution, when food supplies consistently increased." In other words, early humans didn't have the same agricultural technologies as today. Factory farming comes to mind. [8] Look at the tractors of today [9] versus the hand tools of yesteryear. [10]There is no way humans could have produced enough food to support the populations my opponent is suggesting with those primitive tools. II. SinYou have no proof God exists, without God there is no divine law, and therefore there is no sin. "There ARE NO MORALS wthout God. Man is in continuous servitude to its Flesh, its desire its wants. People lie cheat steal, naturally, and will do so throughout life UNLESS, they turn to God,who puts an abrupt end to this conduct and behavior making sin rare instead of the standard." Christianbeliever Then, what would you call the crusades? How about the children's crusades? [11]The fact that you tell such blatant falsehoods and God does not strike you down only provides further evidence that God probably doesn't exist. III. Sources7. https://www.coursehero.com...8. http://www.filmsforaction.org...9. http://www.agweb.com...10. http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk...11. http://www.thetoptens.com...
Without God man cannot live morally, unable to stop sinning, continually condemned by their nature

Round 2 OutlineI. PopulationII. Sin doesn't existIII. Morals without GodIV. LinksI. Population"In 1790 United States Census 3,929,214 in 227 years of life on Earth that number has grown to 323,928,727" ChristianbelieverI fact checked the numbers and I agree that they are correct. Now, lets look at real worldwide populations and compare. Starting today, July, 08, 2016 and going back as far as possible. The world population is now 7.4 billion. [5] Here's a chart with the world's population starting at 10,000 BC. [6] At 10,000 BC there is one million humans. At the year zero there is 200 million. Now the closest on the chart is 1800, that's 900 million worldwide. So in approximately the same time period the worldwide population increased about eight fold as the USA population increased about one hundred fold. What that means is that the USA was way above the average nation for population growth. II. Sin doesn't existAs for sin, sin has to to with divine law. Without God, there is no divine law and thus no sin. Therefore it is impossible to sin without God. Note, a person can still commit an immoral act as per code of laws of the nation and general census. III. Morals without GodI'm not sure of the relevance of George's Washington's quote to the debate made by my opponent. Nevertheless, many philosophers have come up with philosophies that have morals within them. IV. Sources5. http://www.worldometers.info... 6. http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com...
AIDS and HIV are the result of homoseual sex or beastiality.

In round one, my opponent never ever ever ever stated this was homosexuality theory versus bestiality. He said he was con to the motion that "AIDS and HIV are the result of homoseual sex or beastiality." This leave pro free to pick either side so seriously what the heck is he 'con' to? I willl just use his argument for the actual side it's meant for.My posistion is simple. My case revolves around the fact that there are other highly likely, probable theories witch seek to explain the origin of AIDS and HIV. The fact that these theories exist and are more than or equaly probable to the probability of beastiality being the origin of AIDS simply means that we cannont logically conclude that HIV and AIDS engaged in zoonosis to the human popultion via beastiality because we cannot refute all other possibilities. Therefore the posistion of pro must fail under these conditions.( when i speak of either HIV or AIDS i am speaking on both deseaises as one.)Zoonosis most likely happened from one or more of the following theories.The Hunter Cutter Theory.SIV is definately where the HIV virus came from which is found in red-capped Mangabey chimpanzies and the great spot nosed monkeys native to Africa. SIV could have crossed to the human species and mutated do to hunters killing,skining, and consuming the contaminated monkeys. The hunters could have also been contaminated via skin leasions. Generally if this would happen the bodies immune system would resist. However since this is a lentivirus it acts slow and could have easily mutated to HIV 1. There are many different HIV strains and different virus makeups. Everytime the virus crossed over from monkey to human it adapted differently to different humans.http://hivinfosite.com......The Hepatitus B Vaccination Experiments.The vaccine was made in chimps during pilot testing in New York city amoung gay men and Africans between 1972-1974. The same source states, "This was precisely timed for the emergence of AIDS in these exact, demographically distinct, communities by the late 1970s. The fact that this fact was neglected proves shoddy science or gross negligence at best."Another more credible source disagrees with the hunter theory based on the previously stated examinations. Dr. Leonard Horowitz of Harvard unearthed research documents proving his theory. He states, "chimpanzees, contaminated with numerous viruses, were used to produce hundreds of hepatitis B vaccine doses administered to central African Blacks along with homosexual men in New York City at precisely the time Dr. Myers and colleagues claim the origin of HIV "punctuated event" occurred."http://www.originofaids.com...If one was to read in their entirety both of my sources one would find it probable that AIDS and HIV more than likely came from either the hunter theory or the hepatitus B vaccine experiment is when the SIV jumped to humans and became HIV. Both of these theories cannot be absolutely denied. Since they cannot we cannot conclude the beastiality is the absolute and only origin of the human aquisistion of AIDS and HIV. Therefore the defense rests.
AIDS and HIV are the result of homoseual sex or beastiality.

It is very obvious that pro has confused himself, or simply cannot understand complex arguments. Either which way I don't feel i need to post again in this debate for obvious reasons. I have presented my case and pro refuses to refute my case which is equal to concedence. Thus con should win. I will post periods for the rest of this debate to get it over with since i wont be facing any opposistion to my case.
AIDS and HIV are the result of homoseual sex or beastiality.

I will underline and refute my opponents statements.my opponent never ever ever ever stated this was homosexuality theory versus bestiality.I have never said or suggested this suggested strawmaning. My resolution is exactly what it says. Obviously there is a or in my resolution. That means pro could have defended both or chose one and defended his position. I do find it offensive or just weird that pro is plagiarising my case. For that I ask for conduct points. For the facts that pro never presented a valid case ask ask for a con vote via pros concedence. I also ask for sources since pro plagiarised mines. Hopefully the audience sees a con vote is a justified response to this debate. The defense once again rests.
The world would be better off if Germany had won WW1

Okay. That is incorrect. Hitler was one of the greatest orators of all time, and he would have risen to power regardless of if there was a depression or not. This "fledgling nation" argument has not been in existence until your last post and you have also not explained it, so I will ignore it. You are correct when you say moral lessons are learned when a war that's wrong from the start is started. However, the atrocities that happened in WW2 and the moral lessons learned from THOSE catastrophes outweigh your argument significantly, and if Germany won WW1, those would have never happened. Alright, so this is what the debate ends up at: - The PRO did not defeat the Military-Industrial Complex argument, which would lead to a world that's controlled by the Central Powers and effectively making it worse than what happened in WW2. - The only arguments PRO chose to hold are 1) Germany was pissed at the Big 3, 2) Hitler would not have risen to power, and 3) Moral lessons are also achieved by his side. The first argument I win on two levels; first that he contradicted himself in R4, and second, that the Cold War in a world where the Central Powers won would be a lot more devastating than our world's Cold War, due to half of the world against the other instead of just US versus Russia, therefore already proving him wrong. The second, he never shows you why Hitler would not have been elected if Germany didn't lose WW1. The third argument, I overwhelmingly outweigh it. The Holocaust, imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, among many other things, has a significantly value in terms of the morals taught to society than just WW1. And besides, WW1 would've happened anyways in his world so the CON side gets both sides benefits. - At that, the PRO side has no further arguments to support his position. Even if you don't believe that, you can still look to my advocacies and see from just that, the world would NOT be better off if Germany had won WW1. Vote Con. Thank you for the debate, DrAcula.
The world would be better off if Germany had won WW1

The Big 3 took the land from Germany, Germany wanted their land back, and was angry at the big three. Hitler wouldn't have rose to power, because the whole reason he got so much power, was because Germany was a fledgling nation, and they bent to his will, they wouldn't have done it if they actually had power. There's still moral lessons to be learned, because of the war being wrong from the start. The fact that one could see the violence an alliance system could cause would lead them to learn a lesson.